In the case of Brown v. Nationstar Mortgage reported in the New York Law Journal on June 26, 2015, Brown had brought a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment of foreclosure which resulted in the sale of his home. In addition, he sought to stop a proceeding which attempted to remove him from his home after the foreclosure sale had taken place. His lawsuit requested the court rescind the sale of his property and find a mortgage modification agreement he had previously entered into with Nationstar Bank was effective and enforceable.
The court found the only issue which needed to be dealt with, because all of the other relief requested by Brown had previously been litigated, was whether the mortgage modification agreement should be enforceable.
Justice Daniel Barrett found Brown had reasonable notice of the foreclosure proceedings. He stated, however, he was “perplexed by the inactivity concerning this matter.” Mr. Brown had testified he had received a letter from the respondent offering him a mortgage modification. The letter required he sign a mortgage modification agreement and agree to make a payment for the agreement to become effective. He testified that he complied with all of the requirements the bank had requested. In spite of entering into a valid mortgage modification agreement with the bank, a foreclosure sale was conducted and Nationstar Mortgage bought the property. They thereafter served Brown with a 90 day notice to remove himself from the premises.
Mortgage Modification Agreement is Valid and Mortgage Set Aside
Justice Barrett ruled there was a valid mortgage modification agreement because Brown had complied with all of the required terms of the agreement. He then sought to place the parties in the position they would occupy if the agreement was performed pursuant to all of its terms. The judge therefore directed both parties continue to perform under the terms of the agreement and, in addition, there be a two year interest free period.
Conclusion
The entering into of a mortgage modification agreement does not stop lawsuits from moving forward. Banks usually hold the lawsuits in abeyance to see if the terms of the mortgage modification agreement are complied with. However, sometimes the outside counsel representing banks in foreclosure lawsuits have no idea the banks are entering into a mortgage modification agreement. They therefore continue with the foreclosure process which can result in the sale of the home and eviction of the family that lives in the home. To make sure the attorneys representing the bank in the foreclosure proceedings are aware of what is going on between the bank and the homeowner, it is important to provide documentation to the attorneys for the bank with regard to the existence of the mortgage modification being underwritten and being accepted.
A foreclosure action was brought by JP Morgan Chase in the Supreme Court of New York County. Justice Francois Rivera was the judge assigned to the case. Chase claimed in their pleadings that Charles had executed a mortgage and note on real property in favor of Fleet Real Estate Funding. They claimed Fleet Real Estate Funding had assigned the mortgage to JP Morgan Chase. They claimed Charles defaulted on making his payments on the note and mortgage, they had accelerated the note and mortgage and served the acceleration notice on Charles.
Is it possible to stop paying your mortgage, and live in your home for many years, and stop the bank in its tracks from forcing you to make payments to them or successfully foreclosing on your home? The answer to this question is yes! If your bank fails to sue you, in the State of New York, for a period of six years from the time they accelerated the mortgage, you have a complete 
Banks and their servicing companies make mistakes. Homeowners, at one time, blindly believed whatever a bank did and whatever documents they submitted were always correct. Since the mortgage crisis started in 2008, there have been dozens of publications of inappropriate actions, mistakes, issues involving robo-signing and 
When a financial institution brings a foreclosure lawsuit, they have a legal obligation to prove to the court they are the rightful holder of the mortgage and note they are suing on. Mortgages and notes are standardized documents. In most situations a variety of financial institutions and servicing organizations will handle the mortgage and note prior to the 
Violations of Truth In Lending Law
