Reverse Mtge. Solutions, Inc. v Curren
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 26, 2017
Supreme Court, Chemung County
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff, vs.
against
Lawrence Curren, aka Lawrence E. Curren, et al., Defendants.
2016-1615
Appearances by Counsel: Loudie Valcourt, Esq. for Plaintiff, Phillip J. Barton, Esq. for Defendant
Judith F. O'Shea, J.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On or about February 11, 2009, Defendant entered into a "reverse mortgage" agreement with World Alliance Financial Corporation. The subject property of the mortgage lien is 64 Rolling Acres Road, Pine City, New York. On or about April 17, 2010, the mortgage was assigned to Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. On or about July 18, 2010, the mortgage was then assigned to Plaintiff.
The instant action was initiated by the filing of a Summons and Complaint onJune 8, 2016. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant defaulted on the terms of the mortgage by failing to pay real estate taxes in February, 2016. Under the terms of the Note and Mortgage, Plaintiff declared the loan in default, and due in full in an amount of $152,524.78 plus interest, disbursements, and other fees.
A request for Judicial Intervention was filed with the Court on May 30, 2017. On that [*2]same date, Plaintiff filed a motion for an Order of Reference, requesting that the Court appoint a Referee. Defendant opposes Plaintiff's motion, alleging that Plaintiff proceeded without the completion of a mandatory settlement conference, as required by CPLR § 3408.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
/i>
In response to the ongoing foreclosure crisis, the New York State Legislature enacted a number of procedural and substantive protections for homeowners defending a foreclosure action involving their primary residence. See Independence Bank v Valentine, 113 AD3d 62 (2nd Dept. 2013). Among these new protections was the enactment of CPLR §3408, which, in its original form, provided for a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference in a residential foreclosure action involving a high-cost home loan or a subprime or nontraditional home loan, as those terms were statutorily defined. The statute was later amended to apply to all residential foreclosure actions involving a primary residence. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Casanova, 43 Misc 3d 582 (Sup. Ct. 2014).
On April 20, 2017, CPLR §3408 was further amended, in that the phrase "other than a reverse mortgage" was deleted as an exception to the definition of a home loan in RPAPL §1304. Additionally, RPAPL §1304 was amended to include language stating "A home loan shall include a loan secured by a reverse mortgage . . .." The effective date of this legislation was set retroactively to December 21, 2016. See Laws 2017, ch 58, § 3.
CPLR §3408 and its implementing regulation, Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court §202.12-a state that residential mortgage foreclosure actions that meet the definition of a home loan, shall be scheduled for a settlement conference within sixty (60) days of the filing of a Request for Judicial Intervention. With the 2017 amendments, this now also applies to residential foreclosures on reverse mortgages.
In the case at bar, a mandatory foreclosure settlement conference, pursuant to CPLR §3408 has not been held.
It is therefore,
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for an Order of Reference is denied, without prejudice.
This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER
Dated:
________________________________
Hon. Judith F. O'Shea
Supreme Court Justice
The parties listed below have been mailed a copy of this
Order on ______________by ____________________.
Original: Samantha A. Pike, Chief Clerk
Supreme & County Courts
Copy:Loudie Valcourt, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Phillip J. Barton, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
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.
