Tag Archives: Article 3

Possession of Note Confers Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

Jupiter.Aurora.HST.UV

Dale Whitman posted this discussion of Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Taylor, 2015 WL 3616293 (N.Y. Ct. App., June 11, 2015) on the DIRT listserv:

There is nothing even slightly surprising about this decision, except that it sweeps away a lot of confused and irrelevant language found in decisions of the Appellate Division over the years. The court held simply holds (like nearly all courts that have considered the issue in recent years) that standing to foreclose a mortgage is conferred by having possession of the promissory note. Neither possession of the mortgage itself nor any assignment of the mortgage is necessary. “[T]he note was transferred to [the servicer] before the commencement of the foreclosure action — that is what matters.” And once a note is transferred, … “the mortgage passes as an incident to the note.” Here, there was a mortgage assignment, the validity of which the borrower attacked, but the attack made no difference; “The validity of the August 2009 assignment of the mortgage is irrelevant to [the servicer’s] standing.”

The opinion in Aurora makes it clear that prior Appellate Division statements are simply incorrect and confused when they suggest that standing would be conferred by an assignment of the mortgage without delivery of the note. See, e.g., GRP Loan LLC v. Taylor 95 A.D.3d at 1174, 945 N.Y.S.2d 336; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Codio, 94 A.D.3d 1040, 1041, 943 N.Y.S.2d 545 [2d Dept 2012].) For an excellent analysis of why these decisions are wrong, see Bank of New York Mellon v. Deane, 970 N.Y.S.2d 427  (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013).

The Aurora decision implicitly rejects such cases as Erobobo, which suppose that the failure to comply with a Pooling and Servicing Agreement would somehow prevent the servicer from foreclosing. In the present case, the loan was securitized in 2006, but the note was delivered to the servicer on May 20, 2010, only four days before filing the foreclosure action. This presented no problem at all the court. If the servicer had possession at the time of the filing of the case (as it did), it had standing. (I must concede, however, that the rejection is only implicit, since the Erobobo theory was not argued in Aurora.)

If there is a weakness in the Aurora decision, it is its failure to determine whether the note was negotiable, and (assuming it was) to analyze the application UCC Article 3’s “person entitled to enforce” language. But this is not much of a criticism, since it is very likely that under New York law, the right to enforce would be transferred by delivery of the note to the servicer even if the note were nonnegotiable.

It has taken the Court of Appeals a long time to get around to cleaning up this area of the law, but its work is exactly on target.

Should The Mortgage Follow The Note?

Posted on by

The financial crisis and the foreclosure crisis have pushed many scholars to take a fresh look at all sorts of aspects of the housing finance system. John Patrick Hunt has added to this growing body of literature with a posting to SSRN, Should The Mortgage Follow The Note?. It is an interesting and important article, taking a a fresh look at the legal platitude, “the mortgage follows the note” and asking — should it?!? The abstract reads,

The law of mortgage assignment has taken center stage amidst foreclosure crisis, robosigning scandal, and controversy over the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. Yet a concept crucially important to mortgage assignment law, the idea that “the mortgage follows the note,” apparently has never been subjected to a critical analysis in a law review.

This Article makes two claims about that proposition, one positive and one normative. The positive claim is that it has been much less clear than typically assumed that the mortgage follows the note, in the sense that note transfer formalities trump mortgage transfer formalities. “The mortgage follows the note” is often described as a well-established principle of law, when in fact considerable doubt has attended the proposition at least since the middle of the last century.

The normative claim is that it is not clear that the mortgage should follow the note. The Article draws on the theoretical literature of filing and recording to show that there is a case that mortgage assignments should be subject to a filing rule and that “the mortgage follows the note,” to the extent it implies that transferee interests should be protected without filing, should be abandoned.

Whether mortgage recording should in fact be abandoned in favor of the principle “the mortgage follows the note” turns on the resolution of a number of empirical questions. This Article identifies key empirical questions that emerge from its application of principles from the theoretical literature on filing and recording to the specific case of mortgages.

The article does not answer the core question that it asks, but it certainly demonstrates that it is worth answering.

(Non-)Enforcement of Securitized Mortgage Loans

Posted on by

Professors Neil Cohen and Dale Whitman, two important scholars who know their way around the UCC and mortgage law, will take on a highly contested topic in an upcoming ABA Professors’ Corner webinar: “Ownership, Transfer, and Enforcement of Securitized Mortgage Loans.” I blogged a bit about this topic a couple of days ago, in relation to Adam Levitin’s new article. There is a lot of misinformation floating around the blogosphere relating to this topic, so I encourage readers to register.

The full information on this program is as follows:

Professors’ Corner is a FREE monthly webinar, sponsored by the ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section’s Legal Education and Uniform Law Group.  On the second Wednesday of each month, a panel of law professors discusses recent cases or issues of interest to real estate practitioners and scholars.

December 2013 Professors’ Corner
“Ownership, Transfer, and Enforcement of Securitized Mortgage Loans”
Profs. Neil Cohen and Dale Whitman
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
12:30pm Eastern/11:30am Cental/9:30am Pacific
Register for this FREE program at https://ambar.org/ProfessorsCorner

Our nation’s courts have been swamped with litigation involving the foreclosure of securitized mortgage loans.  Much of this litigation involves the appropriate interaction of the Uniform Commercial Code and state foreclosure law. Because few foreclosure lawyers and judges are UCC experts, the outcomes of the reported cases have reflected a significant degree of uncertainty or confusion.

In addition, much litigation has been triggered by poor practices in the securitization of mortgage loans, such as robo-signing and the failure to transfer loans into a securitized trust within the time period required by the IRS REMIC rules.  This litigation has likewise produced conflicting case outcomes.  In particular, recent decisions have reflected some disagreement regarding whether a mortgagor — who is not a party to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that governs the securitized trust that holds the mortgage — can successfully defend a foreclosure by challenging the validity of the assignment of the mortgage to a securitized trust.

Our speakers for the December program will bring some much-needed clarity to these issues.  Our speakers are Prof. Neil B. Cohen, the Jeffrey D. Forchelli Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, and Prof. Dale A. Whitman, the James E Campbell Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law.  Prof. Cohen is the Research Director of the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code, and a principal contributor to the November 2011 PEB Report, “Application of the Uniform Commercial Code to Selected Issues Relating to Mortgage Notes.” Prof. Whitman is the co-Reporter for the Restatement (Third) of Property — Mortgages, and the co-author of the pre-eminent treatise on Real Estate Finance Law.

Please join us for this program.  You may register at https://ambar.org/ProfessorsCorner.

Deane Finds Us East of Eden

Posted on by

Last week, I discussed a NYLJ article about the “Show Me The Note” argument in New York. The article discussed a recent case, Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Deane, 2013 Slip Op. 23244 (Sup. Ct. Kings Country July 11, 2013). Brad and I have earlier noted that “many scholars and leaders of the bar are befuddled by courts’ failure to do a comprehensive analysis under the UCC as part of their reasoning in mortgage enforcement cases . . ..”  As if to prove us wrong, Judge Battaglia has taken on the UCC in Deane even while acknowledging that “quotation of the Code, or even its citation, has virtually disappeared from the caselaw on this part of negotiable instruments law, at least where addressed in mortgage foreclosure actions.” (5) Judge Battaglia also notes how NY mortgage enforcement caselaw diverges from the contemporary UCC caselaw.

Judge Battaglia framed the issue of standing as follows:

As recently summarized by the Second Department:”In order to commence a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must have a legal or equitable interest in the subject mortgage…A plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note prior to commencement of the action with the filing of the complaint…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.” (GRP Loan, LLC v. Taylor, 95 AD3d at 1173 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] [emphasis added].) (2)

He continued, “the cursory treatment of the standing question in the memorandum of law evidences a misunderstanding of the general law of negotiable instruments in its equation of the status as “holder” to mere possession of the instrument. The core of the law of negotiable instruments is found in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code . . ..” (3) He finds that the plaintiff has not established that it is a holder or a nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder. He states that

To allow an assignee to sue without possession of the note, therefore, would be inconsistent with Revised Article 3, and put New York out-of-step with the 49 states that have adopted the revision, including, in particular, a conception of “transfer” as “deliver[y] by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument” (see Revised UCC §3-203 [1].) That misstep, however, if such it is, has apparently already been taken. (7)

Doing its best to reconcile the the mortgage enforcement and UCC caselaw, Judge Battaglia concludes that

in the usual case, a plaintiff has “standing” to prosecute a mortgage foreclosure action where, at the time the action is commenced: (1) the plaintiff is the holder of the note (see NYUCC §1-201 [20]); or (2) the plaintiff has possession of the note by delivery (see NYUCC §1-201[14]), from a person entitled to enforce it, for the purpose of giving the plaintiff the right to enforce it; or (3) the plaintiff has been assigned the note, by a person entitled to enforce it, for the purpose of giving the plaintiff the right to collect the debt evidenced by the note, and the plaintiff tenders the note at the time of any judgment. (8)

New York’s law in this area is not satisfying and it looks to me like courts need to make a concerted effort to synthesize UCC law with foreclosure law.  Otherwise, mortgage litigants are left to wander like Cain in the land of Nod, east of Eden, not knowing what law governs their disputes.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Rules That a Party Perfects its Security Interests in Disputed Loans by Taking Possession of the Notes as Opposed to Recording the Mortgage Assignments, Pursuant to UCC Article 9

Posted on by

In Provident Bank v. Community Home Mortgage Corp., 498 F.Supp.2d 558, 558 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled in favor of intervenor-plaintiff NetBank, granting its cross motion for summary judgment against intervenor-plaintiff, Southwest Securities Bank (herein described as Southwest) in a dispute regarding conflicting recorded mortgage assignments for nine loans. The court stated that “where parties assert competing interests in mortgage assignments,” under Article 9, “possession of the note perfects the assignee’s security interest regardless of whether any mortgage securing the note has been properly recorded.” It concluded that NetBank perfected its interest in eight of the nine disputed loans and took possession of them before Southwest, giving it a superior interest in those loans.

Confusion over who possessed the loans started when Defendant Community, a mortgage banker, entered into agreements with two banks, Southwest and RBMG (NetBank’s successor in interest), to fund a portion of its mortgage loans. Community entered Mortgage Purchase Agreements with both banks and engaged in a scheme known as “double booking,” where it “obtained duplicate funding for one loan from two different lenders and retained the entire value of the loan.” Essentially, “Community created two original notes and mortgages for each of the disputed loans.” Because of Community’s fraud “only one of the lenders would be paid in full,” and each bank claimed a priority interest in the nine loans that Community sold to it. Southwest recorded its assignments of the mortgages before RBMG for five of the loans, but RBMG received the original notes and assignments for eight of the loans before Southwest.

In determining which of the loans belonged to Southwest or NetBank and which of the mortgages were valid, the court had to decide “whether Article 9 or state real property law governs the security interests in mortgages.”  Under Article 9, a party perfects it security interest in a note by taking possession of it. Alternatively, under “race-notice statutes in state real property law,” a party perfects its security interest in a mortgage by recording the assignment. Southwest argued that the court should follow New York’s race-notice statute, whereas RBMG argued that Article 9 should govern.

Before reaching its decision, the court examined the New York Real Property Law Section 291, which states that a “bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of a junior mortgage, who records his assignment is entitled to priority over a prior unrecorded mortgage of which his assignor has full knowledge.” It explained that previous decisions applying the statute did not address instances where the “first party to record a mortgage assignment [had] a prior interest over another party who first takes possession of the note securing the mortgage.”  The court stated that in this case, the question depended on the “supremacy of perfecting the security interest in the note [as opposed to previous cases which regarded] perfecting the security interest in the mortgage.”

According to the statute’s language and precedent decisions regarding the same issue, Southwest would have a priority interest in five of the loans that it recorded before RMGA. Instead, the court applied Article 3 and Article 9 of the UCC in reaching its conclusions. It stated that “NetBank perfected its security interest in the loans and Southwest,” did not. The court agreed with previous cases in the Circuit which held that, “perfection of a security interest in the note (by taking possession under Article 9) should carry over to the mortgage incidental to it.” It explained that in New York, assignment of a note creates a security interest in the note, but a party perfects its security interest in the note by possessing it. From this reasoning, the court determined Southwest was not the first party to perfect its security interest in the loans, as it merely recorded its mortgage assignments but never possessed them. Therefore, the court denied Southwest’s motion for summary judgment requesting possession over the disputed loans.

Instead, the court granted NetBank’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Article 9, as it possessed eight of the disputed loans before Southwest. It also held that under UCC Article 3, NetBank qualified as a holder in due course (defined as a holder of a negotiable instrument who takes it for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue or has been dishonored) in regards to seven of the loans, entitling it to those loans independent of its possession under Article 9.