NY Appeals Court To Standing-Lacking Banksters: OK To Litter Brooklyn Trial Judge's Courtroom With Dubious Foreclosure Paperwork & Otherwise Make Mockery Of Judicial System When Taking Homes Where Homeowner's Failure To Answer Lawsuit Is Deemed A Waiver Of Defenses
Forbes Magazine reports:
- A New York appeals court reversed a Brooklyn judge’s 2011 decision throwing out a foreclosure and ordering $15,000 in sanctions against lender HSBC, saying the judge had abused his discretion by consulting the Internet and newspapers for evidence of “robosigning.”
It was the second time Kings County Judge Arthur Schack had his hand slapped for taking the politically popular, but legally questionable move of dismissing foreclosure proceedings against borrowers who had clearly defaulted on their loans. The judge was also reversed in a similar case in 2011, and in its March 20 decision the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court chided Schack for failing to follow the law.
- Judge Schack, after performing his own investigation including reading newspaper articles and the Internet, decided that HSBC lacked standing to foreclose because the bank had engaged in robosigning, or submitting court documents that were signed by low-level employees without direct personal knowledge of their contents. He also determined that the original lender, not HSBC, was the only party with the right to foreclose because the transaction transferring the note to HSBC was invalid.
The judge also criticized HSBC for allowing Ocwen, the mortgage servicer, to handle the foreclosure, and ordered $15,000 in sanctions against the bank and its lawyers for that and various other transgressions.
But the appeals court threw out the sanctions and ordered the foreclosure proceedings reinstated, strongly criticizing Schack in the process. First, the appeals court noted, Schack had no power to use lack of standing as a reason for dismissing the foreclosure since the borrower had waived that argument by failing to show up in court. The judge also abused his discretion by holding a hearing on sanctions.
For the ruling, see HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Taher, 2013 NY Slip Op 1806 (App. Div. 2d Dept. March 20, 2013).
Thanks to Bill Collins of Frontier Abstract & Research Services for the heads-up on the court ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment