Wells Fargo Bank v. 5615 Northern LLC

Background

The district court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker for a report and recommendation on whether a foreclosure judgment and sale should issue, the amount of any judgment, and whether a receiver should be appointed. Judge Parker recommended judgment for Wells Fargo for $12,636,379.74 in damages accrued through April 6, 2023.

That recommended amount included an unpaid principal balance of $8,271,086.02; regular interest of $1,245,017.34; default interest of $1,708,348.16; a maturity late charge of $414,931.88; protective advances of $895,203.52; attorneys’ fees and costs of $31,586.85; Special Servicing Fees of $66,105.97; and Payoff Quote fees of $4,100.00.

Recommended Additional Amounts and Relief

Judge Parker also recommended that the judgment include amounts to be determined when judgment was entered for interest accruing after April 6, 2023; interest on protective advances, calculated at the prime rate or the 9.99% default rate, whichever was lower; later protective advances, attorneys’ fees, Special Servicing Fees, Payoff Quote fees, and related interest; and a Liquidation Fee to be determined after the foreclosure sale. The recommendation also called for post-judgment interest and for the sale proceeds to be applied to the damages owed.

District Court’s Review and Ruling

The parties did not object to the Report and Recommendation or request additional time to object. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the report for clear error. Judge Broderick found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

The court ordered the appointment of a referee of the sale and a receiver for the property at 56-15 Northern Boulevard in Queens, New York. The opinion states that an order related to the receivership and a separate order and judgment consistent with the Report and Recommendation would be filed after the opinion. The recommendation identifies the appointee as Ivan V. Lagowitz, while the appointment paragraph identifies him as Ian V. Lagowitz; the opinion does not explain this difference.