• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
October 20, 2009Page 1.WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v MARCHIONE
 Supreme Court of the State of New YorkAppellate Division: Second Judicial Department
D24207C/huAD3d Argued - April 29, 2009MARK C. DILLON, J.P.THOMAS A. DICKERSONJOHN M. LEVENTHALARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.
 
2008-02775OPINION & ORDER Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., appellant, v VincentMarchione, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.(Index No. 24456/07)
 
APPEAL by the plaintiff,inanactionto foreclose a mortgage, from an order of theSupreme Court(Joan B. Lefkowitz, J.), entered February 14, 2008, in Westchester County, whichgrantedthatbranchofthemotionofthedefendantsVincentMarchioneandDebbieMarchionewhichwas, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.FeinSuch&Crane,LLP,ChestnutRidge, N.Y. (Samit G. Patel of counsel), for appellant.Clair & Gjertsen, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Ira S. Clair of counsel), for respondents.LEVENTHAL, J.Theissuepresentedonthisappeal is whether anassigneeofanoteandmortgagehasstandingtocommenceaforeclosureactionpriortothedateof the execution of the assignment. We hold that an assignee in such a case has no standing.The defendants VincentMarchioneandDebbieMarchione(hereinafter together thedefendants)moved,interalia,to dismiss this foreclosure action for lack of standing because the
 
October 20, 2009Page 2.WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v MARCHIONEassignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), didnotoccuruntilaftertheforeclosureactionhadbeencommenced. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants’ motion and we affirm.OnoraboutSeptember2,2005,thedefendantsexecutedamortgageinfavorofthemortgageeOptionOneMortgageCorporation, creating a security interest in certain real propertylocatedinMamaroneck.Onthesamedate,VincentMarchionesignedanadjustable rate note inconsiderationoftheloan. Wells Fargo alleges that the defendants failed to make payments beginningApril1,2007,and, as trustee forOptionOneMortgageLoanTrust,WellsFargocommencedthisforeclosureactionbyfilingasummonsandverifiedcomplaintonNovember30,2007,withtheCounty Clerk of Westchester County.OptionOneMortgageCorporation assigned its “right, title and interest” in theaforementionedmortgagetoWellsFargoinanassignmentdatedDecember4,2007. The assignmentcontainedaprovision stating that it became effective on October 28, 2007. The complaintallegedthatWellsFargowasthe“sole,trueandlawfulownerofrecordofthe bond(s), note(s) andmortgage(s) securing the Mortgaged Premises.” The complaint was verified by counsel for WellsFargoonNovember29,2007,andfiledwiththeCountyClerkonNovember30,2007. The recordindicatesthatthedefendantswereservedonDecember7,2007. The assignment, which did not yetexistatthetimeoftheverificationandfiling,was,forobviousreasons,notattachedtothecomplaint,as were other supporting documents such as the note and mortgage.OnDecember18,2007,thedefendantsmadeapre-answermotionpursuanttoCPLR 3211todismiss the cause of action alleged against the defendant Debbie Marchione, for adeterminationthatthecomplaintwasnotverified,andforsuchotherandfurtherreliefwhichmaybeappropriate. Wells Fargo attached the assignment of the mortgage to its papers dated January 18,2008,whichweresubmittedinoppositiontothedefendants’motion. The contents of the assignmentwere unknown to the defendants at the time they moved.ThedefendantsfirstaddressedtheissueoftheassignmentinaFebruary3,2008,replyaffirmationofcounselwhichpointedoutthatWellsFargolackedstandingtobringtheaction. WellsFargoarguesthatthe Supreme Court erred in relying on this argument, asitwasfirstraisedinthedefendants’replypapers. “The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in oppositiontothepositiontaken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in
 
October 20, 2009Page 3.WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v MARCHIONEsupportof,ornewgroundsforthemotion”(
MatterofHarleysvilleIns.Co.vRosario,
17 AD3d677,677-678;
 seealsoMatterofTIGIns.Co.vPellegrini,
258AD2d658;
 DannaschvBifulco,
184AD2d 415, 417). Here, however, the Supreme Court correctly recognized that the defendants’raisingoftheissueofstandingintheirreplywasproper. The defendants’ argument that the plaintiff lackedstandingwasinresponsetotheplaintiff’ssubmissionoftheassignment,presentedforthefirsttimeinthepapersthe plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the SupremeCourt,intheexerciseofitsdiscretion,properlyconsideredtheresponsetothenewevidenceofferedforthefirsttimeinthereply(
 seeMatterofKennellyvMobiusRealtyHoldingsLLC,
33AD3d380,382).WellsFargoarguesthattheSupremeCourtalsoerredsincetheretroactiveeffectivedateoftheassignmentgaveWellsFargoaninterestinthemortgagebeforetheactionwascommenced. We disagree.Inordertocommenceaforeclosureaction,theplaintiffmusthavealegalorequitableinterestinthemortgage(
 seeKatzvEast-VilleRealtyCo.,
249AD2d243,243). “Where the plaintiff isthe assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action wascommenced,theplaintiffhasstandingtomaintaintheaction”(
 FederalNatl.Mtge.Assn.vYoukelsone,
303AD2d546,546-547;
 see also First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels,
234AD2d414,414). Here, Wells Fargo lacked standing to bring this foreclosure action because it was not theassigneeofthemortgageonNovember30,2007,thedaytheactionwascommenced. A “foreclosureof a mortgage may not be brought by onewhohas no title to it” (
 Kluge v Fugazy,
145 AD2d 537,538). Since the complaint was filed prior to the execution of the assignment, and the service occurredsubsequent to the execution, the issue ofstandinginthiscasehinges upon whether the filing or theserviceofthesummonsandcomplainteffectuates commencement. A review of prior appellatedecisionsrevealsthatthereissomeconfusionregardingwhether,tobeeffective,theassignmentmustoccurpriortothecommencementoftheactionorinsteadaftercommencement, but prior to theservice of the complaint.WellsFargocontendsithadstandingtobringtheactionbecausetheassignmentwasexecutedbeforethesummonsandcomplaintwereservedonthedefendants,althoughaftertheactionwascommenced. Wells Fargo cites to
 Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis
(263 AD2d 937)insupportof thiscontention. The Appellate Division, Third Department, in
 Hoovis
heldthatwherethe“plaintiff 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...