Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Hunte

Background

Nationstar Mortgage LLC sued Esther Hunte to foreclose on a mortgage securing property identified in the opinion as 42 Brooker Drive, Newburgh, New York. Hunte represented herself. Nationstar filed a second motion for summary judgment, asking the court to resolve the foreclosure claim without a trial.

Hunte obtained a mortgage loan from Lehman Brothers Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, in the original principal amount of $337,840. The note and mortgage were later assigned, ultimately to Nationstar. Nationstar stated that it possessed the original note before filing the lawsuit and that Hunte had made no payments since March 1, 2016.

The parties submitted different copies of a purported loan-modification agreement. Nationstar submitted a copy containing a lender signature and a notary stamp dated March 31, 2019. Hunte submitted a copy with different native pagination and no lender signature. The agreement stated that the loan would not be modified unless Hunte received a copy signed by the lender and the modification’s effective date occurred.

Court’s analysis

Under the summary-judgment standard, a court grants judgment without a trial only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed facts in favor of the party opposing the motion and generally may not decide credibility disputes at this stage.

The court held that Nationstar established a prima facie foreclosure case—a preliminary showing sufficient to support its claim unless the borrower presents evidence overcoming it. Nationstar produced the note and mortgage, showed the assignments leading to it, and presented evidence of Hunte’s default. The court also found that Nationstar had standing, meaning the legal right to bring the foreclosure action, because it showed a written assignment of the note and evidence that it possessed the note before filing the case.

The court rejected Hunte’s argument that an alleged defect in the mortgage’s assignment prevented foreclosure. Under the New York law discussed in the opinion, the holder of the note may have standing to foreclose, and the mortgage follows the note. The court also concluded that a later transfer of the note did not eliminate Nationstar’s standing because Nationstar held the note when it commenced the action.

The court rejected Hunte’s challenges to service and venue. Nationstar submitted an affidavit stating that Hunte was personally served at her residence in Florida, and the court found no requirement that she be served at the property involved in the foreclosure. The court also found venue proper because the property was in the Southern District of New York.

The court further rejected Hunte’s arguments concerning a separate state foreclosure action, bad faith, unclean hands, and fraud. It stated that the state action had been disposed of after settlement conferences and involved nonpayment before the period at issue in this case. It also found that Hunte had not described fraud with the required particularity. The court concluded that Nationstar had submitted sufficient evidence concerning the 90-day foreclosure notice, while also noting that Hunte did not assert that the property was her principal dwelling, a fact relevant to whether that notice statute applied.

The court did, however, find a genuine dispute about the loan-modification agreement. Nationstar had not explained the conflicting pagination, the 2019 notary stamp, the apparently late lender signature, or how those issues affected enforceability. Because the validity of the modification could change both the amount Hunte owed and the contractual terms governing the loan, the court could not grant Nationstar summary judgment for the full amount and exact terms requested.

Disposition

The court partially granted and partially denied Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment. It declined to award summary judgment for the specified amount and exact terms demanded by Nationstar. Instead, it gave Nationstar 30 days from the opinion’s date to submit supplemental briefing addressing the modification agreement and the damages calculation, including the damages that would be owed if the modification could not be verified. Hunte would then have 30 days to respond, with no extensions. The court stated that Nationstar’s failure to address the concerns properly and on time could result in dismissal of the action. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail the opinion to Hunte.