How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Legalease Your Own Question
Legalease
Legalease, Lawyer
Category: Real Estate Law
Satisfied Customers: 16367
Experience:  13 years experience in RE Law, including LL/Tenant, contractor disputes, comm'l prop. issues
20355756
Type Your Real Estate Law Question Here...
Legalease is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I own two coop units in NYC which from checking ACRIS it

Customer Question

I own two coop units in NYC which from checking ACRIS it seems that the original secured party seems to have went out of business and RTC assigned the loan to SECPAC (Security Pacific Bank). SECPAC filed a continuation on each unit c/o GMAC financing. Then interestingly Duetsche Bank filed a UCC1 referencing the original documents from the initial bank that the RTC transferred the loan from. There is no UCC-3 that seemed to be the process of the previous changes and now it depicts Duetsche Bank as secured party with c/o Bayview loan processing. I am concerned that a) one of the units is not designated properly by unit number in the new UCC-1 filing, and b) both units are filed as UCC1's referencing in the documents the original financing organization with no link in ACRIS to the previous documents as ACRIS links all the previous and successive filings from the original. I am having a problem with the new alleged secured party (Bayview) as they seem to only be the servicing organization (agent and not principal -- Duetsche) and they got involved with a non judicial foreclosure that I was told by Bayview they would not get involved and stated it was on me to solve. I got a OTC/TRO and while I was obtaining information Bayview paid the cooperative an exorbitant amount of money and it effectively ended the foreclosure without my knowledge, and they do not even know what they paid for other than to say they paid HOA's and they are authorized based upon the original financing statement from the original secured party back in 1988. Also, nowhere in those documents does it state the original secured party could assign my loan to another party without my permission.
They paid 12k for two units and the outstanding loans on each were $1700 and $2000 respectively. This coupled with the fact they said they were not getting involved leaves me pause as they want their money back and I refuse.
Submitted: 10 months ago.
Category: Real Estate Law
Expert:  Legalease replied 10 months ago.

Hello there --

-

I have considerable experience with the workings of mortgages and assignments and their respective UCC filings from working on these securitized loans from 2000 to 2008 in NYC and Boston. However, can I ask you to clarify a few points for me before I post a response for you?

-

1. How long have you owned these units?

-

2. Do you have any idea at all what the 12K that the lender paid was for? Were there actually outstanding HOA fees or taxes or the like that were not paid either before or during your term of the ownership?

-

3. If I am understanding your explanation correctly, the secured lender paid these outstanding charges due on the units and now wants you to reimburse them for making these payments to whomever or wherever they made the payments to?

-

Once you respond to my questions above, it will take 15-20 minutes for me to type a response and post it here -- I type slowly and sometimes I must move between customers as I am working on questions. I also apologize for the delay in responding to you but securitized lending and mortgages is still somewhat obscure and not all attorneys here know about the process like I do (there are a handful of us that have this specialized experience and so your question was most likely left on the open board until one of us who has experience in this area came online). Let me assure you that you are better off having one of us who have experience in this area answer you than one of the attorneys who has no such experience.

-

Mary (Legalease)

Customer: replied 10 months ago.

1. How long have you owned these units?

Both since 1988

-

2. (a) Do you have any idea at all what the 12K that the lender paid was for?

80% for legal fees and costs

15% for alleged assessments

5% for other alleged and unsubstantiated charges (unverifiable repairs, etc..)

2. (b)Were there actually outstanding HOA fees or taxes or the like that were not paid either before or during your term of the ownership?

Of the 15% above for alleged assessments (1 payment was for one month of maintenance that the cooperative received from me then sent me back a check stating they were rejecting my payment.

-

3. If I am understanding your explanation correctly, the secured lender paid these outstanding charges due on the units and now wants you to reimburse them for making these payments to whomever or wherever they made the payments to?

Let me be clear that they paid the cooperative even though they called me in the middle of May to see what I was doing about the foreclosure. I informed them that I was going to file an OTC/TRO in supreme court. I asked them what they were going to do and they said nothing...they don't get involved in these type disputes. On May 25th I contacted the cooperative to tell them that I was filing the OTC/TRO and we met at the court house on the 26th of May and the Judge signed the OSC/TRO instructing the cooperative to provide me with the details I needed to substantiate my claim that at best I might have owed them a couple of hundred dollars or in fact that they owed me a couple of hundred dollars. They agreed reluctantly and when they were supposed to provide information they ignored me. Little did I know that the bank had sent them a check about the 26th of May. I appeared in court in June (on the return date) and for the first time I learned that the bank had paid them.

Now, the bank itself did not know it had made the payment but once I queried them they realized it and placed it as a negative charge on each loan under the title of escrow.

They still are billing me at my regular outstanding loan, but I am sending correspondence to them telling them they messed up and I owe them nothing but what the loan requires. I further am requesting information regarding their right to the underlying loan, assignment documents from the originating bank that gives them authority, signed copies of the proprietary lease(s), recognition agreement, shares of stock.

They have replied to me with one loan information but not the other. The information they gave me is a copy of the UCC-1 filing but it shows Duetsche Bank as the secured party with Bayview as the c/o in 2006. It references the original UCC-1, UCC-3 .

It seems one of the apartments (the one they have given me nothing on is clearly filed incorrectly as unit 4 instead of 4C (2003092301837001) and the other unit seems to have a UCC-3 (2006111402121005)

-

Once you respond to my questions above, it will take 15-20 minutes for me to type a response and post it here -- I type slowly and sometimes I must move between customers as I am working on questions. I also apologize for the delay in responding to you but securitized lending and mortgages is still somewhat obscure and not all attorneys here know about the process like I do (there are a handful of us that have this specialized experience and so your question was most likely left on the open board until one of us who has experience in this area came online). Let me assure you that you are better off having one of us who have experience in this area answer you than one of the attorneys who has no such experience.

Expert:  Legalease replied 10 months ago.

Hello again --

-

I am not actually working today online but just popped in to see if there were any replies to questions I asked customers last night and I saw your posting. I am online later this evening and can answer your questions then (about 8 pm EST). If that is too long to wait, then please press the button to have a new expert / lawyer assigned to your questions. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will post some answers and suggestions later this evening for you and if you have more questions after that, I will be online to have an actual real time conversation / dialogue with you at that time. Thank you and Thank you for your patience.

-

MARY

Customer: replied 10 months ago.

I am in the process of sending another reply to their vague reply to my complaint (Bayview):


You state in your letter dated August 30, 2016.. "Please be advised that the transfer of service is a common practice in the Mortgage industry"


RESPONSE: That is not a legal reply nor does it substantiate that you legally had a right to this loan originated by Empire. The documents you sent do not substantiate this point at all. This may be something that "goes on" but does not prove that you have, or had legal authority to do so. That proof is contractual and the documents you sent from Empire do not state that the loan may be assigned, transferred, hypothecated, or anything to support your argument. Filing of a UCC does not provide a true basis that a legal transfer has occurred.



You have not provided any proof of


a) copy of signed lease between the parties


b) copy of shares of stock (stock certificate both sides)


c) recognition agreement


d) any contractual proofs that you have a right to the loan originated with Empire (UCC is not one) (proof of legal successor rights)