Proving standing without an assignment?

When facing foreclosure proceedings in New York, one of the most critical legal challenges revolves around proving standing to sue. For homeowners across Long Island and New York City, understanding the nuances of standing requirements can mean the difference between keeping their home and losing it to foreclosure. This complex area of law has evolved significantly, particularly regarding situations where a lender must prove standing without a clear assignment of the mortgage.

Understanding Standing in Foreclosure Cases

In New York foreclosure law, “standing” refers to a party’s right to bring a legal action. For mortgage companies and servicers, proving standing means demonstrating they have the legal authority to foreclose on a property. This typically requires showing ownership or proper assignment of the mortgage and note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced.

For Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County homeowners, these technical legal requirements can provide powerful defenses against improper foreclosure attempts.

The IRB-Brasil Case: A Pivotal First Department Decision

Since proof of standing is generally not an affirmative part of a no-fault claimant’s prima facie case, this case from the First Department might be of minimal importance to the no-fault bar. For those of us who are called to help friends, loved ones and members of the armed services avoid foreclosures, the “assignment” defense has scored major victories at the Appellate Division, Second Department.

The matter of IRB-Brasil Resseguros S.A. v Eldorado Trading Corp. Ltd., 2009 NY Slip Op 09395 (1st Dept. 2009), takes away some steam from this defense as set forth herein:

“Plaintiff’s original motion for summary judgment was denied because of the court’s concern that the Euroclear statement and other documents suggested that BB Securities, rather than plaintiff, may have been the true holder under the terms of the note. Plaintiff moved to renew, submitting an affidavit by BB’s managing director, clearly averring that it held the note solely as custodian for plaintiff, as well as an assignment agreement between BB and plaintiff, establishing the latter’s exclusive entitlement to sue under the note. Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting renewal in the interest of justice (see Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d 209 ). The additional affidavit by an officer familiar with the corporate records, accompanying a true copy of the assignment agreement, was admissible (see DeLeon v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 306 AD2d 146 ), and established plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment.

In view of our finding that summary judgment was correctly granted upon renewal, we dismiss plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of its original motion for summary judgment as academic. However, had we not done so, we would hold that plaintiff met its prima facie burden on the initial motion for summary judgment by submitting evidence of defendant Eldorado Trading’s promise to pay under the note, the guarantee by defendants Eldorado S.A. and Verpar, and nonpayment (see Eastbank v Phoenix Garden Rest., 216 AD2d 152 , lv denied 86 NY2d 711 ). Plaintiff also submitted evidence demonstrating it had purchased the note, which was held by BB Securities on its behalf in a secure account at Euroclear.“

Implications for Long Island and NYC Homeowners

This First Department decision creates important precedent for foreclosure defense attorneys representing homeowners throughout the greater New York area. The court’s willingness to accept alternative evidence of standing, even when traditional assignment documentation might be incomplete, signals a shift in how New York courts approach these technical challenges.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

The IRB-Brasil case establishes several important principles:

• Custodial Relationships Can Establish Standing: When a third party holds a note as custodian, proper affidavits from corporate officers can establish the true party in interest’s right to sue.
• Assignment Agreements Provide Backup Protection: Even when initial documentation raises questions about standing, subsequent assignment agreements can cure potential defects.
• Courts Have Discretion in Renewal Motions: The “interest of justice” standard allows courts flexibility in accepting corrective documentation.
• Prima Facie Burdens Can Be Met Multiple Ways: Plaintiffs aren’t limited to a single method of proving their entitlement to foreclose.

Strategic Considerations for Foreclosure Defense

While this case may reduce the effectiveness of certain standing challenges, experienced foreclosure defense attorneys can still identify opportunities to protect homeowners’ rights. The decision highlights the importance of thorough document review and strategic motion practice.

Document Analysis Remains Critical

For homeowners facing foreclosure in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, Kings, New York, Bronx, Richmond, and Westchester counties, careful examination of the foreclosure complaint and supporting documentation remains essential. Even after IRB-Brasil, lenders must still present competent evidence of their standing to foreclose.

Timing and Procedural Issues

The case also emphasizes the importance of when standing is established. Courts will scrutinize whether the foreclosing party had the right to sue at the time the action was commenced, not just when they file their motion for summary judgment.

The Broader Context of Foreclosure Defense in New York

The mortgage crisis that peaked in 2008-2010 led to widespread improper foreclosure practices, including “robo-signing” scandals and inadequate documentation. New York courts have had to balance protecting homeowners from these abuses while not creating insurmountable barriers for legitimate foreclosure actions.

The IRB-Brasil decision represents the courts’ attempt to find this balance, acknowledging that in today’s complex mortgage marketplace, rigid adherence to traditional documentation requirements might not always serve justice.

What This Means for Current and Future Cases

For homeowners currently facing foreclosure, this decision doesn’t eliminate all standing-based defenses, but it does narrow them. It’s more important than ever to work with experienced foreclosure defense counsel who understand these evolving legal standards.

Alternative Defense Strategies

Even when standing challenges may be less effective, other defenses remain available:

• Predatory lending claims
• Truth in Lending Act violations
• Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) violations
• Failure to comply with New York’s statutory foreclosure requirements
• Settlement conference procedural challenges
• Loss mitigation opportunities

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I still challenge standing to foreclose after this decision?

Yes, but the standards have become more flexible. Courts may accept alternative forms of evidence beyond traditional assignments, making these challenges more difficult to succeed on.

What should I do if I receive a foreclosure complaint?

Contact an experienced foreclosure defense attorney immediately. Even if standing challenges are more difficult, numerous other defenses and strategies may be available to protect your home.

How does this affect cases in the Second Department?

While this is a First Department decision, it may influence Second Department courts, which cover Long Island and other areas where assignment defenses have been more successful.

Should I represent myself in foreclosure court?

Never attempt to handle foreclosure proceedings without experienced legal counsel. The law is complex and constantly evolving, as this case demonstrates.

Protecting Your Home: Next Steps

If you’re facing foreclosure in Nassau County, Suffolk County, or anywhere in the New York City area, don’t wait to seek legal help. While the IRB-Brasil decision may make certain defenses more challenging, experienced foreclosure defense attorneys understand how to navigate these changing legal landscapes.

The key is acting quickly and working with counsel who stays current on the latest developments in foreclosure law. Every case presents unique facts and circumstances that may provide opportunities for defense, loan modification, or other resolution strategies.

Don’t face foreclosure alone. Contact an experienced foreclosure defense attorney today to discuss your options and protect your home. Call 516-750-0595 for a consultation.

Related Articles

• Assignments and business records – a deadly combination
• Motion seeking leave to amend the answer to seek affirmative defense of lack of standing is proper
• The Court offers some guidance as to the business records exception
• Issues involving the granting of leave to renew when an improper affirmation instead of an affidavit is presented
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law