Articles Posted in Real Estate Litigation

Mortgages/Predatory Lending. A New York court recently denied foreclosure and stayed the proceeding seeking to take back the home finding that the original lender violated New York ‘s “predatory lending” statue, Banking Law, Section 6-L (“High-cost home loans”).

The Court scheduled a hearing to determine damages incurred by the homeowner and indicated that the relief may actually include the voiding of the mortgage, return of all mortgage payments, return of the expenses of obtaining the loans and attorneys’ fees.

While it is still early in this mortgage crises, and the effects remain to be seen, the lender’s conduct in question included (i) lending in excess of the purchase price to enable payment of
points and closing fees, leaving the borrowers with negative equity in the property; (ii) financing
of fees and points in excess of three per cent of the principal amount of the loan; (iii) the failure
to undertake the “due diligence” required regarding the borrower’s ability to pay a “high cost
home loan”; and (iv) not issuing to the borrower a required “Consumer Caution and Home Ownership Counseling Notice”.
Continue reading

As we reference on our web-site (above), the New York State Property Condition Disclosure Act requires sellers to complete the state mandated form or offer the buyers a $500.00 credit at closing for failure to complete and provide such form in the real estate transaction. Many sellers attorneys recommend that sellers simply provide the credit because you risk litigation over “latent defects” after the real esate closing.

For example, in one recent case the Seller-Defendants answered “No” to certain questions on the New York State Form, and the Plaintiff-Buyer’s home inspector did not report that the property had any material defects. After closing, however, the Buyer allegedly discovered material defects in the property, and commenced suit against the old sellers. The litigation asserted causes of action in fraud and for breach of contract stemming from the allegedly defective conditions

The Supreme Court (trial court) permitted the suit to proceed on the issue of breach of contract and fraud. The Appellate Division, Second Department (appeals court) reversed in part, and dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract because the contract provided that the premises had been inspected and was being sold “as is”.