Page 8 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022
P. 8

6




                   MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE


               Bank of America, NA v Kessler, 202 AD3d 10

               Opinion by Hon. Colleen D. Duffy; Hon. Presiding Justice LaSalle and Hon.
               William Mastro concur; Hon. Robert Miller dissents.

               QUESTION PRESENTED: How exacting is the requirement of strict compliance
               with respect to the “separate envelope” mandate of RPAPL 1304


               RPAPL 1304 at time of action provided as follows:

                       1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, w/ regard to a home loan, at
                       least 90 days before lender commences legal action against borrower such
                       lender shall give notice to the borrower in at leasst 14 point type which
                       shall include the following . . .

                       2. The notices req’d by this seciton shall be sent by such lender by
                       registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the borrower and
                       to the residence that is the subject of the mtge. The notices req’d by this
                       section shall be sent by the lender in a separate envelope from any other
                       mailing or notice. The notices req’d by this section shall contain . . .


               HOLDING:  Since the P acknowledged that envelope sent to D included add’l
                              information pertaining to the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy and in
                              military service, P failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly
                              complied w/ the requirements of RPAPL 1304 and D establ prima
                              facie his entitlement to Judgment as a matter of law on this issue
                              and P failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition


                              The Supreme Court (Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman) properly denied
                              those branches of the P’s motion for summary judgment on the
                              complaint, to strike the D’s affirmative defenses and an order of
                              reference and granted the D’s motion for summary judgment
                              dismissing the complaint



                       Legislative History of RPAPL 1304 supports finding that strict interpretation of the
                       “separate envelope” requirement is consistent with Legislature’s intent


                       - separate envelope req’mt of RPAPL 1304 is exclusive to this section and not
                       found in other notice provisions applicable to mtge foreclosure proceedings


                       - although RPAPL 1304 has been amended several times since its adoption in
                       2008, the ‘separate envelope” req’mt has consistently remained
   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13