JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Ilardo

Citation36 Misc.3d 359,940 N.Y.S.2d 829
Parties JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. Matthew ILARDO, a/k/a Matthew J. Illardo, Dina Ilardo, a/k/a Dina A. Ilardo, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and John Doe # 1–5, said names being fictitious, intended as occupants, tenants, persons or corporations having liens or interests in the premises, Defendant.
Decision Date05 March 2012
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

36 Misc.3d 359
940 N.Y.S.2d 829

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
v.
Matthew ILARDO, a/k/a Matthew J. Illardo, Dina Ilardo, a/k/a Dina A. Ilardo, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and John Doe # 1–5, said names being fictitious, intended as occupants, tenants, persons or corporations having liens or interests in the premises, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.

March 5, 2012.


940 N.Y.S.2d 831

Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, Chestnut Ridge, Attys. for Plaintiff.

Enza Cammarasama, Esq., Northport, Atty. for Ilardo Defendants.

THOMAS F. WHELAN, J.

36 Misc.3d 361

ORDERED that this motion (# 001) by the Ilardo defendants for summary judgment dismissing this mortgage foreclosure action and directing the plaintiff to modify its mortgage in accordance with the terms of a trial period modification plan offered by the plaintiff under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and an order "waiving" all interest accrued on the loan from implementation of the the HAMP offer to the resolution of this action and "expunging any alleged deficiencies in payment" is denied.

This mortgage foreclosure action arises out of mortgage given by the Ilardo defendants on August 23, 2004 to secure a $320,000.00 mortgage loan in connection with the purchase of residential real property situated in Centerport, New York. The complaint was filed on July 13, 2011, in response to which, the Ilardo defendants filed an answer with counterclaims.

940 N.Y.S.2d 832

That answer was amended by the defendants' service of an amended

36 Misc.3d 362

answer with counterclaims dated September 16, 2011, in response to which, the plaintiff replied in October of 2011.

On December 7, 2011, the answering defendants served the instant motion in which they seek a judicially imposed loan modification and other relief. The defendants claim an entitlement to such relief under the terms of a trial plan program loan modification [hereinafter "TPP"] to which the parties agreed in September of 2009. The Illardos' further claim an entitlement to such relief by reason of the deceptive and bad faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff and its representatives in corresponding with the Ilardos in connection with their unsuccessful attempts to secure a permanent modification of the subject loan and the plaintiff's bad faith and prejudicial conduct in prosecuting this action other than in accordance with court rules and notions of fairness and justice. The Illardos urge this court to apply principles of contract law and/or invoke this court's equity powers and issue an order that: 1) compels the plaintiff to provide the defendants with a permanent loan modification as of October 1, 2009 providing for a reduced monthly payment in the amount set forth in the trial program implemented by the parties during the last three of months of 2009; 2) eradicates all interest and deficits in payment that accrued under the original loan documents; and 3) dismisses this foreclosure action.

Underlying these demands for relief are the following factual allegations, all of which are advanced in the affidavit of defendant, Dina Ilardo, that is attached to the moving papers. In August of 2004, the Ilardo defendants purchased their home with the aid of the $320,000.00 mortgage that is the subject of this action and they regularly paid the monthly installment due for principal, interest, taxes, insurance and escrow from the loan's inception until May of 2009. At that time, the Ilardo's were experiencing difficulties in meeting their financial responsibilities and began a 27 month pursuit of a modification of their mortgage loan. The Ilardos missed their first mortgage payment on August 1, 2009, allegedly at the direction of the plaintiff's agents.

In the month preceding the August 1, 2009 default, Dina Ilardo was purportedly told by agents of Chase Bank, the loan servicer, to "stop paying" the mortgage (see ¶ 12 of the Ilardo affidavit). Such advice was allegedly issued when Ms. Ilardo called Chase in July of 2009 to follow up on a Buyer's Assistance Form completed by her in May of 2009 in connection with her initial efforts to secure a mortgage loan modification. Ms. Ilardo

36 Misc.3d 363

claims that she was told that a loan default was a necessary element of eligibility for a loan modification.

On or about September 1, 2009, the Ilardo's received correspondence from Chase advising them that they were past due on the August installment. Ms. Ilardo "immediately" called Chase and "was assured not to worry because we were now in a temporary modification program", the "specific amounts of which were confirmed in that conversation" (see ¶ 14 of the Ilardo affidavit). On September 10, 2009, the Ilardo's received written confirmation of a Home Affordable Modification Trial Period Plan ("TPP") from Chase in which a three month, trial term period was scheduled to begin on October 1, 2009. The plan provided for a reduction of the Ilardos' monthly installment payments from $2,432.00 to $1,953.00. The Ilardo's believed that if they paid the three trial payments beginning on October 1, 2009 and ending on December 1, 2009, Chase would provide them with a Home Affordable

940 N.Y.S.2d 833

Modification Agreement (see ¶ 16 of the Ilardo affidavit).

The Ilardo's allege that they timely made the trial payments and that they continued to pay the reduced monthly installment following the expiration of the trial term for "months" even though Chase advised them that they were in arrears. In response, Dina Ilardo called Chase three times in January of 2010 and was allegedly told "not to worry" since they were in "a loan modification" (see ¶ ¶ 18–19 of the Ilardo affidavit). On February 11, 2010, Ms. Ilardo was advised by "Cindy" at Chase, that "our application was still in review but that Chase may have to place us in a different program" (see ¶ 20 of the Ilardo affidavit). According to Ms. Ilardo, she continued to converse with Chase representatives through July of 2010 and continued to send to them financial documentation in connection with obtaining a loan modification under programs other than the "HAMP" program which provided the three month TPP beginning in October of 2009.

On January 12, 2011, Chase returned the Ilardo's monthly payment (see ¶ 25 of the Ilardo affidavit). The Ilardos continued to receive notices from Chase advising of loan deficiencies (see ¶ 28 of the Ilardo affidavit). Ms. Ilardo nevertheless claims that she was only notified by letter dated June 1, 2011 that Chase was unable to offer a HAMP loan modification or a modification under any Chase modification programs (see ¶ 31 of the Ilardo affidavit). The Ilardos made no further payments to Chase following receipt of that letter (see ¶ 27 of the Ilardo affidavit).

36 Misc.3d 364

Undaunted by these circumstances, Ms. Ilardo continued to pursue loan modifications possibilities with Chase until August 23, 2011 (see ¶ ¶ 33–34 of the Ilardo affidavit).

The plaintiff challenges the accuracy and completeness of Ms. Ilardo's narrative of the conversations she purportedly had with Chase. Such challenges are premised on the self-serving and unsubstantiated nature of Ms. Ilardo's factual allegations regarding her dialogue with Chase representatives. The plaintiff also points to a glaring omission on the part of Ms. Ilardo and her counsel in failing to mention or include a copy of Chase's April 27, 2010 rejection letter. Therein, Chase advised the Ilardos that it was unable to offer a HAMP modification because the Ilardo's housing expense was less than 31% of the gross monthly income and that they did not qualify for a modification under any programs offered by Chase, including the Making Homes Affordable program to which the defendants were first referred in February of 2010. The April 27, 2010 rejection letter references the trial plan documentation and advises that delinquencies in the loan must be addressed to avoid the "negative impact a possible foreclosure may have on your credit rating, the risk of a deficiency judgment being filed against you and the possible adverse tax effects of a foreclosure on your Property". The plaintiff further challenges Ms. Ilardo's claim that bank representatives advised her that she had to be in default under the terms of her loan to qualify for a loan modification since the TPP documentation itself clearly provides otherwise. The plaintiff also contests the merits of the defendants' claims for dismissal of this action, reinstatement of the trial modification as of the date of its inception on October 1, 2009 and a waiver of all interest and an expungement of all loan deficiencies under HAMP or the common law theories advanced by the defendants.

Without denying the existence of the plaintiff's April 27, 2010 rejection letter or the accuracy of the assertion set forth therein that the Ilardo's housing expense

940 N.Y.S.2d 834

was 26% of their gross monthly housing income and thus less...

To continue reading

Request your trial
80 cases
  • Casault v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • November 26, 2012
    ... ... Servicer Defendants identified are: OneWest Bank, FSB; BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP; Ocwen Loan vicing, LLC; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; Rushmore Loan Management ... Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096, 283 Cal.Rptr. 53 ... )). But see Ansanelli v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., C 1003892 WHA, 2011 WL 1134451 ... 9. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Ilardo, 36 Misc.3d 359, 940 N.Y.S.2d 829, 836 ... ...
  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Sultan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 29, 2014
    ... ... Link advised that the bank received the contract, but that it would have to ... an RJI in another, separate action, Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Sulton (index no ... a date of defendant's default ( see JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Rads Group, Inc., 88 A.D.3d ... v. Ilardo, 36 Misc.3d 359, 940 N.Y.S.2d 829 [Sup.Ct., ... Sav. & Loan Assn. of N.Y. City v. Hirschfeld, 101 A.D.2d 380, ... ...
  • Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v. Redeemed Christian Church of God, Int'l Chapel, HHH Parish, Long Island, N.Y., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 22, 2012
    ... ... Sav. and Loan Assn. of Georgia v. 2126 East 105th St. Assoc., 145 B.R. 375, ... v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 19 A.D.3d 120, 796 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept 2005] ). As ... secured by mortgages on family residences ( see JP Morgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Ilardo, 36 Misc.3d 359, 940 ... ...
  • Valley Nat'l Bank v. 58 Vlimp, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 29, 2013
    ... ... 104 AD3d 839, 961 N.Y.S.2d 535 [2d Dept 2013]; US Bank Natl. Ass'n v. Denaro, 98 AD3d 964, 950 N.Y.S.2d 581 [2d Dept ... such modification or refinance arrangements ( see JP Morgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Ilardo, 36 Misc.3d 359, 940 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT