Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
US Bank N.A. v. Richard
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 5114; 151 A.D.3d 1001; 57 N.Y.S.3d 509Docket: 2015-06291
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 21, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of US Bank N.A. v. Richard, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York addressed an appeal by defendant Sohannie Richard regarding two orders dated February 19, 2015, related to a mortgage foreclosure action initiated by US Bank National Association. The court's decisions included: 1. Dismissal of the appeal concerning the first order, as it was superseded by the second order. 2. Affirmation of the first order to the extent reviewed. 3. Reversal of the second order, denying the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for an order of reference pertaining to Richard. Sohannie Richard had executed a mortgage note in April 2004, which was secured by residential property. The plaintiff claimed she defaulted on her mortgage obligations, asserting compliance with relevant legal notice requirements. In her defense, Richard raised several affirmative defenses, including lack of standing by the plaintiff and improper notice under RPAPL 1304. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the first order, granting summary judgment and a reference to compute the mortgage balance, but reversed this in the second order, denying those motions and awarding costs to the appellant. A defendant raising the issue of standing requires the plaintiff to prove standing to obtain relief in a mortgage foreclosure action, which can be established by showing the plaintiff is the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the action's commencement. Proof can include a written assignment or physical delivery of the note, which also transfers the mortgage as an inseparable incident. In this case, the plaintiff demonstrated prima facie standing by showing possession of the note at the action's start, while the defendant did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding standing. However, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and for an order of reference because the plaintiff did not prove that RPAPL 1304 was inapplicable or that it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The defendant also did not provide evidence to show that the loan was a "home loan" subject to those requirements. Given the unresolved factual issues regarding the applicability of RPAPL 1304, neither party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.