First Federal Savings Bank v. Midura
| Decision Date | 09 August 1999 |
| Citation | 264 A.D.2d 407,694 N.Y.S.2d 121 |
| Parties | FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ROBERT MIDURA et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, in response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, they failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issues of fact in support of their claimed affirmative defenses of tender of payment and improper acceleration.
A valid tender requires an actual proffer of all mortgage arrears (see, Home Sav. v Isaacson, 240 AD2d 633; Bank of N. Y. v Midland Ave. Dev., 193 AD2d 641), but such a tender will cure a default only prior to notice of acceleration (see, Dime Sav. Bank v Glavey, 214 AD2d 419, cert denied 517 US 1221; Dime Sav. Bank v Dooley, 84 AD2d 804). "The law is clear that when a mortgagor defaults on loan payments, even if only for a day, a mortgagee may accelerate the loan, require that the balance be tendered or commence foreclosure proceedings, and equity will not intervene" (New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp. v Olexa, 176 AD2d 399, 401). Once a default has been declared and a loan has been accelerated, a mortgagee is not required to accept a tender of less than full repayment as demanded (see, Albertina Realty Co. v Rosbro Realty Corp., 258 NY 472; Albany Sav. Bank v Seventy-Nine Columbia St., 197 AD2d 816).
Here, the plaintiff's default letter provided that in the event that all arrears were not paid by a specified date, the loan would be accelerated and foreclosure proceedings would be commenced. The appellants' tender was untimely and insufficient to cover the arrears. Accordingly, the plaintiff properly refused said tender and accelerated the loan. The appellants have no defense of tender of payment or improper acceleration warranting the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion (see, Farmingdale Realty Trust v Real Props. MLP Ltd. Partnership, 225 AD2d 656; Bank of N. Y. v Midland Ave. Dev., supra).
While the appellants established that the plaintiff committed bookkeeping errors in the handling of their account, those errors did not preclude summary judgment by raising issues of fact as to whether they were in default.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VFC Partners 19, LLC v. Romaz Props., Ltd.
...a default in payment (see EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Stewart, 2 AD3d 772, 769 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2d Dept 2003] ; First Federal Sav. Bank v. Midura, 264 A.D.2d 407, 694 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1999] ). Hudson Valley's rejection of the part payments forwarded to it by Romaz in October of 2011, which had mat......
-
Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v. Redeemed Christian Church of God, Int'l Chapel, HHH Parish, Long Island, N.Y., Inc.
...repayment as demanded ( see EMC Mtge. Corp. v. Stewart, 2 A.D.3d 772, 769 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2d Dept 2003]; First Federal Sav. Bank v. Midura, 264 A.D.2d 407, 694 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1999] ). It is equally well established that “when a mortgagor defaults on loan payments, even if only for a da......
-
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Arthur
...[2d Dept 2003] ; United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Hingos, 283 A.D.2d 764, 724 N.Y.S.2d 134 [3d Dept 2001] ; First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Midura, 264 A.D.2d 407, 694 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1999] ). The mere fact that the plaintiff refused to consider a reduction in principal or interest rate, does not......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Holler
...[2d Dept 2003] ; United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Hingos, 283 A.D.2d 764, 724 N.Y.S.2d 134 [3d Dept 2001] ; First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Midura, 264 A.D.2d 407, 694 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1999] ). The mere fact that the plaintiff refused to consider a reduction in principal or interest rate, does not......
-
Is Your Default Foreclosable? Facts And Equity Determine The Answer.
...default very closely. Originally published in New York Law Journal, Monday, November 19, 2012 Footnotes First Fed. Sav Bank v. Midura, 264 A.D.2d 407 (2d Dept Fannie Mae v. Shiraz Associates, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6415 (2011). New York Guardian Mortgagee v. Michael Olexa, 176 A.D.2d 401 (3d......