Justice Bernice D. Siegal

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Wells Fargo Bank moved against the Kim defendants for judgment of foreclosure and sale seeking to confirm a referee’s report, and to sell the subject property at auction. Kim executed a note and mortgage in a predecessor-in-interest’s favor, was offered a loan modification with first payment due, but defendants breached their obligation to make payments. The note and mortgage were assigned to Bank, and a referee report stated defendants owed over $1 million. The court granted Bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report, and to sell the subject property at public auction. Defendants alleged Bank lacked standing, but the court disagreed finding it had standing to bring the within action as there was requirement an entity in possession of a negotiable instrument that was indorsed in blank must establish details of how it came into possession of such instrument to be able to enforce it. It found Bank showed possession of the note and mortgage, by an employee’s affidavit, before the date the action was commenced. Defendants argued Bank did not negotiate in good faith. Yet, the court stated Bank was not obligated to meet defendants’ desires, noting HAMP was denied as defendants owed a higher amount than the program’s limit allowed. Hence, Bank’s motion was granted.

Justice Bernice D. Siegal

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Wells Fargo Bank moved against the Kim defendants for judgment of foreclosure and sale seeking to confirm a referee’s report, and to sell the subject property at auction. Kim executed a note and mortgage in a predecessor-in-interest’s favor, was offered a loan modification with first payment due, but defendants breached their obligation to make payments. The note and mortgage were assigned to Bank, and a referee report stated defendants owed over $1 million. The court granted Bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report, and to sell the subject property at public auction. Defendants alleged Bank lacked standing, but the court disagreed finding it had standing to bring the within action as there was requirement an entity in possession of a negotiable instrument that was indorsed in blank must establish details of how it came into possession of such instrument to be able to enforce it. It found Bank showed possession of the note and mortgage, by an employee’s affidavit, before the date the action was commenced. Defendants argued Bank did not negotiate in good faith. Yet, the court stated Bank was not obligated to meet defendants’ desires, noting HAMP was denied as defendants owed a higher amount than the program’s limit allowed. Hence, Bank’s motion was granted.