Deciphering an Illegible Deed; Baseless Objections to Receivership: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses "Castaneda v. Serrano," involving an alleged forged deed, and "Federal National Mortgage Association v. 204 Ellery St." dealing with baseless objections to a receivership.
September 10, 2024 at 11:19 AM
14 minute read
Real EstateAlleged Forged Deed—Illegible Motion Exhibits—Even an Expert Who Could Decipher Ancient Hieroglyphics, Would Be Challenged in Deciphering the Deed—Constructive Trust—Fraud—Conversion—Partition—"Surprisingly, No New York Decisions Determine Whether Illegible Terms Of Contracts Not Governed By CPLR §4544 Are Binding"—Court Held That "If Contract Terms Are Illegible, Mutual Assent to Those Terms, a Necessary Element of a Binding Contract, Is Impossible"—On Prior Occasions, Court Denied Motions Based on Illegible Documents by Reading a Denial of Such Motions Into the Record—Now, Court Believed That Illegible Document Problem Should Be Addressed In a Written Decision and Expressed the Hope That Attorneys Would "Review Submitted Documents To Ensure That Legible Copies Only are Submitted"—Violation of IAS Part 2 Rule-E-File Documents Should Be Attached as Exhibits Rather Than Be Incorporated By Reference—Court Should Not Have To "Hop … Like A Rabbit" To Locate Documents
The court observed that notwithstanding "21st century technological advances," it has been "confronted on various occasions with documents submitted on motions which could use the assistance of a Champollion to decipher." The court explained that Jean-Francois Champollion (1790/1832) was a "younger contemporary of Napoleon Bonaparte" and a "French Philologist and Egyptologist credited with having deciphered ancient hieroglyphics through translation of the Rosetta Stone."
This decision involves a dispute as to who owns certain property (property). The plaintiffs alleged that by a deed dated Nov. 27, 1982, a non-party "A" purchased the property; "the deed embodying the transfer to ("A") was recorded on December 16, 1982." The defendants "A" and "B" maintained a "non-marital relationship." The plaintiffs, children of "B," "while not being an issue of ("A"), maintained a close relationship with the latter."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
US Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250