You are on page 1of 6

Sambolah Case Study Facts



1. In 1998 Ibrahim Sambolah purchased a home in Brooklyn,

and has lived there with his wife Marie and their two children ever since.

2. On May 23, 2005, Mr. Sambolah entered into a high cost,

adjustable rate refinance agreement with Option One Mortgage

Corporation on his family’s home.

3. Mr. Sambolah works in the construction industry, and fell

on hard times shortly after entering into the re-finance, as a direct result

of the downturn in the New York economy. Despite that, Mr. Sambolah

continued to make his mortgage payments in a timely manner through to

September 2006.

4. Mr. Sambolah began to experience difficulty in meeting his

November and December 2006 payments in a timely manner, but he

was never actually in default.

5. However, his wife Marie continued to call Option One to

advise them of their willingness to pay, and attempted to make the

respective monthly payments through their online banking account and

by direct telephone calls. Option One refused to take any

subsequent payments from Homeowner Sambolah.

6. In late 2006, Option One secretly began planning to assign

his mortgage to Deutsche Bank and to foreclose on Mr. Sambolah’s

who (a) recommended to the Sambolahs that they list the home for a short sale as a workout option.977. Sambolah requested a repayment or modification plan from Option One.90 (for a total amount of $13. (b) guided them on the process. constituting what may be called a “high cost”. Mr. and Mrs. . from an entity that they NEVER heard of). property.835. Unaware that Option One was preparing to commence a foreclosure action against them.28) 7. far in excess of the amount on which they were obligated to pay under the original terms. When the Sambolahs learned of the foreclosure action in January 2007 (by mail. 8. That assurance turned out to be an orchestrated diversion by Option One of Homeowner Sambolah’s attention to the foreclosure action. Option One demanded an immediate payment of five (future) payments in the amount of $9. The terms of the reinstatement proposal were rigorous (and arguably onerous. and (c) assured the Sambolahs that foreclosure proceedings will be not be pursued. predatory-type modification payment1) in that it called for the homeowners to pay a significantly higher amount each month. 1 An estimate of the interest rate applicable to the new payment indicates that Option One increased Homeowner Sambolah’s payment by 50% (indicating an increasing in the interest rate to over 12%). they contacted Option One.

underlying Note. Moreover. The assignment of the Mortgage from Option One to Deutsche Bank was executed and accomplished on December 5. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company began foreclosure proceedings against Mr. 2006. 2006. Their complaint excluded any pleading or proof that it held the note evidencing the underlying the Home Loan or the Mortgage that secured such Home Loan (as required by New York law). 11. On December 1. 10. four days after the action was commenced. 12. Deutsche Bank failed to demonstrate that they were in possession of the original. or was a holder in due course at commencement of the action (as required by law). No language can change the fact that an assignment of the Mortgage from Option One to Plaintiff had not occurred prior to commencement of this action. counsel craftily stated that it was “sent for recording” on an earlier date. 13. Sambolah. Instead of stating that this purported assignment was subsequently recorded. this assignment of mortgage failed to comport with the basic requirements of New York law to demonstrate its .PROCEDURAL HISTORY 9. Deutsche Bank lead the Court into overlooking the fact that the assignment of mortgage had not occurred prior to commencement of the action.

validity. irreparable harm to the Homeowners if the judgment is not vacated – they will lose their home of more than 15 years. even though it did not include in its application an affidavit of merit from someone (a) with knowledge of the proof of the facts constituting its claim that it was the owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. Sambolah in that he had no notice of the pending sale and loss of his home. and (b) with knowledge that a default in payment had occurred as required under New York Law. 15. 2007. in an action in equity under New York . Deutsche Bank submitted fraudulent documents to effect the sale. This amounted to misconduct that prejudiced Mr. In addition. Deutsche Bank attempted to get a default judgment in its favor. 2007. 17. They were using robo-signers. Further. including an affidavit that was notarized without a signature. 18. a judge granted a default judgment for Deutsche Bank and appointed a referee to complete the foreclosure and sale. these fraudulent actions would result in immediate. on January 23. 16. 14. to prosecute a claim in foreclosure. Deutsche Bank then submitted a series of false affidavits and fraudulent documents to the court to achieve the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Subsequently on May 10. The Homeowners’ right to due process.

on February 28. all in an effort to avoid being held to have deliberately prejudiced Defendants. (b) the Referee Report – which failed to comply with the service requirements of the Judge. and which further more significantly failed to provide the Court with proof constituting Plaintiff’s claim to entitlement to foreclose. or to have engaged in misconduct or malfeasance. and the Court’s directives in the Order of Reference. New York law and the Court’s directives. law was effectively violated by a plaintiff who had failed to prove it had a cause of action to foreclose and who failed to comply with the CPLR. 19. Despite the failure to meet the requirements of the CPLR and New York law. 20. and (d) the motion of attorneys for Deutsche Bank – which did not include an affidavit of merit. Deutsche Bank succeeded in securing a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale on the basis of the following: (a) summons and complaint – which failed on its face to plead or demonstrate ownership of the Note and assignment of the Mortgage. failure to serve the Order of .which did not occur. Deutsche Bank may have been purposefully careless to create confusion and leave the impression if later discovered that the missing pieces and non compliance with the CPLR and New York law were mere inadvertence. 2008. (c) notice of Deutsche Bank’s application upon all parties -. The lack of proof. or to have defrauded the Court.

and submission of an affidavit of service that is unexecuted though notarized was not the result of mere carelessness and inadvertence. Further. In other words: “This case should have never been filed”. 21. Deutsche Bank was not the holder or owner of the underlying note. . There was no September 2005 payment default as claimed in Deutsche Bank’s complaint. Deutsche Bank had no basis and proof to foreclose on the Mr. Sambolah. and was fully aware of that.Reference.