Countrywide Home Loans Inc. v. Dombek

68 A.D.3d 1041, 892 N.Y.2d 465
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1041 (Countrywide Home Loans Inc. v. Dombek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Countrywide Home Loans Inc. v. Dombek, 68 A.D.3d 1041, 892 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

[1042]*1042On July 28, 2005 the defendant Michael Dombek gave a mortgage to the plaintiff, which was secured by certain real property. The mortgage was recorded on August 25, 2005, which was nine days after Dombek gave another mortgage secured by the same real property to the defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as a nominee for the nonparty RBC Mortgage Company (hereinafter together the appellants), which mortgage was recorded on September 14, 2005. The proceeds of the appellants’ mortgage were used to satisfy a prior and more senior purchase-money mortgage given by Dombek First National Bank of Arizona in 2004, which mortgage the plaintiff also held by virtue of an assignment.

In this foreclosure action commenced by the plaintiff after Dombek defaulted under the July 2005 mortgage, the appellants contend that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applies so that their lien is to be given priority over the plaintiffs lien (see Bank One v Mon Leang Mui, 38 AD3d 809 [2007], citing King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326 [1967]). Given the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the appellants were on notice of the July 2005 mortgage at the time they executed their mortgage, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint and to strike the affirmative defense of equitable subrogation asserted in the answer (see King v Pelkofski, 20 NY2d 326 [1967]; Roth v Porush, 281 AD2d 612 [2001]; cf. LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ally, 39 AD3d 597 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

RTR Properties, LLC v. Sagastume
2016 NY Slip Op 8217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Williams v. Mentore
115 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Private Capital Group, LLC v. Hosseinipour
86 A.D.3d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.3d 1041, 892 N.Y.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/countrywide-home-loans-inc-v-dombek-nyappdiv-2009.