U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Mary E. Dudla Family Trust

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Washington County
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: Index No. EC2021-33137
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Kathleen B. Hogan

Opinion

U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Mary E. Dudla Family Trust 2026 NY Slip Op 31153(U) March 30, 2026 Supreme Court, Washington County Docket Number: Index No. EC2021-33137 Judge: Kathleen B. Hogan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/EC2021_33137_pb.html[03/31/2026 3:46:07 PM] INDEX NO. EC2021-33137 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026

STA TE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE OF THE CABANA SERIES IV TRUST,

Plaintiff, DECISION & ORDER Index No.: EC202 1-33 137 -against-

MARYE. DUDLA FAMILY TRUST,

Defendants.

HOGAN, J.

U.S. Bank Trust National Association (hereinafter "plaintiff') moves to renew and reargue

the court's November 13, 2025, decision and order denying their motion for summary judgment

to foreclose on the house of decedent mortgagor, Mary E. Dud la (hereinafter "mortgagor"), located

on 106 Kelsey Pond Lane, Fort Ann, New York 12827 and dismissing their complaint.

Mortgagor's children (hereinafter "the defendants") oppose the motion, claiming the court's prior

decision and order properly held that an intervening tax foreclosure eliminated plainti ff' s

encumbrance on the property and passed clean title to mortgagor through a tax deed. 1

To be granted a motion to renew, plaintiff must first demonstrate that the request is based

upon "new evidence" (CPLR §222 1[e ]). A motion to reargue is "based upon matters of fact or law

allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion" (CPLR

The children are all beneficiaries of the Mary E. Dudla Fami ly Trust. Upon Ms. Dudla's death, her estate was 1

initially joined in the action. Upon probate of the will, it was determined the property had been transferred into the Mary E. Dudla Family Trust, and the Trust was then substituted as the proper party defendant.

[* 1] 1 of 3 INDEX NO. EC2021-33137 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026

§2221 (d)(2)). Plaintiffs new evidence is that after obtaining title through the tax deed in 2013,

mortgagor entered into a loan modification agreement with the plaintiff on April 11 , 2014, and

made mortgage payments pursuant to that agreement.2 While these facts were certainly known to

the plaintiff at the time of the original motion, the court overlooked the loan modification

agreement at the time of the November 13, 2025, decision and order. Therefore, the Court will

consider this evidence in the interest of justice (Daniels v City of New York, 291 AD2d 260 [ l51

Dept 2002]). The court's analysis stopped with the transfer of title through the tax deed in 2013

and did not consider what happened thereafter. Hence, the plaintiffs motion to reargue and renew

are granted.

The defendants agree that mortgagor received and retained the benefit of compensation

through a mortgage, entered into a loan modification agreement with plaintiff in 2014 and made

mortgage payments to plaintiff thereafter. The loan modification agreement specifically states that

it is an amendment to the original mortgage which is incorporated into the agreement through

specific reference, including the instrument number and record of the filed note. The loan

modification agreement also contains a description of the property encumbered and the amount

mortgagor agreed to pay, together with an agreed upon monthly payment plan. The loan

modification agreement states that the mortgagor agrees to "be bound by, and comply with, all of

the terms and provisions" of the original mortgage as modified by this agreement. Mortgagor's

notarized signature is affixed to the loan modification agreement. These facts are undisputed.

Plaintiff contends mortgagor ratified the mortgage by entering into this loan modification

agreement and continuing to make payments.

2 Mortgagor signed the loan modification agreement on Apri l 11, 20 I4, and it was recorded with the Washington

County Clerk on April 3, 2015. The loan modification agreement is attached the original complaint as Exhibit " D'". 2

[* 2] 2 of 3 INDEX NO. EC2021-33137 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 136 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2026

"Ratification occurs when a party "accepts the benefits of a contract and fails to act

promptly to repudiate it" (Clover Private Credil Opportunities Origination (Levered) 11, LP v

Sandberg, 227 AD3d 540 (151 Dept 2024]) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this case,

mortgagor "ratified the ... note by continuing to make mortgage payments after" receiving title

through the tax deed "and by retaining the benefits of the loan transaction and executing the loan

modification agreement while aware of' the tax foreclosure and having obtained title through the

tax deed (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Crosby, 201 AD3d 878, 881 [2d Dept 2022];

see also BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Uvino, 155 AD3d 1155 [3d Dept 2017]). In short,

mortgagor retained the benefits of the original mortgage and entered a binding contract with the

plaintiff when she executed the loan modification agreement. The mortgagor further evinced her

commitment to be bound by the terms of the modified mortgage by making payments to plaintiff.

This commitment is binding on the defendants.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the court's November 13, 2025, Decision and Order is rescinded; and it

is further

ORDERED, that the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated: March 30, 2026 Saratoga Springs, New York

ENTER:

[* 3] 3 of 3