Popular Topics
All Topics
- 5 Pointz
- Advertising
- Advertising Law
- affordable housing
- AirBNB Lawsuit
- ALTA
- ALTA ACSM Standards
- Assemblages
- Bloomberg BNA
- Breach
- Broker-LawyerRelationship
- Broker’s license
- Building Loan Soft Costs
- Certified B corporation
- checklist
- Climate Change
- Commercial Condo
- Commercial Tenant Harassment Law
- commerical real estate
- Condo Developers
- condominium
- condos
- Contract
- Copyright, Trademark and Other Intellectual Property
- Corporate Law
- Corporate social responsibility
- Court Decisions
- COVID-19
- Crowdfunding
- Crowdfunding Rules
- CSR
- Delaware corporate law
- Delaware Good Faith
- Delaware Law
- Dodd-Frank Act
- environment, social and governance
- ESG
- event of default
- FinCEN
- foreclosure
- Fraud
- gross negligence
- ground leases
- Inequitable Conduct
- infrastructure
- Insurance Company
- Intellectual Property
- Internal Revenue Code
- internet
- ISLA
- Jennifer Plan
- Job Act Rules
- Joint Venture Agreements
- leasehold condominiums
- Limited Liability
- Limited Partnerships
- LLC
- LLC Agreement
- LLC Agreement Questions
- LLC Checklist
- LLC Mergers
- LLC taxation
- Loan Agreements
- MAE
- Mom and Pop Tenants
- Mortgage Subordination
- mortgages
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York City Council
- New York City Surveys
- New York Real Estate Journal
- Non-profit Organization
- NY Attorney General
- NY Real Estate in 2016
- NY Real Estate in 2018
- NYREJ
- NYS Land Surveyors Association
- NYS Lien Law
- Offering Plan
- online database listing
- opportunity zones
- Ordinary Course Covenant
- Passive Investors
- Public benefit corporation
- Public M&A
- Public Policy
- Purchase Contracts
- quality control
- Real Estate
- Real Estate Development Company
- Real Estate Financing Bureau
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate LLC Agreements
- Real Estate Taxes
- Real Property Tax (RPT)
- Real-estate-advertising
- retail lease
- Rights of First Refusal
- ROFRs
- rural areas
- Sales
- Sales Tax
- section 1031 exchanges
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Sellers
- Sole Discretion
- Specific Disclaimers
- Tax
- tax escalation clause enforcement
- tenancies in common
- TRIA
- VARA
- Visual Artists Rights Act
- Visual Examinations
- “High Volatility” (HVCRE) loans
Recent Posts
- Delaware Chancery Court Provides Important Guidance on COVID-19’s Impact on a Buyer’s Obligation to Close:
- Infrastructure Needed to Cure Digital Divide in the U.S.
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Hotel Ground Lease Defaults
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Gross Negligence
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Returning to Offices After COVID-19
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Protecting Co-Investors in LLC Agreements
- Acronyms, Abbreviation and Jargon in New York Commercial Real Estate
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Top Legal Developments of 2019 in NY Real Estate
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Mortgage Break-Up Fees
Archives
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- September 2019
- July 2019
Contact Us
Thomas D. Kearns
tkearns@olshanlaw.com
@TDKearns
212.451.2273
NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Foreclosures for Technical Mortgage Defaults
New York Real Estate Journal published an article on November 17 authored by Olshan Real Estate partner Thomas Kearns entitled “No Foreclosures for Technical Mortgage Defaults.”
I started my legal career in the early 1980’s, an era of very high interest rates. As a young law clerk I worked on several matters where lenders holding older, long term mortgages at much lower rates would try to default borrowers based on technical violations of the mortgage. At the time, New York law had softened on technical defaults in the lease context relying on concepts of equity, but the notorious 1930 decision in Graf v Hope Building Corp. was thought to be the law of the state when it came to mortgages. In Graf, the only check signatory left a check with his office for the mortgage payment and then took a several week long trip to Europe. The check was $400 short and the lender defaulted the borrower and accelerated the mortgage before the signatory returned to the country. New York’s Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, held that the lender could enforce the default even though the mistake was promptly corrected upon the signatory’s return.
My firm had a client at that time who had failed to deliver certain financial statements and had failed to pay taxes for a short period. I was in charge of researching whether the equitable principles that New York had applied to lease contexts was also applicable to mortgages. I read the leading treatises and struck out–the only favorable decision I could find was an impassioned dissenting opinion in Bay v Bay (1960) by an intermediate appellate court. In Bay, taxes of $650 were not paid on the family farm until after the default cure period had passed. The dissent argued that equity required that the farm should not be forfeited for the tax non-payment.
It was a well-argued opinion that would have helped my client perfectly. There was only one problem–it was a dissent. The majority cited Graf and the farmer lost. I continued to work on the brief arguing that the time had come to extend the lease rationale to mortgages. On the day before the brief was due, a law clerk is required to cite check all of the cases cited in the brief to see if there were any more recent decisions. That check resulted in good news and bad news. The good news was that the Bay decision had been overturned! By the Court of Appeals! It was great for my client! The opinion reversing the holding was unusual–very short: “Reversed based on the dissenting opinion below.” It was perfect! The bad news was that I had missed the reversal until the day before the brief was due. I sheepishly approached the partner in charge and explained what happened. She was understanding and we quickly worked the Bay decision into a much more important place in the brief. Our client won the motion.
After the case was over, I tried to figure out how I had missed the reversal. I retraced my steps and found that the treatises where I had started my research also missed the Bay reversal. I read a couple more treatises–they also missed it. I felt better. To this day Bay is not frequently cited in court opinions but it should be. Borrowers faced with a mortgage acceleration based on a short-term failure to pay taxes or other technical default should cite to Bay v Bay and let me know how you do. Borrowers should not be defaulted for technical, short-term matters that don’t materially affect the security of the mortgage. This is crucial since forfeiture of the property through a foreclosure process is a draconian penalty and because default interest charges can be punitive.
Thomas Kearns is a partner with Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP’s real estate department, New York, N.Y.
Zachary Freedman, a law clerk with Olshan, assisted with the research and wring of this article.