Menu

Showing 38 posts in New York.

New York State DFS Issues Proposed Amendments to its Debt Collection Rules for Third-Party Debt Collectors and Debt Buyers

On October 29, 2021, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) posted proposed amendments to its debt collection rules for Third-Party Debt Collectors and Debt Buyers (under 23 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations Part 1) that could significantly change procedures for communicating with consumers. More ›

Cybersecurity Compliance Emphasized at MBA's Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

In a Privacy & Cyber Bytes Alert, we review takeaways from the recently concluded Mortgage Bankers Association's Conference on Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance. Lenders and servicers with consumer-facing platforms that collect personal information need to initiate cybersecurity compliance efforts immediately.

Read the full alert which includes our list of best practices.

New York Appellate Court Reverses Foreclosure Judgement, Reaffirms Business Record Itself Must be Provided to Trigger Hearsay Exception

In Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Ezeji, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313 (2d Dep't, May 19, 2021), New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that although the mortgagee asserted it possessed the subject note before commencing the foreclosure and had complied with service of the statutory predicate notices pursuant to RPAPL 1304, it failed to introduce the actual business records evidencing these facts. The ruling is instructive for mortgagees and their servicers about the evidence they must provide in support of a prima facie case to foreclose. More ›

New York Courts Will Allow Mortgagors to Continue Submitting Hardship Declarations to Extend the Stay of Residential Foreclosures

On May 24, 2021, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks issued Administrative Order 159/21 (AO/159/21) to extend the stay of residential foreclosure actions through August 31, 2021, for cases in which the mortgagor submits a Hardship Declaration (the Declaration). AO/159/21 clarifies the uncertainty surrounding the deadline for submitting the Declaration, which was not addressed in the previous administrative order. More ›

New York Court Finds an Action is Timely in Some Circumstances in CPLR 205(a) Decision

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court's First Department recently issued a decision addressing the calculation of the six-month timeframe permitted to file a new action, according to New York's Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) 205(a) and following the termination of a prior action. The First Department concluded that an action is timely if it is brought within six months of the termination of time to appeal a denial of a motion to renew. More ›

Second Circuit Rules Homeowners Established Article III Standing for Statutory Damages Claim

On May 10, 2021, ruling on an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust affirmed denial of BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue over the alleged violation of legal interests created by New York State statute. The ruling has important implications for mortgage lenders and their servicers. More ›

New York Court of Appeals Decision Clarifies RPAPL Notice Requirements, Affirms Heightened Standard for Borrowers

Last year, as we reported, the Second Circuit requested that the New York Court of Appeals rule on two certified questions concerning predicate notices in foreclosure actions. On March 30, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Schiffman on the questions certified by the Second Circuit concerning New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §§ 1304 (90-day predicate notice) and 1306 (pre-foreclosure filing with the superintendent of banks). More ›

Landmark New York Court of Appeals Decision Clarifying Calculation of Statute of Limitations in Mortgage Foreclosure Actions

The New York Court of Appeals reversed four Appellate Division decisions and decided in favor of the mortgagees in a consolidated decision issued on February 18, 2021, ruling, inter alia, that:

  • a demand letter which includes language that the debt "will be" accelerated expresses a possible future event and therefore does not constitute an unequivocal overt act which would accelerate the mortgage debt; 
  • a defective pleading which incorrectly references only the original terms of a loan – not the operative modification agreement – is insufficient to accelerate the mortgage debt;
  • a mortgagee's voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action is sufficient to revoke the acceleration created by the filing of that complaint; and
  • a mortgagee's motivation for the discontinuance and revocation of the acceleration is irrelevant to the Court's analysis.
More ›

Following Fair Lending Investigation, NYS DFS Issues Report, Recommendations, and Mortgage Lender Best Practices

The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a report on February 4, 2021, detailing its investigation of the mortgage lending market in the Buffalo metropolitan area. The report includes findings about a "distinct lack of lending" by mortgage lenders, particularly nonbank lenders, in neighborhoods with majority-minority populations and to minority homebuyers in general. More ›

Second Circuit Finds HUD Assignees Immune from State Statute of Limitations Claims

The mortgage foreclosure world continues to experience change at a moment's notice. Lenders continue to defend against borrower actions seeking to discharge their mortgages as time-barred, which in turn has led to the development of several defenses supported by the appellate courts. Whether it is lack of standing to accelerate the mortgage debt, revocation, or re-affirmation of the debt, all of these defenses are not as interesting—and powerful—as full immunity from the statute of limitations. In Windward Bora, LLC v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, that's exactly what the Second Circuit found, and its decision could have a substantial impact for lenders in New York and elsewhere. More ›