Jennifer Pike v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
121 A.3d 279
N.H.2015Background
- Property originally mortgaged in 2003; refinanced in 2004. Husband held title at his 2007 bankruptcy filing by quitclaim deed.
- Mortgage assigned (initially in 2009; corrective assignment dated April 15, 2013) to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for a 2005 trust.
- Petitioner (Jennifer Pike) acquired title by quitclaim deed after divorce on July 2, 2013. Trustee initiated foreclosure; sale set for December 13, 2013, and petitioner obtained a temporary injunction.
- Trustee moved for summary judgment asserting it held the note and mortgage and could enforce them. Trial court granted summary judgment for Trustee.
- Petitioner challenged the assignment’s validity, arguing noncompliance with the trust’s Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) made the assignment void under New York law, and alternatively sought to enjoin foreclosure to protect a $100,000 homestead right.
- Trial court denied injunctive relief as petitioner failed to show immediate irreparable harm; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge mortgage assignment | Pike: Assignment is void under NY law because transfer occurred after trust closing date; thus she can challenge it. | Trust: Failure to comply with PSA makes assignment voidable, not void; non-party borrower lacks standing to challenge. | Court: Assignment is voidable; non-party borrower lacks standing to challenge PSA-based defects. |
| Effect of PSA noncompliance under NY law | Pike: Late assignment violates PSA and New York law, so transfer never vested mortgage/note in Trust. | Trust: NY law treats trustee’s ultra vires transfers as voidable and subject to beneficiaries’ ratification. | Court: Follows majority authority — such transfers are voidable, not void; beneficiaries control ratification. |
| Entitlement to injunctive relief to block foreclosure | Pike: Foreclosure should be enjoined unless homestead protection ($100,000) is assured; injunction preserves rights and judicial economy. | Trust: Foreclosure does not automatically eject owner and statutory remedies (RSA 480:8-a) allow homestead setoff after foreclosure. | Court: Denies injunction — petitioner failed to show immediate irreparable harm or lack of adequate remedy at law. |
| Premature challenge to foreclosure given homestead statute | Pike: Without injunction, her homestead right may be lost or inadequately protected. | Trust: Statutory procedures exist to establish homestead rights after foreclosure; foreclosure alone does not extinguish the right. | Court: Homestead claim is premature; foreclosure does not automatically jeopardize right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodstock Soapstone Co. v. Carleton, 133 N.H. 809 (N.H. 1991) (distinguishes defects rendering assignment void vs. voidable)
- Camire v. Gunstock Area Comm’n, 166 N.H. 374 (N.H. 2014) (summary judgment standard and appellate review)
- ATV Watch v. N.H. Dep’t of Resources & Econ. Dev., 155 N.H. 434 (N.H. 2007) (standards for injunctive relief)
- Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014) (NY law treats transfers into trusts violating PSA as voidable; beneficiaries may ratify)
- Butler v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 748 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2014) (majority of courts view trustee’s contrary acts as voidable under NY law)
- In re Davies, [citation="565 F. App'x 630"] (9th Cir. 2014) (collecting authority concluding borrowers/non-parties cannot challenge PSA violations)