Gustavia Home, LLC v. Bent
321 F. Supp. 3d 409
E.D.N.Y2018Background
- Gustavia Home, LLC (plaintiff) sued to foreclose a mortgage on 145 Boylston St., Hempstead, NY, based on a May 27, 2005 Note and Mortgage executed by Nicholas Bent for $65,800.00.
- The Note and Mortgage were assigned through a chain of allonges/assignments to Gustavia (assignment documents in the record; assignment events occurred in June 2016).
- Bent defaulted on payments beginning July 1, 2011; plaintiff's servicer sent a 30‑day default notice and the RPAPL § 1304(1) 90‑day pre‑foreclosure notice on January 13, 2016.
- Gustavia filed the foreclosure complaint July 19, 2016 and possessed the Note and Mortgage at commencement; Bent answered with general denials and 21 affirmative defenses.
- Gustavia moved for summary judgment; Bent (and other defendants) did not oppose. The Court independently reviewed Gustavia’s evidentiary submissions (Note, Mortgage, allonges, assignments, Dotoli affidavit, default/pre‑foreclosure notices) and found no triable issue of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to foreclosure | Gustavia produced the Note, Mortgage, allonges, chain of assignments, servicing affidavit (Dotoli), and default/pre‑foreclosure notices showing default and ownership/possession | Bent raised general denials and affirmative defenses asserting lack of ownership, authenticity, notice failures, and statute of limitations, but provided no evidence | Court: Gustavia met prima facie burden; Bent's unsupported denials/defenses fail; grant summary judgment |
| Whether pre‑foreclosure notice and default cure procedures were satisfied | Plaintiff produced 30‑day default and 90‑day pre‑foreclosure notices mailed Jan. 13, 2016 | Defendant alleged failure of notice in answer without evidentiary support | Court: Notices in record sufficient; defendant failed to raise a factual dispute |
| Whether possession/standing to foreclose was established without originals | Gustavia relied on copies of instruments and an affidavit confirming possession and business records | Defendant denied authenticity of copies and ownership without producing admissible contrary evidence | Court: Copies plus affidavit (and chain of assignments/allonges) suffice to show standing; originals not required |
| Whether affirmative defenses and answer should preclude summary judgment or be stricken | Plaintiff sought summary judgment and asked to strike Bent’s answer/defenses as baseless | Bent did not oppose or submit evidence; answer contained only conclusory defenses | Court: Summary judgment granted; motion to strike was denied as moot because SJ resolved the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir.) (district court must independently review unopposed summary judgment submissions to ensure movant met its burden)
- OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Melina, 827 F.3d 214 (2d Cir.) (affidavits confirming physical possession of the note can establish standing to foreclose)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard; reasonable jury inference test)
- Campaign v. Barba, 23 A.D.3d 327 (N.Y. App. Div.) (prima facie foreclosure case requires mortgage/note, ownership, and default)
- United States v. Freidus, 769 F. Supp. 1266 (S.D.N.Y.) (mortgage is security for a debt; mortgagor bound by contract absent equitable defenses)