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
William A. Roper, Jr.
I seem to have overlooked a Connecticut Superior Court decision on conditions precedent back in the summer.  The case is United States Bank NA v. Hahnel.  The case contains some interesting express discussion of provisions of the mortgage imposing certain duties upon the purported mortgagee:
The plaintiff has also not offered any evidence to show that it has complied with the several provisions of the mortgage deed that mandate notice.  Paragraph fifteen of the deed defines notice: "All notices given by borrower or lender in connection with this security instrument must be in writing.  Any notice to borrower in connection with this security instrument shall be deemed to have been given to borrower when mailed by first class mail or when actually delivered to borrowers notice address if sent by other means."  Paragraph twenty requires that notice as provided for under paragraph fifteen is required from the borrower to the lender when the lender intends to take legal action against the borrower. Paragraph twenty provides, in relevant part: "Neither borrower nor lender may commence . . . any judicial action . . . that arises from the other party's actions pursuant to this security instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of . . . this security instrument, until such borrower or lender has notified the other party . . . of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action."  Paragraph twenty-two requires the lender to provide the borrower with notice "prior to acceleration following borrower's breach of any covenant or agreement in this security instrument . . .  The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than thirty days from the date the notice is given to borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this security instrument and foreclosure of the property."
United States Bank NA v. Hahnel, No. CV095012757, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1470 (Ct. Super New London 2010)

The case may be found on LexisOne.  I haven't yet found the case elsewhere.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
This language from a Connecticut Superior Court case might be helpful to a borrower where the plaintiff has not alleged and proven conditions precedent:
"The notice requirements of a mortgage note and deed create conditions precedent to institution of a foreclosure suit. Northeast Savings v. Scherban, 47 Conn.App. 225, 228, 702 A.2d 659 (1997); cert. denied, 244 Conn. 907, 714 A.2d 2 (1998). "Notices of default and acceleration are controlled by the mortgage documents." Citicorp. Mortgage, Inc. v. Porto, 41 Conn.App. 598, 602, 677 A.2d 10 (1996)."  Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Seplowitz, No. CV075001419, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2383 (Ct. Super Toland 2007).

Paragraph 22 is expressly mentioned, though in this case, the plaintiff seems to have met its burden.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Connecticut foreclosure defendants considering a special defense relating to conditions precedent may also want to study the decision of the Superior court in Maresca v. Mason:

As to the First Count seeking a foreclosure of the mortgage from Louis and Melody Mason to the plaintiff, the defendants have Special Defenses that claim that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the acceleration terms of the mortgage contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiff's exhibit 2, thereby violating the Connecticut Unfair Debt Collection Practice Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  That paragraph provides: ". . . upon Borrower's breach of any covenants or agreements of Borrower in this Mortgage, including the covenants to pay when due to borrower . . . specifying (1) the breach; (2) the action required to cure such breach; (3) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is mailed to Borrower by which such breach must be cured; and (4) that failure to cure such breach on or before the date specified in the notice may result in . . . foreclosure sale." There is no question that there never was any effort to comply with that provision of the mortgage in this case at or about the time of the breach of January 1 or February 9, 1988.  There never has been any such notice as required since that date. The only writing or notice on the subject of this mortgage was plaintiff's exhibit 3, a letter from Attorney Salvatore Maresca, Jr., the son of the plaintiff Salvatore Maresca, to Louis Mason dated May 22, 1997, more than nine years after the claimed default.  That letter obviously does not meet the requirements of paragraph 18 of the mortgage deed.  There was, thus, a total failure to comply with the Acceleration Clause of the Mortgage Deed.

In support of its Special Defense, the defendants cite the case of Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Porto, 41 Conn. App. 598, 602-03, 677 A.2d 10 (1996).  In that case, the Court held:

The defendant argues that the use of the term shall in the mortgage deed required the plaintiff to give proper notice prior to the foreclosure. We agree with the defendant that the language of the mortgage creates a condition precedent that must be satisfied prior to foreclosure.

Notices of default and acceleration are controlled by the mortgage documents.  Construction of a mortgage deed "is governed by the same rules of interpretation that apply to written instruments or contracts generally, and to deeds particularly.  The primary rule of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parties.  This is done not only from the face of the instrument, but also from the situation of the parties and the nature and object of their transactions."  55 Am.Jur.2d, Mortgages § 175 (1971).  A promissory note and a mortgage deed are deemed parts of one transaction and must be construed together as such. Id., § 176.

Applying these principles, we hold that under the terms of the note and mortgage deed proper notice of default is a mandatory condition precedent to an action for foreclosure.
Maresca v. Mason, CV970347859S, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2460 (Ct. Super. Fairfield 2002).

This case may be found on LEXIS and LexisOne. 
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...