Bank of America, N.A. v Hernandez

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bank of America, N.A. v Hernandez 2021 NY Slip Op 32891(U) December 10, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 29200/2009 Judge: Devin P. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2022 10:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 " INDEX NO. 29200/2009 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2022 ~ ' Su pre me Court of the State of New York County of Kings Pan lndc~ Number -~------oc....cc..c...c..-......---29200/2009 91 l1Al\K UF AMERlCA, N ,A, SUCCFSSOR !W ;\-1ERGER TO T,.-\SALLL 8_.\).li( :\ATION,-; 1. ASSOCl,\TlON, ,\S TRUS"ffF, or,. · B1-:t{AI ,HJF SAlL 2005-1 TRUS"I" fL,1', D 400 CDl:N·l"R YWll)I: WAY SiMiVALLl::Y CA 93065, TRIAL DECISION Plaintiff, agaim;t P(·.nrw l lfR};AND£l, RU3f'..JA A. l lfR.NM..-DEl, FrR.S"/" Co l.LC, FJRST SELECT INC. SlJ:c1-;S:SOR TO DISCOVER, MmL.i\).10 FU>-IDING NCC-2 AMERIC\:--J ACCEPTANCF CORP., \1ORTCAGE ELECTRONlC RH;t<;;TR,\ TlON SYSTE\1S, ll\"C. As NOt,,,HNEE FOR COU~TR YWIDE Hm.-rn LOJ\NS, Jt.c., NFW y ORK. ClTY CRlMfl\"Al, CuuzT, NEW YORK CITY E>-1V!RO"-IM!·:t,;·rn1. CONTROL RUARD. NEV,/ YOf{f( CnY f)ARK[i'l,"G VfOLAHONS HUREJ\U, N1::w YORK ST,\ TE DLPART\-1 l·Nl" OF TAXATION A ND Flt-1\NCE, PECWLE' S ALUAl\0-'. FElJER/1.L CRED[T Ul\ 10~, L'.:--JITED S l'i\TES or AMIJl.lCA AC-rn·,G THROUUil Tl 11•: lRS, JOI iN DOE ( SAlD N,"\\,11 •: hEl).ICJ I· !CTIT[OC':i, lT Hl -: [NG THE lNT1 -: r-.TJON OI:-' PLAit..:TlFl-' TO rn~SJG:--J ,\ TC A~Y AN I) .-'\LL OC('!H' Ar-,TS' 0 f-' HIE f'RE.\-ff~f -: s HU ."l(i' f OR£CUJSr:I J (·[[RLJ'-l, AKI) i\~Y PARTIES, CORP{ )R ,\"l'!ONS OR EKTlTU~fi, ff 1\NY, HAVlN(., UR CLAl\111'-"G AN fl',;Tl •: lU~Sl OR LlEN UPON ntE MORTGAUEI) l'lU~MlSES. ), - ., ~ ~ r-,...;, "-'l ~ . ; t.,: c._ \\ eJ ~ ., ·-·- c= >· :.:::: -·r ~ ·. . 0 1-c.: ~ ::.ri::: ___:("'. Pl~_: o:.- "!? ·N..(. ("_1 rr,., -~ ,.·., ~ O~fondants . After trial for the above matter, in which the court had sufficient opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses and the we1ght or the admitted testirnony and exhibit~: the court finds as follows, base<l upon the preponderance of the credible evidence: Introduction Plaintiff conirrienccd this action ugainst defendants lo foreclose on a mortgage issued to Pc:dro 1 of 6 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2022 10:10 AM INDEX NO. 29200/2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2022 and Regina I krnandez that s~cured a Ioan issued to Pedro Hernande;:, To establish prima facic entilJernent to _judgmtnt as a nwtter of !aw in a inortgag_c foredos:u.re adi.Qn, th~ pta~n\.~ ff must produce the mortg,agg, the unp-·&id r..0tc, "-ntl ~v~-denc-c.- or ddmM (CiU,\iartgage. lnc. v /vfcKtn:ie. 161 AD3d )040, l 040 f2J. Dept 20 l s·u. Defendant Hernandez also contends that. becau-,e this is a re-sidentiaf foreclosul'C) Bank of America must also prove that il complied \Vilh RPAP L § 1304 (Bank (4Am .. },/A. v Whemfey, ! 58 AD3d 736, 738 [2d Dept 2018JJ. [ioticc of Default ln 0(der to eMiibEsh dcfau~t, Bank. of Amen.ca mDst prDve that rt compUc<l with the notice of drfault provh:ion in It~ morlgag~ agreement with Pedro and Regina Hernande;,. (JR-me Along CTmp. ({/SA) v Gaber. 100 ADJJ 966, 966-67 [2d Dept 20121). Here, the mongage agreement (stipuJated into evidence us P[aimiff s Exhibit 8} ~tat ts, in paragraph 22: Le rider 111;:.=iy require Jnuncdiare Payment the following conditions ar~ met: rn Full under ihis Section 22 only if ~u ot' (a) 1 fail to keep any promise or agreem~nt made in thb Security Jnstruinent or rh~ Note, 1nduding: but not Hm1tcd to, the ptomi~es to pay the Sums Secured when due, or if another default occurs under this Sccurjty Instrument; (b) Lender sends. ta me, ,n tt\e manner tles.crlbed 1n Sect~on l 5 ot' tnis Sccur'1ty Instrument, a notic.:e Chat stcttes: (I) The promi~e or agreement that J fail~d lo keep or the defrmlt that has occurr~d ~ (2) The action that J mu.s.1 take to ~rw.:..t th~t <lcfauh; (3) A <la\ie b)' ,vhic:h ~ mu:s.1 c.:orrect the default. That date wiU be a1 !ea~t 30 days from the dale on which the notice ,;; given: (4 ) That rf I do not correct the dtfaull by the date Hated in th1;; n(')\,cc, Lendt:I m;:i.y require Immediate Payment In Full, and Lender or another Pcrwri may acquire the Pmp-cr\y by n'i.et..ns o~Tmt:drn,-urc und Suk; 2 2 of 6 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2022 10:10 AM .• NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 INDEX NO. 29200/2009 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2022 (5) That if J meet the canditlfins ~tatcd in St-dion 19 of this Security lm,"trurnent. 1 ,vill have the right to have Lender's enforcement nf thi.s. Security lnstrumcnt stopped and w ha,.,e the Note and rhis Security lnstrument rcmaju fuJiy effective as if Jnunediate Payment in Full had never- been required; and (6) That I have the right in aMy Iav,,suit for Foredosure and Sale \'..:l argue th~t 1 did keep my promises. and agreement5 under the Note and under this Security ln'i-tmme-nt. u.n.d \.0 pr~sem :an)' o\h,,;:r uefMses that i may have~ and {c) 'i d.o not correct the default stated in the notice from L~ndcr by the date stated in rhat notj ce _ The notice of cl.dault ½'as J.dmilted into e.,,kknce as P~ain\.1ff s Exhibit 11, ahriough nor for the pmpl)$~S 0f showing ma1ling. The text of the notice appcar.s. to include the information dcs'.:ribcd ir1 the subparngraphs of paragruph 22 of the mortgage agreement. However, the notice was st:nt only to Pedro Hernandez and riot to Regina Hernandez. Accordingly. the notice does not comply \.Vith the mortgage <.1.grecincnL Plaintiff mu:'il also prove that it s~nt lhe notice to Mr. Hernande:/__ Plaintiff (;latms it tc.$\1mc,ny from the person '""'110 performed the rnaHing, or by tc-:'ilimony about the proc.:edures that un offo;c employs to nrni I doc.;umcnts, or by other documentary proof or mailing (Aurora Loan S(:rvtces. LLC v Vriom:des, 167 AD3d 829, 832 [2d Dept 2018"]; HSBC lJank {.JSA., Nat. /1.rs'n. v O~can , l .54 AD3d 822: 825-26 j2d Dept 20171). PiairJtiff s witness, Zachary Chromiak, testi lied that the CEO of the V!!t1dor retained tq mall this notice previously c-xplained to him the pr{)c~dure for ma) Eng the notice (tr. at 72-81 ). Howes-er. 21s ~ held uur~ng the:tna, of this muttc( Mr. Chro111iak' s teqimony was not sufficienl estah)1sh mailing. Mr. Chromiak was never an t:mpk)yec of Walls and has never seen an emp!oyee of Wal!s perform the mailing procedures. Mr. Chromiak's fomiiiarity with tfo; -~ 3 of 6 lo [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2022 10:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 INDEX NO. 29200/2009 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2022 prciccdures gaini::d in rnnversa.tion frnm the Vf!U<lar•s CEO, whc at')C d"i:d r.N perform the rm11bng, wa'& 11N suilic:rent to establish lhat the mailing occurred (tr. at 84-85). AdditionaUj\ it also ilppears from J\·1r. Chromiak's testimony that be !earned of'Wall.s' mailing procedures not at the time 1he notice was actually mailed, but m~ny yeaVi a.fte-r (id. a\ 75-78.). Complianct wJth RP APL ~_l30J Lastly 1 :\ifr. Hernandez contends. that plaintiff \Vas required to comply with RP APL ~ 1304, As u OOfl..dition fl[ecedet'I\ t0 comn1cridng a f medosure action, RPAPL § l 3 04 requires tl1c mortgage hofdcr to mail to the Jast known ~ddrtss ufthe borrow~r: hy first ciass and hy cenificd or registered mail) a certain forin notice printed vertm.tirri in the Wltute (Wells F<.ffp;n Bank, l"-i.A. v Monm) 168 A.D3d , 128, 112812d l>ept 2019-); Aurora Loan Seryices, I.LC v Vrionedes. 167 AD3d 829) 832 [2d Dept 20 ! St ffel!s Fargo Bank, NA. v Lewczuk, I 5.1 AD3d 890. 892 pd Dept 201 7]). Th~ nolice rnust be mailed at lea.,,,_t 90 Jayt before C(.~mme~16ng, the fon:.ck•'s>\.m-: acfa}n (A-fornn, ~ 68 AD3d at l l28J. Bank of 1\n1erica argues that this statute doe~ not apply becaw;e th<: loan was not a "home lo~.m)' as defined by that swlutc in effccl at lhc tim~ Bank of Amerka 1;ornmc:n(;cd th1s action. Bank of A1uerica claims that 1he loan docs not meet the definition bec.;au~e the amount of the loan exceeded cerrain conforming lnan limits. In support, Bank oi'AmericH submitted Exhibit l 5, \-vhich w.:t~ a printout of a v..·cbsit~ from the i:•,YJerat H(}using f,'i)1anc:c: Agency showjng conforming loan llmits for single-family homes bused on the year of the Ioan and the number of unit<; in the building (betv,,...een l and 4 units). Bank of America'-, witness testified that the building WU<:i ~1. single-family hom(:, bm d~d nu tes11t: abou11be number of units in the bu!lding (tr. at 107). However, the Department of Buildjngs) printout c:ibout the property, admitted as 4 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2022 10:10 AM ... NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 INDEX NO. 29200/2009 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2022 Exhibit 16, suggests that the bui1J.ing (..:Ontains. a tingle unit. The plainttff in (./ S Bank Tr., l•./A_ v Sadiquc ( 178 AD}d 984 [2d Dept 2019D ma<le a sin11lar argument. 1n that case~ Jjkc Bank or Amerka ht:re~ the plain.tiff suhmitttd s~m~l~r mstorica) -·confonning~~ loan Emfrs from th~ websire of the FederaJ National Mortgage A.~sociation. The Second Department hclJ that this information was not sufficient evid~ncc: of lirn\~S fN ··a 'cnnf(')Tming' ~oan und.~r former RPAPL l 304 (5) (bf (id. at 986). The plaintiff in Sadiq1u1 aiso did nol submil any evidence as to any Fannie Mac limits for ''jumbo" mortg.agcs us (1 Cthe da~e or or,gh,aticn Df the iubj'¢ct \oan Ud-). Accon.lrngly, the Second Department concluded that there w~s no proof that RP APL 1304 did not apply (Id.). Here, as i.n Sc,dique, Bat\k ot· Amed\°:'i\ dh.i n0t ptv\'C \he \1mlt~ it offered met the deli:nicion of a '~non~confonnlng·· loan und~r form~r RP APL§ 1304(5)(b) or any Iimits for jumbo mortgages. at the timt. It is aiso \.Vorlb Mttng d\at fonn~r Rr AP\, § \ 304 required no\lcc for ""-,ubprlme ho inc loans) 1 and "non-traditional home loan{'. Bank of American submitted no evident~ about \Vhethcr the subject loan met the criteria for thc.s.t;;: tyres of team,_ Ac'<:ord,ngJy, l fin cl that nctic:e pursuanl lo RT-' APL § ] 304 ,.,.,..as required. Bccaus~ the panic~ stipulated thut Bank of Americ:u did not send the required notice under section 13 04, Bank of America faik.d to ~0r1.1,µ\y with the Slolt\llnry wnditiDns precedent to a mortgage frn·eclosure ac..::tion. Furthermore, there seems to be no dispute that tUs rarm anJ mortgage was used to purchase prop~rty tltal wa-:; clearly meant to be u½etl ~1 a home. There is also no JispLJtc aboui the policy for requiring notice lo the debtor before ccmrncncing a residential foreclosure aeliou. Tlwre i~ no reason that the size of the loan s~\(mld hav~ any be·~ritlg on thi~ p(Jlicy or the need for the dthtor to recci vc notice of possible foreclosure. Thus, Mr. I Iernandez, !ike all debtor5, s 5 of 6 [*FILED: 6] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/10/2022 10:10 AM INDEX NO. 29200/2009 NYSCEF-~ DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2022 slhldd h?tvt. rc~eiv¢d notice prior io the commenctment of thb action. For the foregoing reak,rn,, Bank of Amerk,/s daims again~t Pedro and Rcgrna ~ "Hernande;.,;, together with the Jerivative ciaims against the remaining dc_fendants, arc dismissed. < / _ l)ec.£._m her 10._2_0 2 1 DA'TE ,· DEVl!'ii P. COHEN" Jus'l.1ce c:,f the:: Snpreme Court -- ,,. •• '¥- (J 6 of 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.