Sunday, November 21, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department, held in an unsigned ruling that the "severe sanction…was not authorized by any statute or rule…nor was the plaintiff given fair warning that such a sanction was even under consideration." "The reasoning of the Supreme Court that its equitable powers included the authority to cancel the mortgage and note was
erroneous, since there was no acceptable basis for relieving the homeowner of her contractual obligation to the bank," - IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 17926/05.
erroneous, since there was no acceptable basis for relieving the homeowner of her contractual obligation to the bank," - IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 17926/05.
Click here to read a letter from the chair of the Real Property Law Section of the New York State Bar Association to Mr. Paul Lawis of the New York State Office of Court Administration. This letter called for changes to the Affirmation Requirement in foreclosures. As can be seen from my previous post, many of the calls from the chair of the section went unanswered. More importantly, I disagree with many of the chair's statements, as do many other attorneys who question how such a letter could be written without a vote. Specifically, the chair discusses how this requirement violates the attorney-client privilege of confidentiality. Yet, if he would read the ethics rules for attorneys, click here to read, he would learn that not perpetrating a fraud on the court trumps that rule.
