J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v. South Homes, Inc.
This text of J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v. South Homes, Inc. (J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v. South Homes, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v South Homes, Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 04410
July 15, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., respondent,
v
South Homes, Inc., et al., defendants, Marivel D. Luna, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 15, 2026
2024-03498, 2024-04683, (Index No. 708604/16)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Barry E. Warhit
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
The Law Office of Ronald D. Weiss, P.C., Melville, NY (Rosemarie Klie of counsel), for appellants.
Friedman Vartolo LLP, New York, NY (Ronald P. Labeck of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage and cancel and vacate a satisfaction of mortgage, the defendants Marivel D. Luna and Kevin A. Orellana Luna appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph J. Esposito, J.), both entered January 25, 2024. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Marivel D. Luna and Kevin A. Orellana Luna and to strike those defendants' first and fourth affirmative defenses and denied that branch of the cross-motion of the defendants South Homes, Inc., Marivel D. Luna, and Kevin A. Orellana Luna which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The second order, insofar as appealed from, granted the same relief to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
In June 2009, the defendant Intazar Shah executed a note in favor of MetLife Home Loans, a division of MetLife Bank, N.A. (hereinafter MetLife Home), which was secured by a mortgage encumbering certain real property located in Queens (hereinafter the premises). In July 2016, the plaintiff, as the current holder of the note and mortgage, commenced this action against, among others, Shah to foreclose the mortgage and cancel and vacate a satisfaction of mortgage that was recorded in 2012. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), as nominee for MetLife Home, assigned the mortgage to MetLife Home by an assignment executed in April 2011 and, thereafter, executed a fraudulent satisfaction of mortgage on January 27, 2012. The satisfaction of mortgage, which recited MERS's assignment of the mortgage in 2011 and contained various errors and misspellings, allegedly was recorded on February 27, 2012.
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants Marivel D. Luna and Kevin A. Orellana Luna (hereinafter together the defendants), as well as the defendant South Homes, Inc. (hereinafter South Homes), purported to have ownership interests in the premises, subject and subordinated to [*2]the lien of the plaintiff's mortgage. The defendants interposed an answer to the complaint, in which they asserted, as their first and fourth affirmative defenses, inter alia, that they had purchased the premises from South Homes in April 2014 in reliance upon the satisfaction of mortgage and that they were good faith purchasers for value.
The defendants and South Homes subsequently moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and 3016(b) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and that determination was affirmed by this Court (see J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v South Homes, Inc., 189 AD3d 1381).
Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and to strike their first and fourth affirmative defenses. The defendants and South Homes cross-moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion and denied that branch of the cross-motion, determining that it was bound by this Court's determination on the prior appeal. The defendants appeal. We affirm insofar as appealed from, albeit on grounds different from those relied upon by the Supreme Court.
"A mortgagee may have an erroneous discharge of mortgage, without concomitant satisfaction of the underlying mortgage debt, set aside, and have the mortgage reinstated where there has not been detrimental reliance on the erroneous recording" (New York Community Bank v Vermonty, 68 AD3d 1074, 1076; see Beltway Capital, LLC v Soleil, 104 AD3d 628, 631). "Only bona fide purchasers and lenders for value are entitled to protection from an erroneous discharge of a mortgage based upon their detrimental reliance thereon" (Beltway Capital, LLC v Soleil, 104 AD3d at 631).
Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted evidence establishing, prima facie, that the satisfaction of mortgage was fraudulently or erroneously issued, that the mortgage had not been satisfied, and that the balance due under the loan remained outstanding (cf. U.S. Bank, N.A. v Noble, 144 AD3d 788, 790; see generally Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Smith, 111 AD3d 804, 806). Additionally, the plaintiff's submissions, including the satisfaction of mortgage itself and a notice of pendency that had been filed against the premises in 2011 in connection with a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage, demonstrated that the defendants were on notice that the satisfaction of mortgage could not reasonably be relied upon (see Deutsche Bank Trust Co., Ams. v Stathakis, 90 AD3d 983, 984; cf. Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., 49 NY2d 13, 22-23). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and to strike their first and fourth affirmative defenses and denied that branch of the cross-motion of the defendants and South Homes which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
J.P. Morgan Mtge. Acquisition Corp. v. South Homes, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jp-morgan-mtge-acquisition-corp-v-south-homes-inc-nyappdiv-2026.