Deciphering an Illegible Deed; Baseless Objections to Receivership: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses "Castaneda v. Serrano," involving an alleged forged deed, and "Federal National Mortgage Association v. 204 Ellery St." dealing with baseless objections to a receivership.
September 10, 2024 at 11:19 AM
14 minute read
Real EstateAlleged Forged Deed—Illegible Motion Exhibits—Even an Expert Who Could Decipher Ancient Hieroglyphics, Would Be Challenged in Deciphering the Deed—Constructive Trust—Fraud—Conversion—Partition—"Surprisingly, No New York Decisions Determine Whether Illegible Terms Of Contracts Not Governed By CPLR §4544 Are Binding"—Court Held That "If Contract Terms Are Illegible, Mutual Assent to Those Terms, a Necessary Element of a Binding Contract, Is Impossible"—On Prior Occasions, Court Denied Motions Based on Illegible Documents by Reading a Denial of Such Motions Into the Record—Now, Court Believed That Illegible Document Problem Should Be Addressed In a Written Decision and Expressed the Hope That Attorneys Would "Review Submitted Documents To Ensure That Legible Copies Only are Submitted"—Violation of IAS Part 2 Rule-E-File Documents Should Be Attached as Exhibits Rather Than Be Incorporated By Reference—Court Should Not Have To "Hop … Like A Rabbit" To Locate Documents
The court observed that notwithstanding "21st century technological advances," it has been "confronted on various occasions with documents submitted on motions which could use the assistance of a Champollion to decipher." The court explained that Jean-Francois Champollion (1790/1832) was a "younger contemporary of Napoleon Bonaparte" and a "French Philologist and Egyptologist credited with having deciphered ancient hieroglyphics through translation of the Rosetta Stone."
This decision involves a dispute as to who owns certain property (property). The plaintiffs alleged that by a deed dated Nov. 27, 1982, a non-party "A" purchased the property; "the deed embodying the transfer to ("A") was recorded on December 16, 1982." The defendants "A" and "B" maintained a "non-marital relationship." The plaintiffs, children of "B," "while not being an issue of ("A"), maintained a close relationship with the latter."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 3First Lawsuit Filed Alleging Contraceptive Depo-Provera Caused Brain Tumor
- 4The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
- 5Elder Litigators Confront Tough Questions in Last Act of Careers
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250