Thank you to all who attended our Foreclosure Arsenal class at the Hyatt in Hauppauge sponsored by First American and offering 2 CLE credits for attorneys & to the attendees of the Foreclosure and the Economy class at Chateau Briand in Carle Place sponsored by First Allied Home Mortgage and offering 3 CE credits to real estate agents.

Now its time for our students to spread their knowledge and help Long Island's struggling homeowners to learn their rights.

Following up on a previous blog, the New York State Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint on February 3, 2012 against the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) and several large investment banks alleging, among other things, that the institutions engaged in deceptive practices in foreclosure actions throughout the state through their usage of MERS; including initiating said actions without the requisite legal authority. A little more than a month later, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup agreed to pay $5.9 million, and Ally Financial agreed to pay $1.25, to partially settle the suit. As per the terms of the settlement, none of the above banks admitted to engaging in deceptive practices, nor did they deny that they did not.

We will continue to monitor and update you accordingly, as the New York State Attorney General’s Office will continue its case in an effort to obtain damages related to the banks' use of MERS.

Real Estate Broker and Salesperson violations are now published by the New York State Department of State and can be found by a search on their website. CLICK HERE for access.

In the past, licensing settlements, contained in consent orders, were kept private. Previously available for public viewing were decisions on adjudicated licensing issues, pursuant to a “hearing” with an administrative law judge on the same. Now, consent orders are also available for viewing, which are settlements between the broker/agent and the State. Yet, the initial complaints and other documents are still kept private and are unavailable to the public by way of an online search.

This newsworthy happening may create a benefit to New York State Brokers and Salespersons. The now-public consent orders make many more prototypes of licensing violations available. Specifically, brokers and agents should use the same to their advantage by reviewing such decisions and consent orders to enable them to know “what not to do” in practice.

The fee that Suffolk County charges for verifying that the description of real property being bought, sold, mortgaged, etc. corresponds to the tax map numbers to which it has been identified has been increased from $30 to $60 effective April 2, 2012.

This is a mandatory fee for recording and will increase the cost of all real estate transactions within the County. Previously, the fee was $30 for the first and $20 for additional verifications.

To learn more about what verification is in Suffolk County, click here.

In December of 2011, the previous County Executive vetoed this legislation. To read the veto and the legislation, click here. Now, its enacted.

As discussed below, commingling security deposits with personal funds can have great ramifications to both the tenant and landlord in actions involving disputes over the same.

In Band v. Peters, the tenant entered into a residential lease with the landlord and timely paid both the security and utility deposits pursuant to the terms of the lease. After vacating the subject premises according to the agreed term, the landlord did not return the security and utility deposits. The tenant then brought an action against the landlord alleging, among other claims, that the landlord commingled both deposits with his personal funds. Further, and in violation of the lease and General Obligations Law (“GOL”) §7-103, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to notify him of the name and address of the bank into which both deposits were made pursuant to the terms of the lease. Additionally, the lease provided for the return of the security deposit within forty-five (45) days following the termination of the lease.

The landlord disputed the above claims and averred that the tenant breached the terms of the lease and therefore, forfeited the return of his security deposit. The tenant countered that even if the Court found that he breached the terms of the lease, there were no deposits that could be forfeited because the landlord commingled the deposits prior to any alleged breach.

The Court found that the landlord did in fact deposit the security and utility deposits into his personal account, rather than holding both deposits in trust for the tenant pursuant to GOL §7-103. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate return of both deposits with interest, plus attorney’s fees (pursuant to the terms of the lease).

Landlords and tenants should be aware of the above as the two (2) relatively “minor” errors committed by the landlord, which no doubt will continue to occur in the ordinary course of business, can be of great significance to both parties.