Us Bank Trust Na V Nieves

Key Facts

Issues

• The motion to discharge a satisfaction of mortgage dated November 14, 2006 (filed January 19, 2007) was denied because the complaint did not assert this relief, and plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence the first mortgage was consolidated with the second mortgage to form the CEMA mortgage in April 2007.
• The court determined that plaintiff is entitled to a default judgment against Worldwide Improvements, Inc., the successor in interest to the original borrowers who defaulted in 2020, as Worldwide did not move to vacate the default and retained no rights greater than the borrowers at the time of transfer.

Holdings

• The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against all non-appearing and non-answering defendants, including the appointment of a referee to compute amounts due. The motion to discharge a satisfaction of mortgage was denied as the complaint lacked a cause of action for this relief. The caption was amended to remove 'John Doe' and 'Jane Doe' defendants and substitute U.S. Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of Cabana Series V Trust in place of the plaintiff.
• The court denied the branch of the motion seeking to discharge a satisfaction of mortgage dated November 14, 2006, and filed on January 19, 2007, noting this relief was not requested in the complaint and insufficient evidence was provided to justify its discharge.
• Worldwide Improvements, as the successor in interest to the borrowers, was found to remain in default after its late answer was rejected. The court held that Worldwide has no rights greater than the borrowers at the time of transfer and could not assert new defenses, entitling the plaintiff to a default judgment against Worldwide for the foreclosure cause of action.

Remedies

• The caption was amended to strike the fictitious 'John Doe' and 'Jane Doe' party defendants, as permitted by CPLR 1024 and prior case law.
• An order was issued appointing a referee to calculate the amounts due to the plaintiff under the subject note and mortgage, as authorized by RPAPL § 1321.
• The plaintiff was substituted with U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Cabana Series V Trust, and the caption was amended to reflect this change.
• The court granted a default judgment against all non-appearing and non-answering defendants, including the foreclosure cause of action, as there were no defenses asserted by the borrowers or their successor in interest, Worldwide Improvements, Inc.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the legal principle that a successor in interest (Worldwide) inherits the rights and obligations of the original borrower (Nieves), including their default status, and cannot assert defenses not available to the original borrower. This is based on the Second Department order and cited precedents like Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v Recinos.
• The court granted default judgment under CPLR 3215 against non-answering defendants, including Worldwide, because plaintiff established their default and the lack of defenses. This aligns with prior appellate decisions (e.g., Deutsche Bank v Hall).
• The court denied the motion to discharge a satisfaction of mortgage because the complaint lacked a cause of action for this relief. The satisfaction was filed before the CEMA mortgage, and plaintiff failed to prove the first mortgage was not satisfied.

Precedent Name

• Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Ambrosov
• Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Toscano
• Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Islar
• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Cary
• HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Alexander
• Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v Recinos
• U.S. Bank, N.A. v Razon
• Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, Inc. v Meltzer
• Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Hall
• Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miller
• HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roldan

Cited Statute

• Civil Practice Law and Rules
• Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The branch of the motion for an order discharging a satisfaction of mortgage... is denied, as the complaint asserts no cause of action for this relief.
• As the successor in interest, Worldwide had and has no rights greater than those held by the borrowers at the time of the transfer. Indeed, at the time of the transfer, Worldwide stood and 'stands in the shoes of the borrowers,' who are and have been in default in answering the complaint since 2020.
• Plaintiff is entitled to an order appointing a referee to compute amounts due under the subject note and mortgage (see RPAPL 1321; Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Cary, 106 AD3d 691, 965 NYS2d 511 [2d Dept 2013]; Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527, 794 NYS2d 650 [2d Dept 2005]).