HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Aschmoneit
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 21, 2016
Supreme Court, Orange County
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Plaintiff,
against
Patricia Aschmoneit, Thomas Aschmoneit, et al., Defendants.
6707/2015
Counsel for Plaintiff: Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, PC
Counsel for Defendant Aschmoneit: Douglas M. Jones, Esq.
No appearance for other Defendants.
Maria S. Vazquez-Doles, J.
The following papers numbered 1 - 20 were read on Plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior Order, for a summary judgment, to appoint a referee, and to amend the caption;
Notice of Motion/Affirmation of Douglas A. Bass, Esq., dated 6/23/16/Affidavit of Nathan Abeln, servicer, dated 5/26/16/Exhibits A - J 1 - 13
Affirmation in Opposition /Douglas M. Jones, Esq. Dated 8/15/16 Exhibits 1 - 5 14-20
Procedural History
This is a foreclosure action which was commenced by Summons and Complaint on September 1, 2015, by HSBC Bank USA, N.A.. Defendants were served the Summons and Complaint and Certificate of Merit of the Plaintiff, and the only Defendant that served an Answer was Patricia Aschmoneit on September 24, 2015. No other Defendants answered or appeared in this action. Both Plaintiff and Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit participated in court mediated settlement conferences from November 16, 2015 until January 25, 2016, and after settlement was not reached, it was subsequently transferred to a trial part.
Three months later, the court sent the parties a Foreclosure Action Scheduling Order to appear on April 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., stating that any applications for relief needed to be submitted to the court on or before that next conference date. It further ordered that if Plaintiff [*2]failed to timely submit its application for relief on or before that conference date ... that it may result in dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR §202.27, unless an adjournment based on good cause is obtained.
On April 27, 2016, plaintiff's counsel appeared for the foreclosure conference and stated that he was unable to obtain an Affidavit of Merit from Plaintiff so that he could make the application for a Summary Judgment Motion timely. As such, since Plaintiff was not ready to proceed at the scheduled conference, the court dismissed the action, pursuant to its notice in the Foreclosure Scheduling Conference Order, pursuant to NYCRR §202.27.
Plaintiff now brings this motion for the following relief: 1) to vacate the prior dismissal of the action, dated April 27, 2016; 2) to award Plaintiff's Summary Judgment against Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit, pursuant to CPLR 3212; to strike the Answer interposed by Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit; 3) to award Plaintiff Default Judgment against all non-answering Defendants; 4) to appoint a Referee to compute the total sums due and owing to plaintiff; 5) to amend the caption to substitute HSBC USA, N.A. as Plaintiff to Federal National Mortgage Association; and 6) for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Defendant, Patricia Aschmoneit, by way of her attorney, Douglas M. Jones, submitted an Affirmation in Opposition.
Factual Background
First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rochester was the original lender of the note signed by the Defendants Patricia Aschmoneit and Thomas Aschmoneit on October 23, 1996, in the amount of $150,000.00, to be paid in monthly payments of $1,444.33 and at a rate of interest of 8.125%. Said Note is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Motion and an undated Allonge is affixed and endorsed in blank. Plaintiff's Exhibits B through F contain assignments of mortgage, consolidation agreements and a Certificate of Merger in chronological order as follows: By and between Patricia and Thomas Aschmoneit to First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rochester dated 10/23/1996; a Certificate of Merger from the State of New York Banking Department dated 3/7/1997 merging First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rochester with Midland Mortgage Corporation; a Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement between Patricia Aschmoneit and Thomas Aschmoneit to Marine Midland Mortgage Corporation in the amount of $150,000.00 dated 03/13/1998; a new note and mortgage between Patricia Aschmoneit and Thomas Aschmoneit to Marine Midland Mortgage Corporation dated 03/13/1998 and endorsed in blank; an assignment by successor from First Federal Savings and Loan of Rochester to Marine Midland Mortgage Corporation dated 3/25/1998; a Corporate Secretary's Certificate evidencing that Marine Midland Mortgage Corporation will be known as HSBC Mortgage Corporation effective 3/29/1999; a Corporate assignment of mortgage dated 3/23/2012 from HSBC Mortgage Corporation to HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; and an assignment of mortgage from HSBC Bank USA, N.A. to Federal National Mortgage Association, dated 12/17/2015.
Discussion
Plaintiff argues that the Court's dismissal was improper, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §202.27, because the Plaintiff's counsel appeared at the conference; therefore, the court did not have the discretion to dismiss the action. The court has considered Plaintiff's argument and finds it is without merit. According to 22 NYCRR § 202.27, it states, in pertinent part, "At any scheduled [*3]call of a calendar or at any conference, if all parties do not appear and proceed or announce their readiness to proceed immediately ..." Plaintiff not only needed to appear but proceed or announce its readiness to proceed, for which Plaintiff announced that it was not ready to proceed on April 27, 2016 because it did not obtain an Affidavit of Merit from its client so that it could make its Summary Judgment motion timely. The Court noted that Plaintiff had four months since it left the settlement conference part to put in its motion, that it never sought an adjournment of the appearance date nor did it outline what diligent efforts were taken to obtain the required Affidavit of Merit from their representative. Therefore, because of Plaintiff's inability to announce its readiness to proceed, the court was correct in dismissing the case without prejudice. The court has the discretion to make such order as is just and to control its calendar.
Plaintiff further requests that the court vacate the dismissal of the action that occurred on April 27, 2016 and substitute the Plaintiff HSBC USA, N.A. with Federal National Mortgage Association as the Plaintiff in its stead. CPLR §5015 governs the vacatur of a judgment of dismissal within one year of its application. A party can move to vacate a default if; (1) it is excusable and (2) there is a meritorious claim or defense. [See, CPLR §5015 (a)(1)]. Plaintiff claims that it appeared in court on the date of the conference, but needed to obtain an Affidavit of Merit from its client before it could file its Summary Judgment motion and that is the reason why it could not proceed. On its motion for a vacatur of the dismissal, the Plaintiff fails to provide an excusable reason why it failed to be ready to proceed and why it believes it remains to have a meritorious claim. Upon its submissions and for the reason below, the court is clear why the Plaintiff was not ready to proceed and why it would not have ever been ready to proceed.
The record demonstrates that this action was commenced by the filing of the Summons and Complaint on September 1, 2015, and it was served on the Defendants along with the Certificate of Merit from the Plaintiff HSBC USA, N.A. on September 24, 2015. Plaintiff admits that it assigned its mortgage from HSBC USA, N.A. to Federal National Mortgage Association after the action was commenced and said assignment did not take place until December 17, 2015 (Plaintiff's Exhibit E). Plaintiff also admits through the Affidavit of Nathan Abeln, Foreclosure Specialist, of Seterus, Inc., as subservicer for Federal National Mortgage Association in support of its motion, that it assigned the Note to Federal National Mortgage Association although no documentary proof of the assignment was provided to the court. Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit counters that although Plaintiff has a reason for not being ready to proceed, it is not an excusable one and it also does not have a meritorious claim because she was never given a certificate of Merit by Federal National Mortgage Association at the time that she was served the Summons and Complaint, a requirement, pursuant to CPLR §3012-b because that entity was not the creditor at the time of commencement of this action.
The court agrees with Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit. Plaintiff HSBC USA, N.A. properly provided Defendants with the Certificate of Merit when it initiated the action because it was the creditor at the time of commencement. However, along with its assignments of the mortgage and note post commencement, the Plaintiff cannot seek to assign its lawsuit, simply by asking to substitute the Plaintiff and bypassing the requirements under CPLR §3012-b from a new creditor. Plaintiff HSBC USA, N.A. admits in this motion that it assigned the mortgage to Federal National Mortgage Association post commencement and that the assignee (new creditor) would never be able to comply with CPLR §3012-b because it states in pertinent part:
(a) In any residential foreclosure action involving a home loan, ... in which the defendant is a resident of the property which is subject to foreclosure, the complaint shall be accompanied by a certificate, signed by the attorney for the plaintiff, certifying that the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case and that, based on the consultation of the representatives of plaintiff identified in the certificate and the attorneys review of the documents, ..., to the best of attorney's knowledge, information and belief there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of such action and that the plaintiff is currently the creditor entitled to enforce rights under such documents.
Plaintiff's counsel must have known this fact at the foreclosure conference, dated April 27, 2016, and knew it could not provide the court with the requisite Affidavit because it was for a different creditor that was not the Plaintiff in this action. Additionally, Plaintiff knew this fact for over a year and instead of filing a stipulation of discontinuance on its action once it admittedly assigned the mortgage and note on December 17, 2015, it chose instead, to remain on the calendar for over a year after the assignments and continue to represent to the court that it was a proper plaintiff. Therefore, this Plaintiff although it has a reason why it could not proceed, it was not an excusable reason.
Additionally, Plaintiff does not provide documentary proof of the assignment of the note to Federal National Mortgage Association with this motion, which gives rise to Defendant's claim as to who has standing. Plaintiff HSBC USA, N.A., only provided the assignment of the mortgage although Plaintiff asserts, via the Affidavit of Nathan Abeln, mentioned above, that Federal National Mortgage Association holds the note also.
It is well settled that "either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (US Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 AD3d at 854, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578; see Bank of NY v. Silverberg, 86 AD3d at 281, 926 N.Y.S. 2d 532)." Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burke, 125, AD3d 765, 766 [2d Dept 2015]. The Court finds that Plaintiff has also failed to state a meritorious claim for vacatur of the dismissal of this foreclosure action as it is no longer the holder of the mortgage nor the holder of the note and the Court now knows that it is no longer a proper Plaintiff against the Defendants, nor was it a proper Plaintiff on the date of the Court's dismissal on April 27, 2016, by its own admission. As a result, the court denies Plaintiff's relief in its entirety with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the following relief: 1) to vacate the prior dismissal of the action, dated April 27, 2016; 2) to award Plaintiff's Summary Judgment against Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit, pursuant to CPLR 3212; to strike the Answer interposed by Defendant Patricia Aschmoneit; 3) to award Plaintiff Default Judgment against all non-answering Defendants; 4) to appoint a Referee to compute the total sums due and owing to plaintiff; 5) to amend the caption to substitute HSBC USA, N.A. as Plaintiff to Federal National Mortgage Association; and 6) for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper is DENIED with prejudice.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
Any matters not specifically addressed have been considered and denied.
Dated: December 21, 2016
Goshen, New York
HON. MARIA S. VAZQUEZ-DOLES, J.S.C.
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.
