Blackacre 2.0real estate | Blackacre 2.0

A New Year: Looking Back and Looking Forward at Fraudclosure

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:48:33 +0000

2011 was ushered in with the usual fanfare in my family – lots of tasty appetizers, hanging out with the kids until the stroke of midnight and off to bed. I spent the end of 2010 trying to push a few small sales, despite overwhelming resistance by ignorant negotiators and researching a new gun to hold to the bank’s head – the faulty securitization of the mortgages and the resulting lack of standing of these various Plaintiff trustees to bring foreclosure actions.

It is not light reading by a long stretch. Understanding the securitization process from the originator to the Trustee, locating and understanding the governing document, the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA), is no simple matter. But we have done just that and analyzed numerous defective Assignments of Mortgage for New York City properties. These banks and their respective attorneys flagrantly ignore the rule of law, routinely perjury themselves, do documents without authority, and directly violate the terms of the PSA. These banks have also been paid over and over for the same loan because of the over-collateralization of these mortgage securities, but seek to enrich themselves further by availing themselves of the remedy of foreclosure. And yet, the tax payer pays them yet again, via the Obama Administration, instead of taking that same money to make jobs to bolster our sagging economy.

These banks are posting record profits for 2010 as our country fails to recover for lack of not only jobs but of credit. The purpose of the TARP funds was to give an incentive to the banks to extend credit but they failed to do so and really decreased lending. Congress, in their haste, failed to include any strings in that gift package. The Wall Street Journal indicated that such failure was the reason for the decreased lending:

The fact that loan portfolios are shrinking at many of the largest TARP recipients underscores how few strings Treasury Department officials attached to the infusions. That has made it hard to prevent banks from using the money to pay dividends, make acquisitions and fund bonuses for top executives.

Pioneers saw what the banks were doing – getting rich from tax payers’ monies and then enriching themselves further through foreclosure of these overcollateralized securities or peoples’ homes. They fought the banks in court by going back to the basics and not just blinding accepting the banks’ right to foreclose on their “security”. It started with “produce the note” because the whole mortgage industry had gotten sloppy and couldn’t locate their documents. But then it went further, questioning whether the bank really owned the Note and if you could foreclose on a mortgage once it had morphed into a security. MERS‘ role was being investigated and foreclosure defense lawyers questioned whether or not it could bring a foreclosure action as plaintiff, because it did not really own the Note as well as failed to maintain a proper chain of assignment.

These very foreclosure defense attorneys and judges, inundated with millions of foreclosure actions, started to see an hideous pattern and the same names over and over again, executing assignments, affidavits of merit etc. Brooklyn’s own Judge Schack has been on the forefront of demanding legal compliance from the banks and making them account for their failure to adhere to the law as well as outright committing fraud. Our courts have been on the forefront of insuring that homeowners’ rights are not trampled – that the banks act in excellent faith and when they don’t – holding them liable for it. The banks and their attorneys step very carefully into our courts these days for dread of the ultimate punishment – dismissal of their action with prejudice.

I reckon 2011 is the year we take back our country from Wall Street and the banks. The tide is turning.

NY Appellate Division Overturns LI Couple’s Mortgage Victory

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:22:22 +0000

On November 16, 2010, the NY Appellate Division delivered a stunning blow to the foreclosure defense community when it reversed the trial court’s choice in Indymac Bank v. Diana J. Yano-Horoski, 890 N.Y.S.2d 313 (Suffolk County, 2009)

In the highly publicized choice, Judge Spinner had not only vacated the Judgment of Foreclosure, but ordered that the mortgage and note be cancelled in their entirety. Spinner blisteringly castigated the plaintiff and characterized its course of conduct as “wholly unsupportable at law or in equity, greatly egregious and so completely devoid of excellent faith that equity cannot be permitted to intervene on its behalf. Indeed, plaintiff’s actions toward defendant in this matter have been harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive to the extent that it must be appropriately sanctioned”.

The Appellate Division held that the such a severe sanction was “not authorized by statute or rule” and the bank was not given “honest warning that such a sanction was even under consideration”. Further, the court held that the trial court’s equity powers did not include the “authority to cancel the note and mortgage since there was no acceptable basis for relieving the homeowner of her contractual obligations to the bank” noting that a judgement had already been entered in the bank’s favor. The court’s opinion can be found here.

Judge Spinner has gotten the attention of the banks in a huge way – his three recent decisions, Indymac Bank v. Yano-Horoski (cancelling note and mortgage), Wells Fargo v. Tyson (awarded $155,000 in hurts to the homeowner) and Emigrant Mortgage v. Corcione (awarded $100,000 in hurts to the homeowner) has made him the hero of the foreclosure defense community and a fearsome figure to the foreclosure plaintiffs. Spinner just issued another crushing choice on December 1st in U.S. Bank v. Mathon 2010 NY Slip Op 52082(U) granting Defendant’s Order to Show Cause, staying all proceedings and scheduling a hearing for possible sanctions against the Plaintiff and other possible remedial relief based on the bank’s appalling terrible faith dealings on a loan modification. The Banks’ attorneys no longer entrust their cases to junior associate,s when appearing in his courtroom at mandatory settlement conferences, because apparently, the risks are too fantastic.

Am I shocked at the Appellate Division’s reversal? Not at all – I really predicted this would be the outcome. As you get higher up the food chain, it gets to be more about policy than law sometimes. The Yano-Horoski trial court choice would have set a perilous precedent and sent shock waves through the mortgage credit industry. A mortgage is a debt security and should a judge just cancel such a debt based upon broad powers of equity, what bank would lend on a home in such a climate? And if the bank were willing to risk it, at what cost to the consumer? The banks would need to insulate themselves against the risk of mortgage cancellation and the way they do that is by increasing the profit margin dramatically. Also, lets look to the every day people who are paying their mortgage every day, even if their house is underwater – what would be their reaction if all of sudden, homeowners left and right were given free houses? The outrage would start to build (if it hasn’t already) – and they would start to wonder why should they pay their mortgages?

I believe that the parties will quietly come to a settlement, probably sealed of course, and the Horoskis will receive a nicely, modified loan with a stout principal reduction and the bank has a stellar precedent on the appellate record.

Suffolk County Crushes Deutsche Bank Over Fraudulent Foreclosure Docs

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:06:28 +0000

The judges in Suffolk County (along with their Brooklyn counterparts) have been proactive in the fight against fraudulent foreclosure actions from the beginning. They have refused to rubber stamp the banks’ foreclosure filings and have consistently required them to adhere to the law. In Deutsche Bank, as Trustee v. McCoy, the judge denied the bank’s Motion for an Order of Reference based upon lack of standing to even bring the foreclosure action. Apparently, the bank attempted to retroactively file an Assignment to make standing. The Assignment was dated February 28, 2008 but declared an effective date of “January 19, 2008″. The court noted,

If an assignment is in writing, the execution date is generally controlling and a written assignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient, unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical delivery of the note and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 263 AD2d 937, 938, 694 NYS2d 245 [1999]). A retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709, 888 NYS2d 914 [2d Dept 2009]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]).

The court also demanded the appearance of ”Sherry Hall,” who purports, in this particular case, to be the Vice President of Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., the attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff Deutsche Bank and ”Nikole Shelton,” the person who notarized Ms. Hall’s signature in this particular action, as well as in another action entitled GMAC Mortgage, LLC v Ingoglia, also pending in Suffolk County at the November 17, 2010 foreclosure settlement conference. Apparently, Ms. Hall is Vice President for Homecomings as well as GMAC – a state of facts that the court finds extremely suspect. Also problematic was that one of the affidavits was executed after it was notarized. I would hazard a guess that these two ladies are going to be in a bit of hot water when they appear before this judge.

This is, indeed, the tip of the iceberg. For too long, the banks have been filing thousands of foreclosure actions without a hitch…until now. The problem is, but, two-fold: the possible chill on lending if the banks cannot foreclosure on their security and second, those homeowners who faithfully pay their mortgages are going to be mighty upset at the thought of people getting a free house. These are two serious issues which I believe will guide policy at the appellate level. So although the trial courts may dismiss foreclosure actions and so forth, the appellate level might certainly see things in a far different light and have a far different ruling – if it reaches that point. I am sure that the banks and homeowners probably reach some sort of settlement, be it modification or otherwise, so these cases do not end up on appeal.

The Party is Over: GMAC Halts Foreclosures Amid Pervasive Foreclosure Fraud

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:09:20 +0000

This past week GMAC issued directives to its servicers and agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states including Florida, Connecticut and New York. Apparently, one officer of GMAC Mortgage’s servicing unit has admitted during testimony given in a deposition that, while he signs thousands of affidavits each month (to the tune of 6,000 to 8,000) as part of the necessary documents that must be filed with the foreclosure action, he lacks personal knowledge of certain critical facts in the affidavit which he asserts to be right. The affiant must be directly involved with the facts he is asserting and this error is certainly not limited to this officer, as evidenced by this defective affidavit and its subsequent withdrawal or, for that matter: GMAC.

Bloomberg reported that,

GMAC Mortgage may “need to take corrective action in connection with some foreclosures” in the affected states, according to a two-page memo dated Sept. 17 marked “urgent.”….Brokers were told to immediately stop evictions, cash- for-key transactions and lockouts, according to the document, addressed to GMAC preferred agents. GMAC is also suspending sales on properties which it has already foreclosed on and extending closing dates in those transactions already in contract. The following is a list of the affected states, which are judicial foreclosure states:

Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Vermont
Wisconsin

Now of course, GMAC is attempting to downplay the seriousness of this matter and calling it a mere “technical” defect. But, foreclosure defense attorneys and agencies have advised that the questionable affidavits are only the “tip of the iceberg” and represent the beginning of the end for the foreclosure mills and for the banks and servicers who have been seeking to exercise foreclosure under fake pretenses. What foreclosure attorneys have been saying is finally coming to light: the nation’s foreclosure system is riddled with faked documents, forged signatures and lenders cutting corners when reviewing borrower’s files.

Not only are the Lenders, Servicers and Foreclosure Attorneys overwhemed but apparently the courts are too. The Washington Post reported yesterday that,

In theory, a judge should review the files one more time. But after the crisis produced massive numbers of delinquent homeowners, judges in many cases became overwhelmed. Some simply took at face value the documents handed over to them by the lenders – who in many cases were not checking the files, either, according to interviews with judges, attorneys and consumer groups.

This go by GMAC makes an opening for borrowers to contest some of the more than 2 million foreclosures that have taken place since the bubble burst. Every New York foreclosure defense attorney should be closely examining the foreclosure pleadings in current proceedings, as well as those that have already been foreclosed upon, for reliance upon faulty affidavits, which are tantamount to fraud and deposing all affiants. More than one case has been dismissed, with prejudice, because of fraud upon the court. Neil Garfield of Living Lies provides an brilliant analysis of a defective affidavit that was really submitted in support of an action to foreclose real property:

In general the affidavit is insufficient because it does not satisfy the basic requirements of personal knowledge.

1. “Affiant is an employee”: Affiant should be an officer or otherwise identified as having a specific scope of employment that should be identified and described for the period starting with the loan closing up through the date of the affidavit.

2. “Of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s servicing agent”: Now they are withholding what entity employs the affiant so there is no presumption that the affiant in fact has personal knowledge of anything, or if affiant has personal knowledge of everything involved in the loan transaction and payments. Nor are they identifying or describing the function of either plaintiff or the servicing agent.

3. “Personally familiar”: Doesn’t mean personal knowledge. He probably got information from others (hearsay), and he does not identify himself as custodian of records for anyone on anything.

4. “The information is found in the servicing agent’s records”: So he might not employed by the servicing agent but he is swearing that the information is contained in their records. Hearsay, and lack of competence to testify because he is allowing that he might NOT have personal knowledge, which is the key component of a witness’ competency to testify — the four elements being oath or affirmation, personal knowledge, recall and the ability to communicate information that is relevant to the case from his personal knowledge and recollection. In addition there is no indication when the servicing agent started to service, who the servicing agent is, and whether they are still the servicing agent. And there is no indication of what information is tracked by the servicing agent — for example, does the servicing agent pay the holder in due course? who is the holder in due course? Since this loan was most likely securitized, what insurance, third party guarantees, reserves, cross collateralization and/or over collateralization payments have been made? Has the obligation been satisfied or assumed and assigned to a government sponsored entity, or in a bailout by the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve. Chances are the servicer can only say whether the maker of the note paid the servicer. The servicer cannot say and doesn’t know about third party payments on the note. He also cannot say whether payments were received by the payee or holder of the note by the borrower nor does he state the authority of the servicer to intermediate the payments.

5. “The entries are made”: How does he know that the entries are made and if so, by whom, under what authority and based upon what information. We already know he might be an employee of the Plaintiff and not the servicer. So he lacks competency to state anything about the business process or record keeping of the servicer.

6. “either people with first hand knowledge or…”: if they didn’t have first hand knowledge then somehow they got information from people who had first hand knowledge. Really? who? And how would he know about any of it?

7. “recording such entries is a regular practice of servicer or plaintiff”: Well, which is it? Which one is he saying has what information? He clearly is only saying that the records of only one company are involved, but he won’t say which one. What about the other one. Were payments made by borrower to one or the other or both? This second admission that there are two entities involved means at the very least that two affidavits are required — one from the servicer and one from the payee on the note. If the note has been assigned, then a third, fourth fifth etc affidavit needs to be executed by all those who have or ever had a claim to the revenue from the note.

8. “There is now due”: Lack of foundation for all the above reasons. Affidavit is subject to Motion to strike.

9. The numbers stated as charges to the account are unsubstantiated by copies of invoices or any other corroboration.

What does this mean for distressed homeowners? This will have to play out in the courts as only time will tell. You can be sure that all the servicers and lenders have already changed their procedures to rectify this glaring error although it couldn’t hurt to pursue this line of defense. Certainly the sheer volume of foreclosure filings is going to make it extremely hard for the Plaintiff to have affidavits executed by a capable party that will pass muster. Also, if a defective affidavit is grounds for dismissal, the question remains – with or without prejudice? That will depend upon the judges as they have broad powers of relief under the laws of equity which governs civil fraud. Judges have already dismissed foreclosure complaints, with prejudice, for fraud. We will have to wait and see what happens on the appellate level.

Help for Troubled Homeowners: Do You Qualify?

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:54:31 +0000

The federal government has made various initiatives to try to help troubled homeowners with their efforts to remain in their homes. I wanted to revisit the current loan modification program, HAMP as well as the refinance program, HARP, that is already in effect for non-defaulting borrowers to refinance their current mortgage. The question is: Will you qualify? Question yourself the following questions:

Do I have to really fall behind on my loan payments to be eligible for a loan modification?

No. Borrowers must simply demonstrate that they are in danger of falling behind on their mortgage and that they don’t have sufficient income to make future mortgage payments. Borrowers with ballooning mortgage payments or interest rates that are resetting may benefit from the new plot.

What are the loan modification requirements?

To be eligible for modification under the plot, the following criteria must be met:

the loan must be a first mortgage on the borrower’s primary residence, and
borrowers must currently be paying more than 31% of their monthly yucky income toward mortgage payments,

Jumbo loans that exceed Fannie or Freddie loan limits are not eligible.

Ultimately, of course, your eligibility will be determined by your mortgage lender.

What if I am “under water” and my mortgage is more than the value of my property?

As long as the amount owed on a first mortgage does not exceed 105% of the home’s current value, borrowers with limited equity can refinance into a 30-year or 15-year fixed-rate mortgage. This refinance option is open to only to borrowers with conforming loans that are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Borrowers must show that 1.) they are current on mortgage payments and 2) that they will be able to meet the new mortgage payments.

How do I know if my mortgage is owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie?

Borrowers should contact their lender to see if their mortgage is owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie or you can look up your loan online here to check.

Does my lender HAVE to participate in the program?

No. Participation by lenders is voluntary, but the government provides subsidies to encourage lenders to modify loans. For example, mortgage servicers receive $1,000 for each loan modification and can also get another $1,000 annually for three years if the borrower stays current on the loan.

For more information, please visit MakingHomeAffordable.gov

Beat the Bank: Legal Defenses to Foreclosure

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:26:48 +0000

If you are served with a summons and complaint from your Lender seeking to foreclose on your home, you should seek advice and retain a real estate attorney who is well versed in mortgage banking and the laws governing foreclosure in your state. Some of the viable defenses your attorney may raise on your behalf are listed below:

General legal defenses to foreclosure:

1. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations enabling rescission. If your loan is a refinance, the bank must have provided you a set of disclosures at the time of closing. If these disclosures are inaccurate, the loan is statutorily rescindable under TILA. For example, in a foreclosure action, the finance charge must have been accurate within $35 or the loan may be rescindable. This means the loan is cancelled and all money paid to the lender is refunded.

2. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violations enabling hurts. If you bought the property with the loan or used the proceeds to refinance and proper disclosures were not given, then you may be entitled to money hurts to offset the foreclosure.

3. Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). This is a very powerful federal law governing high cost refinance loans. If your loan is under $150,000 or the initial rate was above 8%, you should evaluate your loan for violations of this act. Violations here enable rescission and substantial money hurts that can be in excess of the loan’s dollar amount.

4. Failure to Provide a Right Notice of the Right to Rescind. There is a specific notice that must be provided to refinance customers at closing. If this form is inaccurate or incorrect, the loan is rescindable up to three years after the closing date.

5. Breach of Contract. Many times the lender will do things that are unfair or unjustified before starting the foreclosure process. Just as you have an obligation to pay the mortgage, the lender has a responsibility not to interfere with your ability to do so – like force placing insurance making the payments substantially more expensive than they should have been.

6. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. This federal law governs many types of disclosures that lenders must provide at the time of closing, in addition to prohibiting things like kickbacks and unearned fees. It enables hurts, and sometimes rescission if the error triggers TILA.

7. Honest Debt Collection Practices Act. This federal law requires servicers or lenders who obtain the mortgage after default follow specific protocol in attempting to collect on the debt. A failure to follow this law enables statutory hurts and attorney’s fees.

8. Honest Credit Reporting Act. This federal law governs lenders ability to report information about the mortgage and requires the accurate reporting of negative information. Violations of this act also enables hurts and attorney’s fees. Punitive hurts might be available under this act.

9. Real party in interest. This is a procedural defense to foreclosure that can be extremely effective at stopping the lender’s ability to foreclose. It essentially questions the ownership of the mortgage and questions whether the foreclosing party is, in fact, the holder of the mortgage and note.

10. Unconscionability. This defense is focused on the events surrounding the creation and closing of the mortgage loan. A violation here gives the court fantastic leeway in deciding whether the mortgage should be voided or changed.

11. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This general defense attacks the lender’s ability to foreclose and is can be used in conjunction with one of the other foreclosure defenses.

12. Failure to establish conditions precedent. Want to get a foreclosure action thrown out of court straight away? Use this defense that attacks the lender’s pre-foreclosure processes.

13. Failure to comply with FHA pre-foreclosure requirements. FHA requires every lender to mail a booklet called “How to Avoid Foreclosure” and set up a face-to-face meeting with the borrower before foreclosing (in most cases). If the lender does not take these steps, then it cannot foreclose.

The Tax Man Cometh: NY Reverses Position and Makes Title Abstracts Taxable

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:00:18 +0000

[SinglePic not found]Supposedly to be in line with recent judicial case law, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has reversed its previous position and now declares that the sale of Title Abstracts are subject to sales tax in New York. This new ruling will take effect September 1, 2010. The memorandum issued by the Department reads in pertinent part:

Abstracts of title

Previous correspondence from the Tax Department indicated that sales of abstracts of title were not subject to sales tax. To better reflect controlling judicial case law, the Tax Department has changed this policy. Therefore, beginning on September 1, 2010, the sale of an abstract of title to real property is the sale of a taxable information service. This includes the sale of an abstract of title to either a prospective purchaser of real property or to an attorney representing a prospective purchaser. But, opinions of title offered by an attorney are considered legal services and are not subject to tax. Therefore, the sale of an abstract of title to an attorney for use in conjunction with rendering an opinion of title or providing other legal services is a retail sale subject to sales tax as described herein. Treating the sale of an abstract of title as the sale of a taxable information service is a change to the Tax Department’s previous policy on sales of abstracts of title. Any statements issued by the Tax Department regarding its previous policy with respect to abstracts of title are revoked and can no longer be relied upon.

It is still unclear as to what parts of a title abstract are subject to the sales tax and the New York State Land Title Association is in contact with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance to obtain guidance and clarification on the matter.

Something for Everyone on the S&P Networking Site

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:35:37 +0000

Its summer I've been out having fun with my family at the pool, beach, BBQs etc. and unfortunately, my blog posts have become few and far between. But, I wanted to alert everyone to some new posts over at our S&P Networking site:

Events:

In person networking is vital – online networking often starts the relationship but in-person cements it. I posted several events in the NY metro area that are not be missed including the NYC Business Networking Event – Luxury Series (7/27) and Queens Real Estate Group Summer Soiree (7/28) among others. Extend your knowledge by taking a class – Dealing with Banks: REOs and Small Sales or a webinar such as Understanding Titles & Closings for Real Estate Investors .

Small Sales

Small Sales are now the focus of the real estate loss mitigation community and the banks have finally realized that a small sale is the premier solution as the return, dollar for dollar, is far superior to foreclosure and REO. Check out the webinar, Understanding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac HAFA Small Sale Rules to make sure you are abreast of the new rules. Watch some of the new videos, like Internal Bank Form Gives Insight Into Small Sales vs Foreclosure or Citimortgage Changes Small Sale Policy Again! as the banks are constantly changing how the game is played. Visit the forums as some of our own gurus post their tips and experiences.

Remember, the S&P Real Estate Networking Site is a "members-only" site so apply for membership now (it is free!) for exclusive access.

Delight in your summer!

Home Buyer Tax Credit Extended to Sept. 30th

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:44:47 +0000

So Congress finally got its act together and passed a bill extending the closing deadline for claiming the federal home buyer tax credit for real estate buys until September 30, 2010. The extension will be retroactive so that the thousands of buyers and sellers who have been mired down by small sales or the lengthy mortgage approval process will not miss out on the credit.

The Legislation – HR 5623, the Homebuyer Help and Improvement Act of 2010 — was passed by the Senate on Wednesday was just awaiting Obama's signature. Homebuyers eligible to claim the tax credit who were under contract by April 30 now have until Sept. 30 to close the deal. The National Association of Realtors data indicates that New York is the 4th highest state with pending closings that could miss out on the tax credit if the deadline were not extended.

The loss of the home buyer extension has impacted mortgage applications. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported the beginning of June that demand for buy loans was down 35 percent from a month ago as homebuyers have yet to return to the market following the expiration of the homebuyer tax credit on April 30th.

Foreclosure Proceedings and the Right of Redemption in NY

Kathleen A. Scanlon — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:42:54 +0000

New York is a judicial foreclosure state and the process can take over a year to proceed from Summons & Complaint through judgment and then auction. A homeowner has a right to redeem up and until auction, but unlike many states, there is no right of redemption after Sale (but see Bill proposing to allow right of redemption for up to 1 year post Sale.).

The New York Court of Appeal recently opined in NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v. 573 Jackson Avenue Realty Corp., 13.N.Y.3d 573 (December 15, 2009) that the definitive requirement for redeeming real property during foreclosure proceedings is the “unconditional tender [to the foreclosing party] of the full amount due” before auction. This general rule in mortgage foreclosure proceedings also applies to the foreclosure of a tax lien.

But, note that the Courts will exercise their broad equitable powers to void judgments and even set aside sales (extending the homeowner's right of redemption), where homeowners are seeking to modify or reinstate their mortgages while the lender continues with the foreclosure action. Jimmy Lathrop, Esq., the Director of Foreclosure Intervention at the Brooklyn Bar Association Volunteer Lawyers Project, recently discussed in his blog post, three cases where the court found that the homeowner's excellent faith negotiations mandated an equitable solution and a possible complete bypass of RPAPL §1341 which defines the requirements and time frame of the borrower's right of redemption.