Citibank brought a foreclosure proceeding in Kings County Supreme Court before Justice Francois Rivera. Judge Rivera noted the affirmation submitted by Citibank relied on documents. Judge Rivera pointed out the documents need to be annexed to the affirmation and the affiant has to establish an evidentiary basis for the court to accept these documents. Judge Rivera ruled that the mere submission of these documents by counsel for Citibank without any detailed identification or presentation or authentication was an inadequate presentation.
Judge Rivera noted the motion papers submitted by counsel for Citibank stated there were exhibits labeled A through C. Citibank’s attorneys, in their moving papers, clearly described exhibits A and B. They did not explain what exhibit C was. Due to Citibank’s attorney’s failure to describe exhibit C, Judge Rivera completely disregarded it.
Bank’s Motion Was Ambiguous
Judge Rivera found Citibank’s motion papers to be ambiguous. He also felt they were incomplete. Judge Rivera stated in his decision he was not sure whether Citibank sought to substitute Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) as plaintiff because it was the owner of the note and mortgage or because it was the servicer of the owner of the note and mortgage. Judge Rivera’s decision stated, although an assignment evidencing the mortgage was assigned by Citimortgage to FNMA no evidence of an admissible nature was submitted that FNMA owned the note. In addition, no evidence was submitted showing FNMA had any authority to act as servicer on the note.
Conclusion
The standard that banks and their attorneys must meet to be successful in a foreclosure lawsuit is a very high standard. Unless the bank attorney is very careful and submits appropriate motion papers, their motions to foreclose on homeowners’ properties can be denied by vigilant judges.
Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney who has been representing homeowners and helping them keep their homes for more than 45 years.
