Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Mebane
| Decision Date | 31 October 1994 |
| Citation | 618 N.Y.S.2d 88,208 A.D.2d 892 |
| Parties | FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. Henry MEBANE, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E. Robert Giuntini, P.C., White Plains, for appellants.
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman, East Meadow (Bruce J. Bergman, Murray Greenberg, and Donna-Marie Korth, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SANTUCCI, J.P., and JOY, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered January 22, 1993, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint and granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint adding a cause of action sounding in unjust enrichment, and (2) from an order of the same court, entered March 22, 1993, which denied their motion for reargument.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered March 22, 1993, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered January 22, 1993, is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof which denied so much of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the first and second causes of action sounding in foreclosure, and substituting therefor a provision granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action, and (2) deleting the provision thereof which granted so much of the cross motion which was to amend the complaint to assert a cause of action sounding in unjust enrichment relating to all sums which were allegedly advanced by the plaintiff prior to August 5, 1986, and substituting therefor a provision granting the cross motion to the extent of permitting the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint asserting a cause of action sounding in unjust enrichment relating to all sums advanced by the plaintiff on or after August 5, 1986, and otherwise denying that branch of the cross motion which was for leave to serve an amended complaint; as so modified, the order entered January 22, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's time to serve an amended complaint in accordance herewith is extended until 30 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
On or about November 12, 1970, the defendants (hereinafter the borrowers) borrowed $27,900 from Eastern Service Corp., secured by a mortgage on their home. Under the terms of the mortgage, the borrowers were obligated to make monthly payments of principal and interest in the amount of $342 until December 1, 2000, at which time the unpaid principal and interest shall become due and payable. On November 12, 1970, Eastern Mortgage Corp. assigned the mortgage to the Federal National Mortgage Association (hereinafter FNMA). On or about May 22, 1974, FNMA commenced a foreclosure action, alleging that the borrowers had defaulted in payments commencing March 1, 1973, and exercised its option to accelerate all sums due under the mortgage by making demand in the complaint. A mistrial was declared in that action. The action was marked off the trial calendar on December 6, 1976, and was deemed dismissed one year thereafter (see, CPLR 3404). On January 3, 1979, FNMA assigned the mortgage to the predecessors of Metmor Financial, Inc. (hereinafter Metmor), the current owner and holder of the mortgage. The instant foreclosure action was commenced by service of a summons and complaint on August 5, 1992.
Contrary to Metmor's contention, although a lender may revoke its election to accelerate all sums due under an optional acceleration clause in a mortgage provided that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Costa v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
...and the six-year [s]tatute of [l]imitations begins to run on the entire mortgage debt." (quoting Federal Natl. Mortg. Ass'n v. Mebane , 208 A.D.2d 892, 618 N.Y.S.2d 88, 90 (2d Dep't 1994) )).The Loan Instruments here offer the lender the option to accelerate the Loan if the borrower default......
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. DeCanio, 600554/15.
...obligation to make monthly installments ceased and all sums became immediately due and payable" ( Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Mebane, 208 A.D.2d 892, 894, 618 N.Y.S.2d 88 [2d Dept 1994] [emphasis added] ). As such, it is a contractual right and obligation that does not inure to the benefit......
-
Christiana Trust v. Barua
...to make monthly installments ceases and all sums and penalties become immediately due and payable (see Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Mebane, 208 A.D.2d 892, 894, 618 N.Y.S.2d 88 ). A borrower so circumstanced may typically, necessarily, and detrimentally rely upon the acceleration for not te......
-
Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Engel
...installment payments (although the contracts may provide the borrower the right to cure) (see Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Mebane, 208 A.D.2d 892, 894, 618 N.Y.S.2d 88 [2d Dept. 1994] ). Such a significant alteration of the borrower's obligations under the contract—replacing the right to ma......