Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While the new omnibus foreclosure law (L.2010, ch.73), effective Dec. 20, 2016, can be presented as needed protection for borrowers and citizens generally, it adds expense, delay and confusion for any foreclosing lender. The analysis below highlights some of the questionable aspects of the new statute.
Judgment and Sale
The statute amends RPAPL ' 1351(1) to require that foreclosure sale be held within 90 days of the date of the judgment. Aside from presupposing that it is lenders who volitionally delay sales (a point strongly disputed), this fails to account for realities of foreclosure process. First, a judgment is not even available to a foreclosing plaintiff until entered. Depending upon the venue, this can be weeks or months after the date of the judgment, even when the plaintiff has diligently sought entry of the judgment.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?