Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association
- Rom
- 7:19-cv-06574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Judge Román granted Fannie Mae and Bayview summary judgment on Snellinger’s negligence claims.
John Snellinger’s negligence claims against Fannie Mae and Bayview were resolved against him; the court directed judgment for those defendants and their termination from the action. The opinion does not state how the ruling affected the claims against Ramchand Deoki or Sandhya Deoki.
What happened
In Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association, John Snellinger sued Fannie Mae, Bayview Loan Servicing, Ramchand Deoki, and Sandhya Deoki under state negligence law after he was injured at the property on August 3, 2017. Fannie Mae held the mortgage, and Bayview serviced it before the property was sold at foreclosure.
The court ruled that Fannie Mae could not be liable because it did not maintain or control the property and was an out-of-possession mortgage holder. The court also ruled that Bayview owed Snellinger no duty at the time of the accident because the evidence showed Bayview stopped servicing the property on May 5, 2017, and Snellinger did not provide evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.
Judge Nelson S. Román granted Fannie Mae and Bayview’s motion for summary judgment, directed judgment in their favor, and directed that they be terminated from the action. The opinion does not state a disposition for the claims against Ramchand Deoki or Sandhya Deoki.
The detailed version
- Snellinger v. Federal National Mortgage Association · No. 7:19-cv-06574
- Rom
- June 4, 2025
Background
John Snellinger brought state-law negligence claims against Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (Bayview), Ramchand Deoki, and Sandhya Deoki. The operative complaint alleged that the defendants were responsible for dangerous conditions at a property where Snellinger was injured on August 3, 2017.
The Deokis purchased the property in 2007 using a promissory note and mortgage. The mortgage was assigned to Fannie Mae in
- After the Deokis defaulted, Fannie Mae began foreclosure proceedings, and Bayview began servicing the mortgage for Fannie Mae in
- A foreclosure judgment directed a sale, and the property was sold on May 5,
- The opinion states that legal title remained with the Deokis until it passed to Tuzho Ba on August 30, 2017.
The undisputed facts stated that Bayview never possessed, occupied, or controlled the property and never held title. Fannie Mae also never held title. Neither Fannie Mae nor Bayview entered into a contract with Snellinger concerning the property or its financing. Fannie Mae and Bayview moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, which permits judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.
Claims Against Fannie Mae
The court held that Fannie Mae was an out-of-possession mortgage holder that neither maintained nor controlled the property when Snellinger was injured. Under the New York law discussed by the court, an out-of-possession mortgage holder that does not maintain or control the premises is not liable for injuries occurring there. The court therefore concluded that Fannie Mae could not be liable under Snellinger’s negligence theory and granted summary judgment in Fannie Mae’s favor on the First Cause of Action.
Claims Against Bayview
The court explained that negligence requires a duty owed to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury substantially caused by the breach. The court focused on whether Bayview owed Snellinger a duty when the accident occurred.
Fannie Mae and Bayview submitted evidence that Bayview stopped servicing the property on May 5, 2017, after the foreclosure sale. The court found that Snellinger did not counter that evidence with specific facts. His response stated that he could not admit or deny whether Bayview had stopped servicing the property, and his opposition discussed Bayview’s responsibilities while it serviced the property without addressing whether servicing had ended before the accident.
The court concluded that Bayview was not responsible for the property when Snellinger was injured and therefore owed him no duty required for a negligence claim. It found no genuine dispute of material fact on that issue and granted summary judgment in Bayview’s favor on the First Cause of Action.
Disposition
The court granted Fannie Mae and Bayview’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of those two defendants and terminate Fannie Mae and Bayview from the action. The opinion does not state a disposition for the claims against Ramchand Deoki or Sandhya Deoki.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.