Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Angelo
If this decision holds up on appeal, this will be a major shift in NY law.  Standing has always been deemed waived if not plead in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or initial answer.  The decision might change that thought process.

"However, it has become evident that especially in the realm of foreclosure litigation that it would be a miscarriage of justice to continue to treat standing as a defense that can be waived.
"

Citimortgage, Inc. v Kagor Realty Co., LLC  2013 NY Slip Op 30003(U)

Quote 0 0
Angelo
Here is the link to the decision.

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2013/2013_30003.pdf

Quote 0 0
Texas
http://www.leagle.com/xmlresult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20NYCO%2020130108248.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr
Quote 0 0
$&?!
Quote:
If this decision holds up on appeal, this will be a major shift in NY law.

This decision has very little chance of being affirmed on appeal.  In fact, this is really a very poor case to use as a mechanism to revisit the rule that a standing defense needs to be raised in the defendant's first defensive pleading.  I see this as a negative development rather than a positive development, because this particular case seems far more likely to result in a retrenchment and reaffirmation of the rule rather than a mechansim to peal back a layer of the current rule.

One problem for New York defendants is that the wording of the New York State Constitution varies rather considerably from that in the states where standing has been found to be a state constitutional imperative pursuant to implicit restraints appearing within the "open courts" provisions.  Mr. Roper discussed this several years ago in several posts.
Quote 0 0
Texas
Excerpt: "The Appellate Division, Second Department in the 1988 case of Kluge v. Fugazy,
held that a foreclosure action, “. . . may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent
transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.”4 Essentially, the Kluge decision
found that because the plaintiff did not have title to the mortgage and note, it lacked standing to
bring the action in foreclosure."

What is today is not what it was even a year ago.
Quote 0 0
Paul
Quote:
Excerpt: "The Appellate Division, Second Department in the 1988 case of Kluge v. Fugazy, held that a foreclosure action, “. . . may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity.”4 Essentially, the Kluge decision found that because the plaintiff did not have title to the mortgage and note, it lacked standing to bring the action in foreclosure."

What is today is not what it was even a year ago.


Your post is self-contradictory. You quote from a section of the decision which cites a twenty five year old New York appellate case and then assert that things have changed greatly. They have not. New York laws on standing and jurisdiction are mostly unaltered for many decades.

New York has, however, been at the vanguard in its application of these laws in cases involving MERS.

I agree with others that this trial court decision, which has no binding authority on any other New York state court will probably be reversed on appeal. Happily, the borrower will get some reprieve during the pendency of that appeal.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
While I agree that this case might very well get reversed on appeal, you never know.  NY has been leading the charge against MERS and the scam organization that it its.  Hopefully the appeals court takes the following line into thoughtful consideration.

"However, it has become evident that especially in the realm of foreclosure litigation that it would be a miscarriage of justice to continue to treat standing as a defense that can be waived."
Quote 0 0
Texas
Paul

Contradictory it appears if one only looks at the narrow scope.

Where law may not have really not changed other process and procedures have changed so in the grand scope the statement is not contradictory.

One thing for certain, the appellate case cited will not be overturned.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...