A defendant appealed from a trial court order which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action to foreclose on a mortgage and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.
The plaintiff sought a judgment of foreclosure and sale based upon a mortgage and note extension and modification agreement (CEMA) which the defendant had executed. The plaintiff had lent $500,000 to borrowers who had claimed to own the real estate property that they sought to mortgage (property). The borrowers had signed a note and a mortgage. However, the borrowers had acquired the property through “fraudulent means.” After the lawful owner, the defendant, reacquired the property, he executed the CEMA with the lender. The CEMA contained the defendant’s acknowledgement of the plaintiff’s rights under the note and mortgage and the plaintiff’s agreement to forbear from foreclosing for a year, “presumably to permit [defendant] to obtain refinancing.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]