Tag Archives: New York

More on Misrepresentation

Posted on by

NY Supreme Court Justice Schweitzer (NY County) issued a Decision and Order on a motion to dismiss in HSH Nordbank AG, et al., v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., No. 652991/12 (Nov. 26, 2013) that builds on the NY jurisprudence of RMBS misrepresentation. The decision notes that “The gravamen of the complaint is that Goldman Sachs knew that” its metrics and representations regarding various RMBS “were false, but did not alert Nordbank.” (2) In particular,

Nordbank alleges that Goldman Sachs knew that loan originators had systematically abandoned underwriting guidelines described in the Offering Materials. It alleges that Goldman Sachs knowingly reported false credit ratings, owner-occupancy percentages, appraisal amounts, and loan-to-value ratios. It alleges that although Goldman Sachs represented otherwise in the Offering Materials, Goldman Sachs never intended to properly effectuate transfer of the underlying notes and mortgages that collateralized the Certificates. (2)

The Court found that Nordbank “sufficiently alleged that Goldman Sachs had knowledge that originators were deliberately inflating appraisal values to artificially obtain understated CLTV ratios that corresponded with lower risk.” (9) As a result, “the complaint sufficiently describes actionable misrepresentations regarding appraisal values, loan-to-value ratios, and owner-occupancy rates.” (9)

Nordbank also alleged

that it has suffered losses totaling more than $1.5 billion as a result of the alleged misrepresentations regarding the loans’ conformity with originators’ underwriting guidelines. Specifically, Nordbank alleges that it has been unable to transfer notes and mortgages that have declined in value because of the poor quality of the underlying loans. The representations at issue allegedly resulted in higher rates of default, an impaired ability to obtain forecloses, and ultimately, a lower cash flow to Certificate-holders like Nordbank. Because Nordbank has sufficiently alleged a chain of causation leading from the alleged abandonment of underwriting standards to a decline in the market value of the Certificates, the complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to allege lost causation. (20)

As this decision was on a motion to dismiss, none of these findings result in actual liability for Goldman Sachs, but they do provide a road map for what liability could look like.  As I have noted in the past, it will be interesting to see how this body of law will affect the securitization process going forward.

Reiss on Predatory Online Lending

Posted on by

E-Commerce Times quoted me in CFPB Suit Targets Predatory Online Lending Practices. It reads in part:

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau this week put online finance companies on notice that it will not overlook them merely because they operate in cyberspace. Specifically, the bureau sued CashCall for collecting money consumers allegedly did not owe.  In its suit, the bureau charged that CashCall and its affiliates engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including illegally debiting consumer checking accounts for loans that were void.

CashCall and the associated companies are reportedly owned by J. Paul Reddam, a race-horse owner and philosophy professor-turned-businessman.

The Background

Beginning in late 2009, CashCall and its subsidiary, WS Funding, entered into an arrangement with online lender Western Sky Financial, according to the CFPB. Western Sky Financial has asserted that the laws in the state in which it is based — South Dakota — did not apply to it because it was based on an Indian reservation and owned by a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

The CFPB maintains Western Sky still must comply with state laws when it makes loans over the Internet to people in other states.

The loans ranged from US$850 to $10,000 and came with upfront fees, lengthy repayment terms and annual interest rates from nearly 90 percent to 343 percent, the CFPB said. Many of the loan agreements allowed payments to be debited directly from the borrower’s bank account.

By September 2013, Western Sky had become the subject of several states’ investigations and court actions, and it began to shut down its business. CashCall and its collection agency, Delbert Services, continued to take monthly installment payments from consumers’ bank accounts or otherwise sought to collect money from borrowers.

After its own investigation, the bureau concluded that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps, or both, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and North Carolina, meaning the consumers did not owe that money that was being collected.

As part of its suit, the CFPB is seeking monetary relief, damages, and civil penalties.

The CFPB did not respond to our request for further details.

*     *     *

‘Particularly Weak’

 

While there might not be much controversy over the CFPB’s suit against an online lender, CashCall is certainly defending itself using other arguments.

Clearly, the action falls within the CFPB’s broad mission of protecting consumers from predatory behaviors in the financial services industry, asserted David Reiss, a professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School.

However, CashCall’s attorneys, Neil Barofsky and Katya Jestin, have said that the CFPB does not have a mandate to impose rate caps.

“Of all of CashCall’s arguments, this one seems particularly weak,” Reiss concluded, “as the CFPB is just seeking to enforce existing state laws that have been allegedly violated across the country.”

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.

Stalled Foreclosures in NY Not a Violation of Federal Law

Posted on by

Judge Townes (EDNY) dismissed a putative class action, Cole v, Baum, 11-cv-3779 (July 11, 2013), against notorious foreclosure mill Steven J. Baum, P.C. and its principal relating to their failure to submit filings that would have triggered mandatory settlement conferences for homeowners under a new New York law.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Judge Townes found that the failure to comply with the NY law was not the equivalent of an unfair debt collection prohibited by the FDCPA.

In reaching its result, the Court stated that not “every violation of state or city law amounts to a violation of the FDCPA.” (16, quoting Nero v. Law Offices of Sam Streeter, P.L.L.C., 655 F. Supp. 2d 200, 209 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)). It further found that even “debt collection practices in violation of state law are not per se violations of the FDCPA.” (17) The Court concluded that in the present case,

the defendants’ debt collection practices did not violated the provisions of the FDCPA. Defendants allegedly violated 22 NYCRR § 202.12-a, a procedural rule promulgated by the Chief Administrator of the New York Courts to facilitate implementation of CPLR 340B. However, CPLR 340B is not a state analog of the FDCPA. That statute does not prohibit unfair, misleading or deceptive collection practices, but merely furthers a state interest  in  forestalling or preventing foreclosures. Although defendants may be debt collectors, and their alleged violation of Section 202.12-a may be characterized as unfair, defendants’ violation of this state procedural provision neither resulted in, nor contributed to, the sort of unfair debt collection practices prohibited by the FDCPA. (18)

I am not sure if I see the principled difference between the scope of the FDCPA and the NY law.  The Court acknowledges that the FDCPA, is meant “to protect consumers from deceptive or harassing actions taken by debt collectors with the purpose of limiting the suffering and anguish often inflicted by independent debt collectors.” (10, quoting Gabriele v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 12-985-cv, 2012 WL 5908601 at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 27, 2012)). The mere fact that the NY law was an amendment to the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) does not seem to undercut the fact that it was passed expressly to address the “mortgage foreclosure crisis.” (2) I would think that if procedural violations amounted to a substantive injustice, it could be sufficient to violate the FDCPA.

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Holds that Bank Has Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

In Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Delphonse, 64 A.D.3d 624 (2d Dept. 2009) the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department found that the lender, Countrywide Home Loans (Countrywide), had standing to foreclose on the Delphonses, the homeowners in the case, because the court found that the Delphonses waived the issue at the pre-trial stage, and furthermore that Countrywide met its burden of proof. The court held, “[the Delphonses] waived the defense of lack of standing (see CPLR 3211[a][3]) by failing to either make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint on that ground or by asserting that defense in their answer. . . . On its motion for summary judgment, [Countrywide] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the mortgage, the underlying note, and evidence of a default.”

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department Holds that MERS has Standing to Foreclose

Posted on by

In Mtge. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Coakley, 41 A.D.3d 674 (2d Dept. 2007), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department found that MERS had standing to foreclose on the homeowner. The court held, “[t]he record shows that the promissory note was. . . ultimately transferred and tendered to MERS. Therefore, at the time of the commencement of this action, MERS was the lawful holder of the promissory note and of the mortgage, which passed as an incident to the promissory note. . . . Moreover, further support for MERS’s standing to commence the action may be found on the face of the mortgage instrument itself. Pursuant to the clear and unequivocal terms of the mortgage instrument, Coakley expressly agreed without qualification that MERS had the right to foreclose upon the premises in the event of a default.” Thus, in this case MERS was able to prove that it held both the mortgage and the underlying note, which was enough for the court to determine that MERS had standing to foreclose.

United States Bankruptcy Court Bound by Precedent to Recognize Bank’s Standing in Foreclosure Action, but Opines on MERS’s Flawed Assignment Process and Status as Agent

Posted on by

In In re Agard, 444 BR 231, 235 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011) vacated in part sub nom. Agard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., BR 8-10-77338 REG (E.D.N.Y. 2012), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York held that U.S. Bank, the assignee bank in this case, had standing to foreclose because the state court had already determined that the assignment of the mortgage by MERS to U.S. Bank was a valid assignment. The court stated the issue as follows: “[homeowner] argues that the only interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from. . . MERS, as a ‘nominee’ for the original lender. [Homeowner]’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage.”

In holding for U.S. Bank, the court stated the homeowner’s argument had to be rejected because of the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court stated, “[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine is derived from two Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), which together stand for the proposition that lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to sit in direct appellate review of state court judgments.” Also, the court found that res judicata precludes the homeowner from prevailing here: “The state court already has determined that U.S. Bank is a secured creditor with standing to foreclose and this Court cannot alter that determination in order to deny U.S. Bank standing to seek relief from the automatic stay.”

However, the court in this case found it necessary to expound upon whether it believed that U.S. Bank had standing to foreclose, despite the state court’s binding opinion.  “[T]he Court believes that it is appropriate to set forth its analysis on the issue of whether [U.S. Bank], absent the Judgment of Foreclosure, would have standing to bring the instant motion.” The court began its analysis by stating, “in order to have standing to seek relief from stay, [U.S. Bank]. . . must show that [it] holds both the Mortgage and the Note. . . [U.S. Bank] can prove that [it] is the holder of the Note by providing the Court with proof of a written assignment of the Note, or by demonstrating that [it] has physical possession of the Note endorsed over to it. . . the Assignment of Mortgage is not sufficient to establish an effective assignment of the Note.” Therefore, U.S. Bank would have to show that MERS both assigned the note and that it had authority to assign the note. Regarding MERS’s authority to assign the note, the court held, “[w]hat remains undisputed is that MERS did not have any rights with respect to the Note and other than as described above, MERS played no role in the transfer of the Note… [U.S. Bank]’s failure to show that [it] holds the Note should be fatal to the Movant’s standing.”

Furthermore, the court took issue with MERS’s status as agent of the original mortgagee. The court stated, “the record of this case is insufficient to prove that an agency relationship exists under the laws of the state of New York between MERS and its members. According to MERS, the principal/agent relationship among itself and its members is created by the MERS rules of membership and terms and conditions, as well as the Mortgage itself. However, none of the documents expressly creates an agency relationship or even mentions the word “agency.” MERS would have this Court cobble together the documents and draw inferences from the words contained in those documents.” The court went even further in its criticism, saying, “Aside from the inappropriate reliance upon the statutory definition of ‘mortgagee,’ MERS’s position that it can be both the mortgagee and an agent of the mortgagee is absurd, at best. . . . even if MERS had assigned the Mortgage acting on behalf of the entity which held the Note at the time of the assignment, this Court finds that MERS did not have authority, as ‘nominee’ or agent, to assign the Mortgage absent a showing that it was given specific written directions by its principal. This Court finds that MERS’s theory that it can act as a ‘common agent’ for undisclosed principals is not support by the law. The relationship between MERS and its lenders and its distortion of its alleged ‘nominee’ status was appropriately described by the Supreme Court of Kansas as follows: ‘The parties appear to have defined the word [nominee] in much the same way that the blind men of Indian legend described an elephant – their description depended on which part they were touching at any given time.’ ”

Absent the state court precedent that the court was bound to follow, the court likely would have emphatically refused to recognize MERS’s authority to assign the note as well as the mortgage, and in turn would have prevented U.S. Bank from proceeding with the foreclosure. Thus, in future cases before the court with similar facts that are not bound by state law precedent, MERS and any assignee bank will not have standing to foreclose.