Elliot Schlissel

Foreclosure Problems in New York

June 25, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

Have you fallen behind on your mortgage? Have you missed more than one mortgage payment? Could it be you’ve missed 2 or 3 or even more mortgage payments? If any of these problems have happened to you, the bank that holds your mortgage may take legal action to come after your home. The legal action taken by the financial institution to take the home back is called a foreclosure lawsuit.

How It Starts

The first item you should receive from the attorneys from the financial institution is called a 90 day Notice. This Notice states that you’ve fallen behind on your mortgage and unless you become current within the next 90 days your financial institution will be bringing a foreclosure lawsuit against you. The foreclosure lawsuit is commenced by the attorneys for the financial institution by drafting and filing a summons and complaint with the County Clerk in the County in which your home is located. Thereafter a process server is hired to serve the Summons and Complaint upon you either at your residence or at your principal place of employment.

Responding to the Foreclosure Proceeding

If served with the Summons and Complaint you must file an Answer. Submitting an application for a mortgage modification is not a response to a foreclosure lawsuit. Should you submit a mortgage modification application and if you do not serve and file an Answer to the Complaint with the Court and opposing counsel, you will default in the foreclosure case. A default is an acknowledgement the allegations in the financial institution’s foreclosure complaint against you are true. This allows the foreclosure lawsuit to move through the courts unopposed and faster.

Foreclosure Settlement Conferences

After a foreclosure lawsuit is initiated by the attorneys for the financial institution, the lawyers for the financial institution will file a request for court intervention. This will cause the court to schedule a foreclosure settlement conference. The purpose of foreclosure settlement conferences is to work out arrangements between the homeowner and the attorneys for the financial institution to allow the homeowners to stay in their homes. This is usually accomplished by the homeowner submitting a mortgage modification to counsel for the financial institution and having it monitored by the court. The progress of the mortgage modification will be supervised by a referee at the foreclosure settlement conference part at the court. It may take several conferences to finalize a mortgage modification. However, it must be pointed out, there is no guaranty you will receive a mortgage modification. Financial institutions provide homeowners with mortgage modifications when they meet the criteria developed by the financial institution with regard to approval of mortgage modifications. The purpose of the foreclosure settlement conferences is for the referee to make sure the financial institutions and their attorneys are negotiating in good faith.

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is the managing attorney of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. The law firm has more than 30 years of experience representing hundreds of homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area with regard to litigating foreclosure lawsuits and helping them obtain mortgage modifications. The firm can be reached at 800-344-6431 or by e-mail at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Foreclosure

Foreclosure Lawsuit

June 19, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

The plaintiff had brought a foreclosure lawsuit on a mortgage. All of the defendants other than Bank of America defaulted. They did not submit an answer to the summons and complaint. The plaintiff moved under court rules for an expedited proceeding. In some foreclosure actions to be eligible for an expedited procedure the plaintiff is required to waive a deficiency judgment.

No Referee Appointed

Justice Robert Quinian who sits in a foreclosure court in Suffolk County exercised his discretion to make decisions in this case without appointing a referee to compute the amount owed by the homeowner. The plaintiff in this case failed to directly provide a waiver and the court therefore could impose such a condition on the plaintiff if plaintiff’s application met statutory requirements.

More Than One Year Had Passed Since The Default

Justice Quinian found plaintiff’s motion was brought more than a year after the defendants defaulted in submitting an answer. Justice Quinian found there is a provision plaintiff could have alleged if they did not intend on abandoning the complaint, however the Judge did note that no attempt at providing a reasonable explanation for plaintiff’s delaying in an excess of one year was submitted. He therefore denied plaintiff’s motion and denied their ability to move forward with the default under the expedited procedures.

Elliot S. Schlisel, Esq. is the managing partner of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. He is a foreclosure defense lawyer litigating cases throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 35 years. He can be reached for a free consultation at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Foreclosure Lawsuit Dismissed The Statute of Limitations Had Expired

June 7, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

In the case before Justice Peter Mayer who sits in Supreme Court in Suffolk County, Rokoetz had executed a note and mortgage. This note and mortgage secured a lien against his home. Rokoetz defaulted in making payments on this mortgage. CS First Boston brought a foreclosure lawsuit in Suffolk County. They were granted an order of reference to sell the property and the matter was thereafter settled under a written agreement in 2007.

The Second Foreclosure Lawsuit

In 2017, 10 years after the original lawsuit had been started, the plaintiff brought a second foreclosure lawsuit against Rokoetz. Rokoetz moved for dismissal of the foreclosure lawsuit claiming the action was barred by the 6 year statute of limitations. Counsel for the financial institution claimed CS First Boston lacked standing to commence the 2005 foreclosure lawsuit as the mortgage was not assigned to it until after the commencement of the lawsuit. They therefore claimed they lacked authority to accelerate the loan. They claimed the loan was never properly accelerated until the plaintiff did so in the 2017 lawsuit.

The Loan was Accelerated

Justice Mayer found that the CP Boston’s claims were not valid. He ruled that CS First Boston’s 2005 complaint constituted an acceleration of the loan and the 2007 agreement did not constitute an unequivocal affirmative notice to Rokoetz that the acceleration had been revoked. Justice Mayer ruled Rokoetz had established the lawsuit was commenced outside the 6 year statute of limitations and was therefore untimely and needed to be dismissed.

Elliot S. Schlisel is the managing partner of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. He has been litigating foreclosure cases throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 35 years. He can be reached for a free consultation at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure

Foreclosure Lawsuit Barred by Statute of Limitations

June 3, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

HSBC Mortgage Corporation had obtained a judgment in 2009 in a foreclosure case. They also had an order to sell the homeowner’s home. In 2013 the 2009 judgment was vacated and the lawsuit discontinued for “administrative reasons.” However, the homeowner continued to receive statements that her loan was referred to foreclosure or accelerated. The new servicer, Fay Servicing LLC became involved in 2016. A lawsuit by the homeowner had been brought to quiet title in this case.

Action by HCBS’s Attorneys

In 2017 Rosicki & Rosicki & Associates, attorneys for the financial institution sent a “Notice of Default” a pre-foreclosure notice, claiming the homeowner owed $229,220.00. They also threatened legal action against the homeowner. The notice by Rosicki & Rosicki & Associates said the default date was 2011. The actual default date was May 2008.

Violation of Fair Debt Collection Protection Act

United States District Court Judge Frederick Block sitting in the Eastern District in New York denied dismissal of both Rosicki and Fay Servicing violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The letter they sent threatening to foreclose on a mortgage was barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Block held the homeowner presented documentation her mortgage was accelerated and the acceleration was not revoked. She said the foreclosure action was time barred pursuant to the New York State statute of limitations on bringing foreclosure lawsuits. Judge Block allowed the homeowners to continue litigating under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the foreclosure lawsuit was barred due to the statute of limitations.

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is a foreclosure lawyer. He has been representing homeowners in foreclosure defense cases for more than 35 years. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at: Elliot@sdnylaw.com for a free consultation.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense

Lawsuit Dismissed: Borrower Was Not Served With Foreclosure Notice

May 21, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

In a case before United States District Court, Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who sits in the Eastern District (Federal Court of New York), sometime between executing a note and mortgage in 2005 and 2017 regarding a foreclosure Stern sold the mortgaged property. The property was subdivided among new owners. In 2016 the plaintiff did not serve Stern a notice under New York Real Property Action and Proceedings Law Section 1304 which was to provide homeowners notice they were at risk of losing their home in foreclosure.

Homeowner Moved Out of the Property

Stern was not served with the appropriate notice under Real Property Action and Proceedings Law Section 1304 because the bank’s lawyers thought he was not entitled to such notice because Stern no longer lived in the property.

Foreclosure Lawsuit Dismissed

US District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis dismissed the foreclosure lawsuit for failure to serve Stern with the required pre-foreclosure notice under Real Property Action and Proceedings Law Section 1304. This section requires the pre-foreclosure notice to be sent to the borrower at the time of the acceleration of the motion. This is true even if the borrower later moves out of the property which secures the loan. The fact that Stern no longer occupied the property as is primary residence did not excuse the financial institution’s obligation to serve Stern with notice of the foreclosure lawsuit. Judge Garaufis ruled when a lender, assignee or mortgage servicer fails to show strict compliance with the Real Property Action and Proceedings Law Section 1304, the foreclosure lawsuit must be dismissed.

Elliot S. Schlissel, Esq. is the managing partner of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. The firm has been representing homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area regarding foreclosure matters for more than 30 years. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense

Homeowner Failed to Assert Affirmative Defenses: Bank Granted Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale

May 6, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

In a matter before Supreme Court Justice Howard Heckman, who sits in Suffolk County, a bank brought a foreclosure lawsuit against Bourie. The bank claimed in the lawsuit Bourie defaulted in making his mortgage payments. The bank eventually brought a motion for summary judgment asking that the answers submitted by Bourie be stricken. In response to the bank’s summary judgment motion, Bourie argued the bank failed to prove service of the Summons and Complaint in compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

“Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”

The bank in its opposing papers pointed out Bourie had failed to assert the affirmative defense of the bank’s alleged failure to serve a mortgage default notice. Justice Heckman ruled Bourie’s failure to submit an affirmative defense of the bank’s failure to serve him with a notice of default acted as a waiver of his rights to assert compliance in opposition to the bank’s summary judgment motion. Justice Heckman also ruled Bourie waived his Fair Debt Collection Practices Act defense by his failure to assert it as an affirmative defense in his answer. The judge granted the bank’s summary judgment motion and allowed them to move forward with the sale of Bourie’s home.

Conclusion

When the bank initiates a foreclosure lawsuit, a homeowner has either 20 days or 30 days to submit a written answer to the bank’s lawsuit. In the answer the homeowner must allege all of his defenses and affirmative defenses to the lawsuit. If the homeowner fails to list a defense or affirmative defense to the lawsuit, it is considered that he has waived his right to utilize this defense or affirmative defense in his case.

Elliot S. Schlissel is the managing partner of Schlissel DeCorpo LLP. The firm has been representing homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area regarding foreclosure matters for more than 30 years. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: bank foreclosure, foreclosure

Representing Yourself in a Foreclosure

April 18, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

Representing Yourself

My office has been representing homeowners in foreclosure cases for more than 35 years. Often homeowners come to me and they tell me they have been representing themselves in a foreclosure. When I ask them how they are doling, they say well we were doing fine. This means the homeowner has hit a brick wall. If you need an operation would you engage in surgery on yourself? No homeowner should ever represent themselves in a foreclosure. At a minimum they will be greatly outmatched. Financial institutions have unlimited money to hire lawyers. Lawyers who engage in foreclosure practice sue hundreds of homeowners in multiple courts throughout the Metropolitan New York area. They have extensive experience in litigating foreclosure lawsuits.

The Stubborn Homeowner

In spite of what I have indicated above, our office sees quite a few homeowners who have been litigating their own cases. A large majority have done a poor job. However, occasionally I run into bright, articulate homeowners who are actually doing a good job in representing themselves in the foreclosure lawsuit. For those homeowners I ask them several questions. How to do you plan on questioning yourself if you are on the witness stand? Can you explain to me how you can establish the foundation for presenting evidence to the court? When I ask these questions the homeowners are usually dumbfounded.

Foreclosure Defense Lawyers

Most lawyers are not familiar with the process of defending foreclosure lawsuits. The defense to a foreclosure lawsuit involves specialized pleadings. The best defense to a foreclosure case would be to prove the homeowner has made the payments. However, this is almost never the case. The defenses to foreclosure lawsuits usually deal with sophisticated statutory defenses. Truth and Lending Laws violations, violations of state and federal banking laws, failure to provide proper notice, failure to serve a summons and complaint in conformity with statutory requirements, failure to act in good faith with regard to foreclosure mortgage modification conferences, failure to provide the appropriate documents at the closing and the list of legal defenses goes on and on.

Hire an Experienced Foreclosure Defense Lawyer

Only attorneys with intimate knowledge of the underwriting process of mortgage loans, the regulatory requirements financial institutions need to comply with and knowledge of the ins and outs of foreclosure cases can provide a specialized level of representation for homeowners. The banks hire experienced attorneys to bring their foreclosure actions. Homeowners should not rely on just any attorney to represent them. They should only hire experienced foreclosure defense lawyers with a track record of successfully representing homeowners.

Before hiring a foreclosure defense law firm ask them how many articles he or she has written regarding foreclosure cases. Our law office has been diligently litigating foreclosure lawsuits and helping homeowners obtain mortgage modifications for more than 30 years. We have kept hundreds of homeowners in their homes. We are available for free consultations. We pride ourselves in keeping our clients in their homes. We can be reached for a free consultation at our offices in Nassau, Suffolk and Queens Counties at: 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or 631-319-8262. You can also e-mail us at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure

Homeowner’s Proceeding to Cancel Her Mortgage And Remove it as a Lien on Her Property was Granted

April 8, 2019 by Elliot Schlissel

In a recent case before Justice Salvatore Modica, who sits in a real estate Supreme Court part, in Queens County, Persaud brought a lawsuit under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 1501(4) to cancel a mortgage on his home. In this proceeding Persaud moved for summary judgment. He asked that the mortgage on his home be extinguished and he be discharged from all obligations under the underlying promissory note executed in connection with this mortgage.

Motion Granted

Justice Modica granted Persaud’s motion. He found that she met her prima fascie obligation of showing entitlement to a judgment. Persaud had established the underlying foreclosure action by US Bank had been originally commenced in December 2009 and in March of 2011 the foreclosure lawsuit was dismissed. A second foreclosure lawsuit was commenced in 2017. This foreclosure lawsuit was barred by the 6 year statute of limitations.

In Persaud’s lawsuit against US Bank under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 1501(4), US Bank was unable to dispute Persaud’s showing there was no genuine issue of fact with regard to the 6 year statute of limitations having expired. Persaud was entitled to summary judgment. Under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Section 1501(4), a homeowner is entitled to having a mortgage cancelled as a lien on his or her property if the applicable statute of limitations regarding commencement of a suit has expired. In this case more than 6 years has passed since Persaud had defaulted on making payments on her mortgage. Therefore, US Bank did not have the right to bring another foreclosure action against Persaud. Justice Modica granted Persaud’s motion to cancel, discharge and remove the mortgage as a lien on her property.

Conclusion

US Bank and their attorneys failed to follow the law and as a result Persaud ended up with a free house!

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer representing homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 35 years. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Mortgage Modification Tagged With: mortgage modification

Bank Fails to Show Standing to Maintain Foreclosure Lawsuit

December 13, 2018 by Elliot Schlissel

Bank Fails To Show Standing To Maintain Foreclosure Lawsuit In a case before Justice Robert Muller sitting in Clinton County, Beneficial Finance Service provided a mortgage loan to Carpenter. Carpenter defaulted in making payments to Beneficial Finance Service. Caliber Home Loans, acting under a Power of Attorney for Beneficial Finance Service, started a foreclosure lawsuit against Carpenter. Carpenter claimed defenses to the lawsuit including a lack of standing by Caliber Home Loans.

Summary Judgment Application

The Calibers brought a motion for summary judgment against Carpenter. They sought to have his answer dismissed. Justice Robert Muller noted plaintiff’s papers did not contain a power of attorney. They also did not contain a servicing agreement authorizing Caliber Home Loans to act as attorney in fact and servicer.

The Judge’s Decision

Justice Muller found it was unclear whether the affidavit by Neilson indicating he was familiar with Caliber Home Loans business records also claiming that Caliber was the custodian receiving physical possession of the note and mortgage from Beneficial Finance Service was valid. Justice Muller found it was also unclear whether the plaintiff actually had physical possession of the note. The assignment of the mortgage did not discuss who had possession of the note. It only discussed the transfer of the mortgage.

Justice Muller rendered the decision stating Beneficial Home Servicer and Caliber Home Loans failed to establish standing to bring the foreclosure lawsuit and the summary judgment motion was denied.

Conclusion

Financial institutions must prove they are the appropriate party to bring a foreclosure lawsuit. The defense to the foreclosure lawsuit being brought by an institution that does not have the proper authority is called “lack of standing.”

schlissel-headshot Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney who has been fighting foreclosure lawsuits for more than three decades. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure defense

Foreclosure Action Dismissed: Bank Had No Standing

December 11, 2018 by Elliot Schlissel

In a case in Orange County before Justice Maria Vasquez-Doles a plaintiff moved for summary judgment claiming there were no questions of fact and that a trial was not necessary in this foreclosure case. They requested an appointment of a referee to compute the amount which was owed. In addition, they wanted a default judgment against non-appearing defendants. The original note and mortgage was between Home Funds Direct and the homeowners. It was claimed the homeowners defaulted by not making timely mortgage payments. US Bank Trust moved for summary judgment. The defendants argued US Bank Trust did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. They claimed MIRS was never authorized by the original lender to assign the note and mortgage to US Bank Trust. The defendants claimed the note was in the possession of “a custodian Wells Fargo Bank” not US Bank Trust.

The Judge’s Decision

Justice Vasquez-Doles found US Bank Trust had not met its burden of proof to show it had standing to bring the foreclosure lawsuit. She found they failed to establish a prima facie case that US Bank Trust was in possession of the note because Wells Fargo continued to possess the original note. She also found US Bank Trust could establish the standing by showing the note was assigned to them, but they failed to do this. She also pointed out there is no endorsement to MIRS on the note giving it authority to assign the note. The evidence presented in the case was there was no evidence indicating MIRS had a right to assign the note. MIRS also could not transfer something it did not have possession of. Although US Bank Trust could have established physical delivery of the note to them, they did not undertake to do this in this case. Justice Vasquez-Doles therefore dismissed the case.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure, foreclosure defense

Can We Help You?

How It Starts

Responding to the Foreclosure Proceeding

Foreclosure Settlement Conferences

No Referee Appointed

More Than One Year Had Passed Since The Default

The Second Foreclosure Lawsuit

The Loan was Accelerated

Action by HCBS’s Attorneys

Violation of Fair Debt Collection Protection Act

Homeowner Moved Out of the Property

Foreclosure Lawsuit Dismissed

“Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”

Conclusion

The Stubborn Homeowner

Foreclosure Defense Lawyers

Hire an Experienced Foreclosure Defense Lawyer

Motion Granted

Conclusion

Summary Judgment Application

The Judge’s Decision

Conclusion

The Judge’s Decision

Contact Us

Categories

LINKS

OUR WEBSITES

Latest Blogs

CONTACT INFO