Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Consequences of Imperfect Foreclosure Affirmations
An administrative order issued by the state's chief judge requires counsel for a foreclosing mortgagee to prepare an affirmation establishing the factual accuracy of the documents on which the foreclosure action is based. When the mortgagor has conceded default on the mortgage, what perceived deficiencies in the affirmation preclude issuance of an order of reference and a judgment of foreclosure and sale? The First Department recently faced that issue in Bank of America v. Brannon, NYLJ 11/1/17, p. 22., col. 1, and the issue has also provoked litigation in the Second Department. The import of those cases appears to be that when the mortgagee substantially complies with the administrative order, the mortgagee will be entitled to proceed with the foreclosure.
History and Content of the Administrative Order
In response to allegations of widespread “robosigning” of mortgage documents, former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman issued Administrative Order 548/10 in 2010. The original order was superseded by Administrative Order 431/11, which essentially requires preparation of two affirmations in any residential foreclosure action. Counsel for the foreclosing mortgagee must prepare an affirmation establishing that he or she communicated with a representative of the mortgagee, and that the representative reviewed the documents related to the mortgage for factual accuracy and confirmed the factual accuracy of the allegations in the complaint.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.