Gustavia Home, LLC v. Hoyer
362 F. Supp. 3d 71
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- Gustavia Home, LLC (plaintiff) commenced a diversity foreclosure under RPAPL Article 13 to foreclose a mortgage on 361 Vernon Ave., Brooklyn; complaint filed July 19, 2016.
- Yvette Hoyer executed the mortgage and note in 2005; ownership/assignment chain ended with an assignment to Gustavia on December 30, 2015.
- Notices of default and a Pre-Foreclosure Notice were mailed March 30, 2016; plaintiff alleges Hoyer defaulted (first missed payment Sept. 1, 2008) and loan was accelerated if not cured by June 28, 2016.
- Defendants (Hoyer and Shauna Paul) answered, asserted 16 affirmative defenses and one counterclaim, and later cross‑moved for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff submitted evidence (assignment, affidavits of note possession and service, proof of RPAPL filings and 1303/1304 notices) and moved for summary judgment; court evaluated whether plaintiff met prima facie elements for foreclosure and whether defendants raised admissible rebuttal evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie elements for foreclosure (existence of obligation, default, notice) | Produced note, mortgage, assignment, affidavits showing default and mailing of notices | Denied default, disputed plaintiff’s standing and adequacy of notices | Plaintiff met prima facie burden; plaintiff was holder/assignee, default proven, notices mailed; summary judgment granted to plaintiff |
| Compliance with mortgage paragraph 20 (notice/amount to cure) | Notices satisfied paragraph 20; any amount dispute is collateral and resolvable under RPAPL 1321 | Notices inconsistent as to cure amounts and therefore defective | Argument waived (not pled earlier) and meritless; amount disputes do not defeat foreclosure and can be resolved under RPAPL 1321 |
| Compliance with RPAPL §1304/§1303 (statutory pre‑foreclosure notice and homeowner help notice) | Served compliant §1303 notice and mailed §1304 notices by certified and first‑class mail; filed §1306 report | §1304 notice defective because cure amount incorrect/different | §1303, §1304 and §1306 requirements satisfied on the evidence; alleged inaccuracies about amounts do not invalidate §1304 notice for purposes of summary judgment |
| Affirmative defenses and counterclaim (standing, TILA, statute of limitations, service, corporate authority, usury/predatory lending, others) | Plaintiff rebutted via assignments, affidavits, proof of service, proof of NY authority, and timeliness (acceleration June 28, 2016; suit July 19, 2016) | Raised multiple defenses and counterclaim for attorneys’ fees under Real Prop. Law §282 | Defendants failed to produce admissible evidence creating a triable issue; many defenses abandoned by failing to brief them; counterclaim dismissed; cross‑motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute if reasonable jury could return verdict for nonmoving party)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burdens and shift of proof)
- United States v. Paugh, 332 F. Supp. 2d 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (elements required to sustain foreclosure)
- Baumann v. Crest/Good Mfg. Co., 160 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) (dispute as to amount owed does not preclude foreclosure; RPAPL 1321 reference)
- Gustavia Home, LLC v. Bent, 321 F. Supp. 3d 409 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (proof of default and notice by affidavits/records in foreclosure context)
- OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Melina, 827 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2016) (standing in foreclosure: holder or assignee at commencement)
- R.G. Group, Inc. v. Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1984) (nonmoving party must provide concrete particulars to show trial is needed)
- Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003) (insufficient "scintilla" of evidence to defeat summary judgment)