Appellate Division Ruins Homeowner’s Loan Mod Victory And Reverses Suffolk County Judge Spinner’s Decision

The Appellate Division has reversed the famous decision of Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Spinner in IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski. This is a major step backwards for the rights of consumers and homeowners. Here is the law.com article on this:

Panel Upsets Ruling That Canceled Mortgage
Noeleen G. Walder

New York Law Journal
November 22, 2010

Related Items
IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 17926/05
A judge who blasted a lender’s “repugnant, shocking and repulsive” conduct in trying to foreclose on a Long Island home exceeded his authority when he canceled the mortgage on the property, a state appeals court has ruled. After IndyMac Bank obtained a foreclosure judgment against Diana J. Yano-Horoski, who took out a $292,500 mortgage in 2004, the East Patchogue homeowner requested a settlement conference with the bank.

In a decision last year, Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Spinner in Suffolk County (See Profile) criticized an IndyMac representative for what he called her “opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude” during the conference, and said she had made it “abundantly clear that no form of mediation, resolution or settlement would be acceptable to the bank.” Following the conference, Justice Spinner sua sponte ordered a hearing to determine whether to impose monetary sanctions on IndyMac. At the hearing questions arose about how much Ms. Yano-Horoski owed the bank. “Greatly disturbed” by the nearly $250,000 disparity, Justice Spinner said that he was “unable to find even so much as a scintilla of good faith on the part of the Plaintiff.” He noted that Ms. Yano-Horoski and her husband had attempted to resolve the matter in good faith, “only to be callously and arbitrarily turned away by Plaintiff.” Blasting IndyMac for its “egregious” conduct, he concluded that monetary sanctions would not benefit Ms. Yano-Horoski, and took the unusual step of canceling the debt and discharging the mortgage (NYLJ, Nov. 23, 2009).

Last week, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held in an unsigned ruling that the “severe sanction…was not authorized by any statute or rule…nor was the plaintiff given fair warning that such a sanction was even under consideration.” “The reasoning of the Supreme Court that its equitable powers included the authority to cancel the mortgage and note was erroneous, since there was no acceptable basis for relieving the homeowner of her contractual obligation to the bank,” the panel wrote in its unanimous unsigned ruling in IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 17926/05.