Elliot S. Schlissel and his associates are foreclosure attorneys, with more than 100 years of combined legal experience, representing homeowners on foreclosure cases throughout the metropolitan New York area. They can be reached at 1-800-344-6431, (516) 561-6645, or (718) 350-2802 for a free consultation.
The New York State Legislature has passed a bill which requires a statewide registry of abandoned homes. In addition this new law requires financial institutions, banks and loan servicing organizations to report vacant homes to the state registry. Communities in both upstate and on long island have had hearings regarding their problems with regard to vacant homes which attract drug dealers and squatters. This new law places the burden on financial institutions, loan servicing companies and banks to maintain abandoned homes. Prior to this statute local municipalities had to bear the burden of paying for the maintenance of these abandoned “zombie” homes.
New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman had stated that his office had accumulated a list of 16,700 vacant foreclosed homes. These vacant foreclosed homes represent the population of zombie homes throughout the State of New York.
The statute was sponsored by New York State Senator Jeffrey Klein of the Bronx. He recently stated there were devaluations of real property in the millions of dollars related to these zombie homes. In addition he stated: “we must hold banks accountable for decaying, abandoned properties stuck in the legal limbo of foreclosure and I look forward to the Senate taking action on this important issue.” It should be pointed out that foreclosures in New York currently can take several years from initiation until completion.
Elliot S. Schlissel and his associates have been defending homeowners in foreclosure lawsuits for more then 3 decades. There are homeowners throughout the Metropolitan area who are living in their homes due to aggressive, experienced legal representation of our attorneys.
A tax foreclosure case was brought before Justice Williams Giacomo, who sits in a tax foreclosure part in the Supreme Court in Westchester County. Plaintiff had brought a tax foreclosure proceeding against the residence owned by Ms. Pena. The service of the notice of the tax foreclosure proceeding was returned as undelivered by the United States Postal Department. The premises the tax foreclosure was brought against was vacant. The defendant, Ms. Pena, was thereafter personally served at 8 Handford Place, in November of 2013, with a copy of the tax foreclosure summons and complaint.
Ms. Pena did not appear in the lawsuit and did not submit an answer to the tax foreclosure proceeding. Ms. Pena contacted counsel for the plaintiff. She advised them she planned on paying the tax lien. She also advised counsel for the plaintiff she lived at 100 Wildey Street. She requested all future communications be sent to her at that address.
As a result of this communication counsel for the plaintiff amended the caption of his proceeding and served an amended complaint on the bank defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel failed to serve Ms. Pena. Thereafter Ms. Pena moved to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and was unsuccessful. In addition she requested the amended complaint be dismissed because it was served at an address she did not live in.
Judge Giacomo found the amended complaint had to be served on Pena. Since an amended complaint superseded the original complaint the amended complaint also had to be served in the same manner as the original summons.
Since the bank failed to do this the court vacated the judgment of foreclosure and dismissed the foreclosure lawsuit.
The careful presentation of evidence in this case by Ms. Pena showed that the foreclosing plaintiff failed to meet the court’s rigorous standards concerning service of the tax foreclosure summons and complaint. Therefore the court dismissed the case.
A foreclosure legal action was brought by M&T Bank. Dr. Colleen Farrell submitted an answer to the foreclosure lawsuit. In it she claimed she had not been served with the preliminary notice the bank was putting the property into foreclosure required under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1304.
The bank made a motion for summary judgement and Dr. Farrell opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the bank’s complaint for failure to properly serve a 90 day notice prior to initiating the foreclosure lawsuit. In the application, Farrell claimed the service on his receptionist of the 90 day notice was invalid. He took the position she was not authorized to accept the service of this document. M&T Bank took the position Dr. Farrell was properly served. They claimed it was irrelevant as to whether his receptionist was authorized to accept service. In addition the bank claimed Farrell wasn’t even entitled to a 90 day notice under Real Property Actions and Proceeding Law section 1304. They took this position because the doctors office was not his principal place of residence. The court took into consideration that while Dr. Farrell claimed his receptionist was not authorized to accept service, she did not deny that she had been served. The court ruled whether or not she had authority to accept service was irrelevant since she had been served.
The court ruled however that section 1304 90 day pre foreclosure service requirements applied to Farrell even if he was not living at the premises. Since the bank failed to show strict compliance with the 90 day pre foreclosure notice requirement the court granted Farrell’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint due to the bank not having met its minimum statutory requirements prior to initiating the foreclosure lawsuit.
Many seniors in New York are facing reverse mortgage foreclosures. These seniors often are at a stage in their life where they are on fixed incomes. If they lose their homes they may end up living in the street!
The failure of seniors to pay their property taxes has been the reason for the recent increase on reverse mortgage foreclosure proceedings. In many cases the homeowner does not know how much is owed in property taxes and homeowners insurance payments. Many of these foreclosures are triggered by outstanding financial obligations by the homeowners of only $10,000.00.
There are many consumer oriented protection statutes which protect homeowners in regular mortgage foreclosures but do not apply to reverse mortgage foreclosures. There are no mandatory foreclosure settlement conferences with regard to reverse mortgages. In addition there is no 90 day notice requirements prior to the initiation of the reverse mortgage foreclosure, as would be required in a traditional bank foreclosure.
Many of the problems faced by seniors result from their taking lump sum payments on their reverse mortgage and thereafter spending all of the money. A better route is for seniors to receive steady payments over a period of time from the funds from the reverse mortgage. This will enable them to pay for the homeowners insurance on their home and the taxes on their property.
In 2015 New rules went in to effect designed to ensure seniors have the financial ability to repay the tax expenses on their homes.
Under certain circumstances a reverse mortgage is a reasonable option for a senior to take. It allows the senior to utilize the equity in his/her home to support themselves. However it is usually a bad idea for the senior to take all of the funds out of the reverse mortgage in lump sum. Reverse mortgages work properly when the seniors receive periodic payments that allows them to live with dignity and to pay the taxes and homeowners insurance on their homes.
Elliot S. Schlissel and his associates are foreclosure lawyers representing homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area.
In a case before justice Maryann Brigantti, sitting in a foreclosure part, in Bronx county US bank moved to strike a defendant’s answer. They brought a motion for summary judgement in their foreclosure lawsuit. This type of application urges a court to eliminate the need for a trial in a foreclosure case. They claimed in their motion for summary judgement they produced a copy of the mortgage. In addition they produced a written assignment of the mortgage. They also submitted an affidavit by an individual named Wild. This affidavit asserted the defendants defaulted on the loan and the bank was in physical custody pf the note.
The defendants claimed they never received communication from the bank regarding the foreclosure settlement conferences. They requested to have the case transferred back to the foreclosure mediation settlement conference part.
The homeowners also claimed the bank did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit. They claimed that Wild’s affidavit only stated that before the action was commenced the bank was in physical possession of the note the affidavit did not provide factual allegations regarding the physical delivery of the note. The affidavit did not establish that Wild personally inspected the note. Justice Brigantti stated without having further details the bank failed to establish it was the holder of the note before the commencement of the foreclosure lawsuit. Therefore the bank did not sufficiently establish they had standing to bring the foreclosure lawsuit.
Justice Brigantti pointed out the homeowners resided in the home. They only missed one court conference and that public policy considerations required the matter to be returned to the foreclosure conference part for the parties to negotiate in good faith to work out a reasonable mortgage modification.
In a case pending in Supreme court in Westchester county, justice William Glacomo sitting in a foreclosure part dealt with an unusual issue. US Bank had brought a foreclosure proceeding. In the foreclosure case they had moved for summary judgement (this is a motion requesting a foreclosure order without the need for trial). They claimed Eisman, who is now deceased did not make his mortgage payments. An estate was formed for the decedent Eisman. The executor of the estate argued the estate didn’t receive the appropriate notice the home was going into foreclosure under the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1304. This section requires a financial institution to give 90 days notice to a homeowner prior to initiating the foreclosure lawsuit.
Justice William Giacomo found the 90 day notice required under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1304, only applied to living persons not to estates. Because Eisman was dead he did not have to be served at the cemetery and the executor of the estate also did not have to be served.
Judge Giacomo’s rational was since the borrower was dead, there was no longer a notice requirement which needed to be given to this borrower. He therefore held that Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1304 no longer applied.
When someone dies an estate is created, the executor if there is a will and the administrator, if there is no will, stands, in the shoes of the decedent. If an obligation was owed to decedent to provide 90 days notice prior to initiating a foreclosure lawsuit, why shouldn’t this also apply to the estate of the decedent? I believe this issue should be taken up on appeal.
Elliot S Schlissel and his associates are foreclosure lawyers who defend homeowners in the Metropolitan New York area.
In late June 2016 the legislature in the state of New York passed a bill that created a state wide zombie house registry. This statute created a toll free number for homeowners to report eyesores related to abandoned homes in foreclosure. The statute imposed fines on banks that fail to maintain homes which were abandoned by their homeowners during the foreclosure process.
This new statute in addition to dealing with the abandoned “Zombie” home issue is also designed to speed up the foreclosure process in New York state courts.
Many communities on Long Island have had problems in recent years dealing with thousands of homes which were abandoned by their owners as their homes went into foreclosure. This problem also exists in parts of the city of New York and cities in Upstate New York.
Homeowners sometimes misunderstand how the foreclosure process works. The service of a foreclosure summons and complaint upon the homeowner by the bank holding the mortgage, on the home is the start of a process whereby the bank takes back the ownership of the home. Homeowners sometimes misunderstand how the legal process of foreclosure progresses from the initiation of the lawsuit to the bank taking title to the home when it is sold on the courthouse steps. Even when the bank takes title to the home this doesn’t give them the right to show up at the house and force the homeowner from the home.
Attorney Elliot S. Schlissel and his associates are foreclosure attorneys representing homeowners in foreclosure cases throughout the metropolitan New York area.
Under New York State law, the bank or the individuals or the party that purchased the home at the foreclosure sale must bring a landlord tenant proceeding if they seek to evict the homeowners. In many cases the bank and or the people who purchased the property at the foreclosure sale are prepared to negotiate and discuss an amicable resolution of the issue of the homeowners vacating the home.
This new statute gives municipalities and the state dept of financial services the power to take legal action against banks and mortgage serving companies that do not maintain vacant homes. The banks and or mortgage servicer can be fined as much as $500.00 dollars per day for each property they do not properly maintain. State senator Jeffrey Klein stated concerning this new legislation “finally, banks will be responsible to maintain zombie properties that have caused property devaluation across our state.”
Banks who are found to not be acting appropriately or exercising good faith during the foreclosure court proceedings can be fined up to $25,000.00 under this new statute. This new statute also can cause banks to be fined up to $25,000.00 for failure to produce required documents, during foreclosure mediation court conferences.
Eliot S Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer representing homeowners throughout the New York Metropolitan area with regard to obtaining mortgage modifications and defending foreclosure lawsuits. Elliot and his staff of attorneys take legal action to keep homeowners and their families in their homes by fighting foreclosure lawsuits and working with financial institutions to obtain mortgage modifications for the firm’s clients.
Foreclosure lawsuits are initiated by the attorneys for the financial institutions by filing a copy of the sun’s complaint in the County which the home of being foreclosed on is located. Therefore, the attorneys representing the substitution hire a processor server, a copy of the summons and think. When homeowners receive the summons and complaint, often they have no idea what to do. However, shortly thereafter, he was homeowners seek this adequate settlement conference at the scheduled. Homeowners assume this court settlement conferences are dealing with the lawsuit initiated against them by the financial institution. Unfortunately, this is not true. While most homeowners default in responding to the summons and complaint, a significant amount of homeowners in the metropolitan area actually attended the foreclosure settlement conferences.
These homeowners participate in the settlement conferences, prepare mortgage modification documents, submit the mortgage modification documents and either receive a mortgage modification or are denied. If they receive a mortgage modification, the foreclosure lawsuit does not move forward. If they either don’t submit mortgage modification documents to the financial institution and\or the mortgage modification application is denied, the case is removed from the foreclosure conference part and put into a trial part. Unfortunately, for the homeowner, if they only participated in the mortgage modification conference and did not file an answer to the summons and complaint with the banks attorney and the court, they defaulted in the lawsuit. Default means an admission of the allegations contained in the foreclosure pleadings submitted by the bank’s lawyers. Thereafter, the attorneys for the bank will usually bring a motion for summary judgment, obtain judgment against the homeowner and have a referee appointed to sell the home.
When served with a summons think the question attorney to submit a written answer to the summons served them institution.
In 2007, Newsday, a Long Island Newspaper, uncovered a mortgage scheme by Alan Wildler. Mr. Wildler founded HTFC Corporation, a Garden City mortgage bank. Mr. Wildler perpetrated $30,000,000 in mortgage fraud on Long Island residents. It is now 9 years later and he has recently been convicted regarding his mortgage fraud conspiracy. He now will face up to 30 years in prison.
Mr. Wildler would buy properties and thereafter transfer the properties to a trust. He would then sell the properties for as much as $300,000 more than he paid for them. He utilized false appraisals which justified the higher prices. He sold the properties during the time of a hot real estate market which concealed the activity for a while. Thereafter, Wildler’s bank would sell off the mortgage loan. Other financial institutions were thereafter defrauded by Wildler’s actions. Banks that purchased the loans as well as the Nassau County Assessment Office flagged the properties as fraudulent transactions. Unfortunately, it took more than 8 years after the mortgage fraud scheme was uncovered for Mr. Wildler to be convicted for his wrongdoing.
The real estate market had a significant decline in the year 2008. Thereafter there was a huge increase in foreclosure activity. Subsequent investigators uncovered numerous instances involving mortgage fraud in the metropolitan New York area as well as the rest of the country. Unfortunately, very few individuals involved in mortgage fraud have actually been convicted of their activities. Mortgage fraud has a negative impact on the financial market, destroys the lives of families that are defrauded, and creates a lack of confidence among the general public with regard to the institutions involved in buying, selling and financing of real estate transactions.
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer representing homeowners whose homes have been foreclosed, and foreclosure cases and helps homeowners obtain mortgage modifications.
