Search Menu

PIB Law Appellate Mortgage Newsletter Issue 4 Print PDF


We are pleased to share with you the latest issue of the PIB Appellate Mortgage Newsletter.

This newsletter summarizes recent relevant appellate decisions from the following jurisdictions in which our lawyers practice: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and California.

For ease of reference, each case summary begins with a brief synopsis of the topics that are generally covered in that case.

Below are a few highlighted cases that are covered in this edition of the newsletter:

  • New York: A CPLR 3012-b certificate of merit is an ethical obligation, not an evidentiary one; on a motion to dismiss based upon lack of standing, defendant has the burden to establish lack thereof (Matamoro)
  • New Jersey: Mortgagee owes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the borrower when deciding how to apply insurance proceeds (Daw)
  • New Jersey: The state court retains jurisdiction over the foreclosure action when the loan has been placed into a FDIC receivership; state foreclosure proceedings may proceed while a federal action is pending that asserts causes of action unrelated to the foreclosure (Roggio)
  • Massachusetts: Omission of the debtor’s name from certificate of acknowledgement in mortgage was a material defect under Massachusetts law, rendering mortgage void because a bona fide purchaser would not have constructive knowledge of instrument (Desmond)

In addition to the case summaries, here are several additional highlights:

  • New Jersey: The New Jersey Judiciary has announced that, effective November 19, 2021, the courts resumed post-trial foreclosure activity, including issuance of writs of possession, for residential foreclosure matters. This is in conformity with Executive Order 249, which suspended certain residential property removals through November 15, 2021. Read the notice.
  • New York: Effective December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of New York’s Commercial Division is requiring corporate parties to file corporate disclosure statements akin to the statement required under Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View the Court’s Administrative Order 289/21 enacting Rule 35.

If there are any particular decisions that you would like to review or discuss, please do not hesitate to let us know by reaching out to Scott Parker.

Related Materials

We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. Please know that by continuing to explore our website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.