• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • About
  • Services
  • Team
  • Blog
  • Careers
  • Contact

NY Appellate Division outlines standard for Lost Note Affidavit

June 15, 2021 by Adam Friedman

In Wells Fargo Bank, NA. v. Zolotnitsky, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, 6/2/2021, 2021 WL 2214014, 2021 NY Slip Op 03482, a mortgage brought an action seeking foreclosure of a residential mortgage and to reform the mortgage to correct the description.  Mortgagor asserted varied affirmative defenses including lack of standing.  The mortgagee then assigned the mortgage.   The Appellate Division held that the assignee failed to establish ownership of the promissory note and failed to establish that reformation of the mortgage to the correct legal description was warranted based on mutual mistake.

By assignment of mortgage dated October 9, 2015, Wells Fargo assigned the mortgage to Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB.  In November 2016, Wilmington, successor in interest to Wells Fargo, moved for summary judgment on the complaint and asserted against defendant, to strike answer, reform mortgage, amend caption and correct legal description.  A lost note affidavit was included alleging that the note had been “inadvertently lost, misplaced, or destroyed.”  Defendant moved to renew her opposition to the summary judgment and plaintiff Wilmington moved to confirm oath and report and judgment.  The Court entered the Judgment of foreclosure and sale and defendant appealed.

UCC 3-804 provides a method of recovery for instruments that are lost, destroyed, or stolen, and plaintiff is required to submit “due proof of ownership, the facts that prevent production of the note, and its terms.  (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Anderson, 161 A.D.3d 1043, 1044, 79 N.Y.S.3d 42, quoting UCC 3–804).  Based upon same, the Court found that the affidavit “failed to establish when the note was acquired and failed to provide sufficient facts as to when the search for the note occupied, who conducted the search, and how or when it was lost.

Further, the Court the standard to correct the legal description of the premises. A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party’s fraudulent misrepresentation” (Yu Han Young v. Chiu, 49 A.D.3d 535, 536, 853 N.Y.S.2d 575; see Chimart Assoc. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 573, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231; Gunther v. Vilceus, 142 A.D.3d 639, 640, 36 N.Y.S.3d 723.

Based upon the above, the Appellate Division held that the assignee failed to establish ownership of the promissory note and failed to establish that reformation of the mortgage to the correct legal description was warranted based on mutual mistake.  If you have any question, please contact Deborah Gallo, Esq. at dgallo@friedmanvartolo.com.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

PRACTICE AREAS

  • Default Services
  • Residential
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Commercial Transactions
  • Foreclosures
  • Bankruptcy
  • Evictions

POPULAR ARTICLES

The Second Reverses a Lower Court Order Allowing Defendant to File a Responsive Pleading

New York’s Appellate Division Holds Reverses a Lower Court’s Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Action

Appellate Court Rejects Defendant’s Arguments and holds that Plaintiff Complied with Statutory Condition Precedents to Foreclosure

Recent NY case finds lack of NY form of Certificate of Conformity an Irregularity

Upcoming changes to Debt Validation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021)

Appeals Court of MA reviews Preclusion and Res Judicata in a Foreclosure action

NY Appellate Court finds failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 when mailing of the 90-day notice jointly addressed to two+ borrowers in a single envelope

NY Appellate Court addresses whether Administrative Code of NYC licensing under Section 20-490 applies to Mortgage Plaintiff

NY Hardship Declaration stay extended to January 15, 2022

NY Gov. Hochul announces special session for Legislature to extend eviction moratorium

Authors Name

Adam Friedman (5)
  • Recent NY case finds lack of NY form of Certificate of Conformity an Irregularity
  • Upcoming changes to Debt Validation under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (2021)
  • Appeals Court of MA reviews Preclusion and Res Judicata in a Foreclosure action
  • NY Appellate Court finds failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 when mailing of the 90-day notice jointly addressed to two+ borrowers in a single envelope
  • NY Appellate Court addresses whether Administrative Code of NYC licensing under Section 20-490 applies to Mortgage Plaintiff
Michael Derosa (3)
  • A Good Faith Notice Before Moving For Default
  • No More “Re-Notice” Requirement Westchester and Putnam County
  • How Quickly Can a Mortgagee Complete an Uncontested Foreclosure Action in NY?
Ralph Vartolo (1)
  • Criticism of Cuomo’s Certificate of Merit Law & The Real Effects It Will Have
Zeyad Elgawish (3)
  • The Second Reverses a Lower Court Order Allowing Defendant to File a Responsive Pleading
  • New York’s Appellate Division Holds Reverses a Lower Court’s Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Action
  • Appellate Court Rejects Defendant’s Arguments and holds that Plaintiff Complied with Statutory Condition Precedents to Foreclosure

© 2022 Friedman Vartolo LLP. All Rights Reserved

This website may constitute attorney advertising under the New York Code of Professional Responsibility. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

DESIGNED BY BOFILL TECH