Expand state buyouts in devastated Staten Island neighborhoods

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- After getting so much attention early on in the citywide and national coverage of the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, Staten Island more or less fell out of the public eye as other places hit hard by the storm became the iconic symbols of the catastrophe. That’s just as well as far as many storm victims here are concerned. Most were weary of film crews and “disaster tourists” browsing their neighborhoods.

Click here for the full story: silive.com

SERRANO V. HSBC | FL 4TH DCA – SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED: DISPUTE RELATED TO PARAGRAPH 22 CONDITION PRECEDENT TO FORECLOSURE

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2013

GIL L. SERRANO, ONELIA SERRANO and TIULANG VALDES,
Appellants,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS
FARGO ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, MORTGAGE ASSETBACKED
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-PA1,
Appellee.

No. 4D11-1767

[February 20, 2013]

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Gil L. Serrano, Onelia Serrano, and Tiulang Valdes, defendants below, appeal a final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset SecuritiesCorporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-PA1. We reverse the summary judgment because there remains a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether appelleecomplied with the condition precedent contained in the mortgage to provide pre-suit notice of acceleration. See Dominko v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 102 So. 3d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). We find no merit in the other issues briefed by appellants.

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

COPY OF DECISION 

Courtesy of  4closurefraud.org

ANOTHER WIN FOR THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. BROWN, P.C.!

In Citibank, N.A., v. JF, Index No. 501820/2012, Supreme Court, Kings County, Foster & Garbus on behalf of Citibank sought to enforce a note against our clients in the amount of $ $111,790.44 Dollars. 

The Plaintiff did not provide the date of note, the loan number, or the original loan amount; nor does the Complaint indicate whether any payments were made, the amount due or whether the loan was accelerated.   Remarkably, the Complaint only alleges “Upon information and belief, Defendant(s) borrowed money from Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s assignors pursuant to a promissory note.”  The Complaint also falsely alleges “Plaintiff is the original creditor and is not required to be licensed by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs.”

The Defendants did not execute a note with the Plaintiff, nor did they borrow money from the Plaintiff.  On February 7, 2007, Defendants did sign a note with Geneva Mortgage Corp. – not with the Plaintiff.  Furthermore,  Defendants did not receive any of with the requisite statutory notices prior to commencing this action which purportedly arises out of the Defendants’ default on a promissory note.  As such, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with a condition precedent for the commencement of the law suit. 

Faced with the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Foster & Garbus voluntarily discontinued the action against the Defendants.  This is the FIFTH time, we have successfully defended a homeowner in an action brought by Foster & Garbus on behalf of Citimortgage or Citibank seeking to collect on the note from a second mortgage.  

CPLR 3216 IS A GREAT TOOL WHEN DEALING WITH STAGNANT FORECLOSURE CASES.....

A little over 90 days ago, we had sent the bank's attorney a CPLR 3216 letter demanding the bank resume prosecution against our client. Because of this letter, the bank has dismissed the case and cancelled the Lis Pendens. 

CPLR 3216 is a great tool to force banks that are sitting on cases to either fish or cut bait!