From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Lituchy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 29, 1990
161 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Summary

noting that "the failure to record the mortgage and pay the tax does not render the mortgage and note unenforceable. Thus, Commonwealth [plaintiff to whom note and mortgage were assigned] may be entitled to obtain a judgment on the debt simply by paying the required tax any time prior to judgment or final order.."

Summary of this case from In re Rejman

Opinion

May 29, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane S. Lebedeff, J.).


On February 7, 1985, defendants, in connection with a $75,000 loan from Intercounty Mortgagee Corporation, executed an adjustable-rate promissory note secured by a mortgage on certain realty they owned in Belle Harbor, New York. The note was payable in monthly payments and was to be paid in full by March 1, 2015. The mortgage and note were later assigned for value to Roosevelt Savings Bank. Defendants defaulted on their obligations under the loan and this action was commenced. Thereafter, defendants sold the mortgaged property and Roosevelt Savings Bank assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company.

It is undisputed that neither the original mortgage nor the subsequent assignments was ever recorded and that no mortgage recording tax was paid as required by section 253 Tax of the Tax Law.

Section 258 (1) of the Tax Law provides in pertinent part that "[n]o judgment or final order in any action or proceeding shall be made for the foreclosure or the enforcement of any mortgage which is subject to any tax imposed by this article or of any debt or obligation secured by any such mortgage, unless the taxes imposed by this article shall have been paid".

While plaintiff Commonwealth argues that the promissory note executed by the defendants was separate from the mortgage, review thereof shows that the note specifically refers to the subject property and states that it is secured by the mortgage. Therefore, payment of the required taxes is necessary before a judgment on the underlying debt can be granted to the plaintiffs. Since section 258 Tax of the Tax Law does not create the obligation to record a mortgage, the failure to record the mortgage and pay the tax does not render the mortgage and note unenforceable. (Rathe v. Adirondack Concepts, 131 A.D.2d 81, 85; see, Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Nicholas, 144 App. Div. 95, 98-99.) Thus, Commonwealth may be entitled to obtain a judgment on the debt simply by paying the required tax any time prior to judgment or final order. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Nicholas, supra; see also, Matter of Central Hanover Bank Trust Co. v. 42 Broadway Realty Corp., 172 Misc. 606, 612.)

The complaint insofar as it asserted a cause of action on behalf of Roosevelt Savings Bank was properly dismissed since that bank received value for its assignment and, as assignor, no longer has standing to sue on the debt. (Nichol v. Royal Natl. Bank, 40 A.D.2d 660.)

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Lituchy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 29, 1990
161 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

noting that "the failure to record the mortgage and pay the tax does not render the mortgage and note unenforceable. Thus, Commonwealth [plaintiff to whom note and mortgage were assigned] may be entitled to obtain a judgment on the debt simply by paying the required tax any time prior to judgment or final order.."

Summary of this case from In re Rejman
Case details for

Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Lituchy

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. ALLAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 29, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 786

Citing Cases

U.S. Bank N.A. v. V.M.E.P. Corp.

To the extent defendants V.M.E.P. Corp. and Chetram assert, as a sixth affirmative defense, that the claims…

Wilmington Trust Co. v. Burger King Corp.

As a result, as assignor, plaintiff no longer has any interest in the Day loans. Superior Brassiere Co. v.…