Tagged with: Equitable Subrogation Foreclosures March 10, 2021 4,352 Views Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Share Save Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago About Author: Salvatore Carollo Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Print This Post The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Related Articles Equitable Subrogation Foreclosures 2021-03-10 David Wharton Salvatore Carollo has concentrated his practice in the area of creditors’ rights since 2007, primarily representing mortgage lenders and servicers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Prior to that, he was a Managing Attorney for the New Jersey office of a national foreclosure law firm, playing a vital role in growing that office while maintaining a large client portfolio. He has developed a broad base of knowledge in all aspects of foreclosure and related practice areas. He has litigated cases through trial and argued at the appellate level in New Jersey. He has also handled bankruptcy matters, loan workouts, REO transactions, title resolutions, and landlord/tenant matters. in Commentary, Daily Dose, Featured, News The New Jersey Appellate Division in New York Mortgage Trust v. Deely, 2021 WL 520063 (App. Div. 2021) has recently published the latest in a series of opinions concerning equitable subrogation. Equitable subrogation, “rooted in principles of equity, is used to compel the ultimate discharge of an obligation by the one who in good conscience ought to pay it,” regardless of whose mortgage was recorded first. Prior decisions on equitable subrogation such as Investor Savings Bank v. Keybank Nat’l Ass’n, 424 N.J. Super. 439 (App. Div. 2012), Sovereign Bank v. Gillis, 432 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2013, and Ocwen Loan Services, LLC v. Quinn, 450 N.J. Super. 393 (App. Div. 2017) were instrumental to the latest ruling in Deely.The underlying facts in Deely involved a mortgage priority dispute between plaintiff and defendant Bank of America in a residential mortgage foreclosure action. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Chancery Division applied equitable subrogation to give plaintiff’s mortgage priority, even thought it was recorded after defendant’s mortgage. When applying a de novo review to the grant of summary judgment, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision having recognized that appellate “review of a trial court’s decision to apply an equitable doctrine is limited,” and the panel would not “substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”This opinion is a departure from prior case decisions which have held that a new lender is not entitled to subrogation, absent an agreement or formal assignment, if it possesses actual knowledge of the prior encumbrance. See First Union Nat’l Bank v. Nelkin, 354 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2002). Instead, the Deely panel opted not to follow the “actual knowledge” rule and adopted a principle from the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages, that makes “material prejudice to the intervening lienor” the directing principle.In his opinion, Judge Geiger relied in large part on the Gillis holding and explained that “[e]quitable subrogation is appropriate when loan proceeds from refinancing satisfies the first mortgage, the second mortgage is paid in full as part of the transaction, and the transaction is based on a discharge of the second mortgage, so long as the junior lienor, here defendant, is not materially prejudiced. Under such circumstances, equitable subrogation should not be precluded by the new lender’s actual knowledge of the intervening mortgage. To do otherwise would allow [defendant] to reap an undeserved windfall by allowing the junior lienor to vault over the priority of the refinancing mortgage lender.” Home / Commentary / Examining Mortgage Liens and ‘Equitable Subrogation’ The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Sign up for DS News Daily Previous: Industry Reacts: Marcia Fudge Confirmed as HUD Secretary Next: For Housing Assistance to Work, Communication Must Improve Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Examining Mortgage Liens and ‘Equitable Subrogation’ Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Subscribe
He told the Sunderland Echo: “You can’t just say, ‘It’s not bad, it’s not bad’. No, it is bad, so let’s get going and work hard for each other. “You need to raise your concerns because it’s easy to applaud and say everything is all right. It’s much harder to talk about things and what you did wrong. “We had a very good meeting on Sunday and the coach stressed that above all else, we need to be defensively solid before we attack. “It was good to talk. I can understand what was being said, even if I can’t speak the language yet. But you need to speak about the difficulties.” Press Association Sunday’s regular debrief after a Barclays Premier League fixture took on a very different complexion this week after the 67-year-old Dutchman asked his players for their views as to what had gone wrong in the opening two fixtures, which have left the Black Cats pointless and facing a backlash from fans. But M’Vila, who was handed a debut against the Canaries following his season-long loan move from Rubin Kazan, insists the discussions were constructive and positive. Sunderland new boy Yann M’Vila has lifted the lid on the cards-on-the-table talks head coach Dick Advocaat ordered in the wake of his side’s tame surrender against Norwich.