Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. v. Claypoole

4 Citing cases

  1. JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Aspilaire

    188 A.D.3d 850 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination that Flagstar's interest in the subject property was protected by its status as a bona fide encumbrancer for value under Real Property Law § 266, since the satisfaction of mortgage executed and recorded before Flagstar's issuance of a loan with respect to the subject property was determined to have been forged and was void, not merely voidable. A discharge or satisfaction of a mortgage is void at its inception when it is executed and recorded by one who has no interest in the mortgage (seeOneWest Bank v. Schiffman , 175 A.D.3d 1543, 1545–1546, 109 N.Y.S.3d 365 ; LNV Corp. v. Sorrento , 154 A.D.3d 840, 841, 62 N.Y.S.3d 181 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole , 150 A.D.3d 505, 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 ; see alsoFaison v. Lewis , 25 N.Y.3d 220, 223, 10 N.Y.S.3d 185, 32 N.E.3d 400 ). Accordingly, the forged satisfaction of mortgage in this case was not entitled to any legal effect, and Flagstar's encumbrance based on it is not protected (seeFaison v. Lewis , 25 N.Y.3d at 224, 10 N.Y.S.3d 185, 32 N.E.3d 400 ; Marden v. Dorthy , 160 N.Y. 39, 54 N.E. 726 ; OneWest Bank v. Schiffman , 175 A.D.3d at 1545–1546, 109 N.Y.S.3d 365 ; Weiss v. Phillips , 157 A.D.3d 1, 10–11, 65 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; LNV Corp. v. Sorrento , 154 A.D.3d at 841, 62 N.Y.S.3d 181 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole , 150 A.D.3d at 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 ; ABN AMRO Mtge. Group, Inc. v. Stephens , 91 A.D.3d 801, 803, 939 N.Y.S.2d 70 ).

  2. OneWest Bank v. Schiffman

    175 A.D.3d 1543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 14 times

    In any event, contrary to the defendants' contention, the action was not time-barred. The satisfaction of mortgage executed and recorded by Fremont was void at its inception since Fremont had no interest in the mortgage it purported to discharge, having already assigned it to IndyMac prior to executing the discharge of mortgage (seeLNV Corp. v. Sorrento, 154 A.D.3d 840 62 N.Y.S.3d 181 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole, 150 A.D.3d 505, 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 ). Since "a statute of limitations cannot validate what is void at its inception," the statute of limitations cannot act as a bar to this action to nullify the erroneous mortgage satisfaction ( Faison v. Lewis, 25 N.Y.3d 220, 230, 10 N.Y.S.3d 185, 32 N.E.3d 400 ; seeLNV Corp. v. Sorrento, 154 A.D.3d at 841, 62 N.Y.S.3d 181 ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole, 150 A.D.3d at 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 ).

  3. LNV Corp. v. Sorrento

    154 A.D.3d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    Contrary to Sorrento's contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the action was not time-barred. The discharge of mortgage executed and recorded by MERS was void at its inception since MERS had no interest in the mortgage it purported to discharge, having already assigned it to American Home Mortgage prior to executing the discharge of mortgage (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole, 150 A.D.3d 505, 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 ; cf. Faison v. Lewis, 25 N.Y.3d 220, 223, 10 N.Y.S.3d 185, 32 N.E.3d 400 ). Since "a statute of limitations cannot validate what is void at its inception," the statute of limitations did not act as a bar to this action ( Faison v. Lewis, 25 N.Y.3d at 230, 10 N.Y.S.3d 185, 32 N.E.3d 400 ; see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole, 150 A.D.3d at 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 ).

  4. Beneficial Homeowner Serv. v. Keybank

    177 A.D.3d 1253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    The assignment to KeyBank, however, was executed by plaintiff's vice-president, and plaintiff failed to establish that its vice-president acted without plaintiff's authority. Inasmuch as plaintiff presented no evidence supporting the contention that the assignment was unauthorized or invalid, plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that, at the time KeyBank executed and recorded the satisfaction, KeyBank lacked any interest in the mortgages (cf. LNV Corp. v. Sorrento, 154 A.D.3d 840, 841, 62 N.Y.S.3d 181 [2d Dept. 2017] ; Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Claypoole, 150 A.D.3d 505, 506, 55 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2017] ). Where, as here, a document is filed by mistake as opposed to by forgery or lack of authority, the document is voidable and thus subject to the statute of limitations (seeFaison, 25 N.Y.3d at 224–225, 10 N.Y.S.3d 185, 32 N.E.3d 400 ).