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loan and the 2007 agreement did not constitute an unequivocal affirmative notice to Rokoetz that the acceleration had been revoked.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 45 years. He can be reached for a free consultation at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.
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.
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 
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 
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.
Reverse mortgages are made to homeowners aged 62 or older. They allow the homeowners to access the equity in their home to pay their bills while allowing them to continue to live in their homes. In situations involving 
