Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Redman

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 25, 2023
Docket3:22-cv-00875
StatusUnknown

This text of Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Redman (Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Redman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Redman, (N.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. 3:22-CV-875 (TJM/ML) THOMAS D. REDMAN, and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants.

Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge

ORDER Plaintiff Freedom Mortgage Corporation filed a Complaint in the instant action on August 23, 2022. See dkt. #1. The Complaint seeks foreclosure of a mortgage on a residence at 1060 Powers Road, Conklin, New York. Id. at 1. Defendant Thomas D. Redman signed a mortgage on that property in the amount of $123,960 on January 23, 2015. Id. at 9 7. Plaintiff Freedom Mortgage Corporation eventually came to own the mortgage, which Defendant modified pursuant to an agreement on August 23, 2018. Id. at J] 8-9. That mortgage amounted to $132,896.53. Id. at 79. The Complaint alleges that Defendant has not made a payment on the mortgage since May 1, 2020. Id. at J 10. At the time that Defendant filed this action, Defendant owed $129,569.31 on the mortgage principal. Id. at 11. Per the mortgage’s terms, interest accrued at 5% from April 1, 2020. Id. Plaintiff's two-count Complaint seeks judgment of foreclosure, costs and fees, and an

order from the Court that the property be sold to recover the sums owed. Plaintiff served the Complaint on the Defendants, who did not answer. The Clerk granted Plaintiff's request for entry of default. See dkt. # 14. Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for default judgment. See dkt. # 18. Though the Court is to “[accept] as true all well pleaded allegations against a defaulting defendant for purposes of determining liability,” the Plaintiff is still required to present evidence to establish the amount of damages. Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 83 n.6 (2d Cir. 2009). Thus, “the quantum of damages must be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible to mathematical computation.” Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974). Though “‘the court must ensure that there is a basis for the damages specified in a default judgment, it may, but need not, make the determination through a hearing.” Bravado Int'l Group Merch. Serves. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 177, 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Fustok v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 122 F.R.D. 151, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)). Instead, “the court may rely on detailed affidavits or documentary evidence . . . to evaluate the proposed sum.” Fustok, 122 F.R.D. at 156. Having examined the documentary evidence provided by the Plaintiff, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established the amount of damages as a sum certain and that no hearing is required. The Court will therefore GRANT Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, dkt. # 18, as follows: 1. The mortgaged premises described in the Complaint (“the property in question”), more commonly known as 1060 Powers Road, Conklin, New York, 13748, a parcel of land improved with a single family home, shall be sold in and as one parcel;

2. Such sale shall be conducted at a public auction at the Broome County Courthouse, 92 Court St., Binghamton, NY13901, or at another such suitable location, by and under the direction Thomas F. Cannavino, Esq., 10 Madison Avenue, Endicott, NY 13760, Ph. 607-748-1533, who is hereby appointed Referee for the sale of the mortgaged premises. The Referee shall give

public notice of the time and place of the sale in accordance with New York RPAPL § 231 in the Press & Sun Bulletin newspaper; 3. The Plaintiff or any other party to this action may become a purchaser of the property in question at the scheduled sale; 4. The Referee shall accept at such sale the highest bid offered by a bidder, who shall be identified in the Court record. The Referee shall require that the successful bidder immediately execute Terms of Sale for the purchase of the premises. The purchaser shall pay to the Referee, in cash, in a certified check, or in a bank check, ten percent (10%) of the sum bid. If the

successful bidder is the Plaintiff in this action, no deposit against the purchase price shall be required; 5. If the first successful bidder fails immediately to execute the Terms of Sale following the bidding upon the subject premises or fails immediately to pay the ten percent (10%) deposit required, the premises shall immediately and on the same day be reoffered at auction; 6. The closing of the title shall take place at the office of the Referee or at another location determined by the Referee. The closing of title and filing of the Referee’s deed shall be made within thirty (30) days after the sale unless 3 otherwise stipulated by the parties; 7. The Referee shall deposit all funds received pursuant to the judgment of foreclosure and sale of the property in the Referee’s Interest on Lawyer Account Fund (“IOLA”); 8. Upon receipt of funds from the sale, the Referee shall promptly cause to

paid from those proceeds: a. $750 to the Referee as the statutory fees and commissions due under New York CPLR § 8003(b). If the scheduled sale is cancelled or postponed by a person other than the Referee, the Plaintiff shall pay $250 to the Referee. That fee shall be paid for every cancellation or postponement caused by a person other than the Referee. That compensation may be paid to the Referee from the proceeds of the sale. This judgment and order constitutes the necessary prior authorization for compensation as set forth herein. No compensation

totaling in excess of $1,100, including compensation authorized pursuant to New York CPLR§ 8003(a) for computation of the sum due to the Plaintiff, may be accepted by the Referee without Court approval; b. The reasonable expenses for the sale, including the costs of advertising as shown on the bills presented and certified by the Referee to be correct, copies of which shall be annexed to the Report of Sale. The Referee shall not be held responsible for the payment of penalties or fees pursuant to his appointment. The purchaser of the 4 property shall hold the Referee harmless from any such penalties or fees assessed; c. Pursuant to New York RPAPL § 1354 and pursuant to the priorities established under that law, all taxes, assessments, sewer rents, water rates, and any other charges placed upon the premises by any

municipal authorities having priority over the foreclosed mortgage and which are liens on the premises at the time of sale, with such interest or penalties that lawfully may have accrued thereon to the date of payment; d. To the Plaintiff or its attorney: I. the sum of $1453.35 for the costs and disbursements in this action to be taxed by the Clerk, with interest from the date of this judgment and order; ii. the sum of $158,128.08,1 the amount the Court finds due on

1Plaintiff calculates the amount owed on the mortgage as follows: Principal Balance $ 129,569.31 Interest from 4/1/20 to 1/15/23 at 5% $ 18,064.20 Escrow Advances: Beginning Escrow Balance $(395.33) Taxes $7,760.55 Hazard Insurance $1,584.00 Escrow Credit $ (6.93) Total Escrow Advances: $ 8,942.29 Property Inspections $ 435.00 Late Charges Prior to Acceleration $ 1,117.28 Total Default $ 158,128.08 The Court has examined the record finds that the record supports this calculation. The Court will adopt the calculation. 5 the mortgage in question, together with interest thereon pursuant to the terms of the Note from January 16, 2023, the date to which interest was calculated in the Plaintiff’s affidavit. Interest shall also be paid from the date of entry of this Order to the date of payment at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C. §

1961(a); iii. $5,225.00, as reasonable attorneys fees as provided for in the mortgage agreement; iv.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Redman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freedom-mortgage-corporation-v-redman-nynd-2023.