Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. All for this Special Proceeding

2026 NY Slip Op 30855(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedMarch 5, 2026
DocketIndex No. 154984/2025
StatusUnpublished
AuthorAndrew Borrok

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 30855(U) (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. All for this Special Proceeding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. All for this Special Proceeding, 2026 NY Slip Op 30855(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v All Respondents for this Special Proceeding 2026 NY Slip Op 30855(U) March 5, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154984/2025 Judge: Andrew Borrok 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/NYSUP.1549842021.NEW_YORK.007.LBLX000_TO.html[03/17/2026 3:45:47 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 03:44 PM INDEX NO. 154984/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 53 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INDEX NO. 154984/2021

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/06/2025 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 045 ALL RESPONDENTS FOR THIS SPECIAL PROCEEDING, DECISION + ORDER ON Defendant. MOTION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. ANDREW BORROK:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 045) 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1140, 1141 were read on this motion to/for MODIFY ORDER/JUDGMENT .

Upon the foregoing documents, William Clayton Glidewell’s motion to modify or vacate the

Severance Order (hereinafter defined) must be DENIED for at least three reasons.

As discussed below, (i) Mr. Glidewell waived his right to challenge the Severance Order by

failing to timely appear before either the Initial Claims Bar Date or the Second Claims Bar Date,

(ii) Mr. Glidwell can not show any reasonable excuse for his failure to timely oppose the

Severance Order which provides for the treatment at issue, and (iii) granting Mr. Glidewell’s

motion would undermine the finality of the Article 77 proceeding and process.

This case was commenced by Wells Fargo in May 2021 seeking judicial instruction under

Article 77 of the CPLR concerning RMBS trusts as to how to address the receipt of previously

deferred principal payments including whether such sums constituted Subsequent Recoveries

under certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement. On July 19, 2021, the Court signed an order 154984/2021 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL vs. X Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 045

1 of 6 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 03:44 PM INDEX NO. 154984/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2026

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 105; the July 2021 Order) to show cause which included a detailed notice

program. The July 2021 order required that any Interested Person must file an answer on or

before August 30, 2021 (the Initial Claims Bar Date). The July 2021 Order further provided

that if an Interested Person failed to appear, the would be:

… deemed to have waived the right to be heard on the questions presented by the Second Amended Petition or Counter-Petition and from appealing any order, resolution, or judgment issued in this proceeding and shall be forever and finally barred from raising the right to be heard on such questions in this or any other action or proceeding, unless the Court orders otherwise.

(id. ¶ 12 [emphases added]). By Affidavit dated August 24, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 109), the

Trustee affirmed that it had taken all steps required pursuant to the Court’s required notice

program.1 Many parties appeared in this case and filed answers by the Initial Bar Date including

investors in the GPMF 2006-AR3 Trust.2 Mr. Glidewell however did not.

The Deer Park Parties filed a Counter-Petition in this case. They amended it twice. First, in

August 2021. Second, in February 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 121, 271). Because of certain

issues raised in the Seconded Amended Petition, Wells Fargo moved by order to show cause to

provide Interested Parties with a supplemental notice. The supplemental notice provided

1 This included GPMF 2006-AR3 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 119 at 33). 2 The following parties appeared and filed an Answer: Deer Park Road Management Company, LP; STS Master Fund, Ltd.; Deer Park 1850 Fund, LP; Northern Lights Fund Trust – Deer Park Total Return Credit Fund; One William Street Capital Master Fund, Ltd.; OWS Credit Opportunity I, LLC; Baldr Sherwood Fund Inc.; OWS ABS Master Fund II, LP; 1WS Credit Income Fund; DW Partners LP; Ellington Management Group L.L.C.; Safety National Casualty Corporation; Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company; NAV LLC; Stephen Finkelstein; American General Life Insurance Company; American Home Assurance Company; Commerce and Industry Insurance Company; Lexington Insurance Company; The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York; Poetic Holdings 8 LP; Poetic Holdings IX LP; Pacific Investment Management Company LLC; Ambac Assurance Corporation; Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP; Solula, LLC; La Verdad Holdings, LLC; Axonic Capital LLC; Axonic Funds; Ferry Lane, LLC; and HBK Master Fund L.P. NYSCEF Doc. No. 38; NYSCEF Doc. No. 121; NYSCEF Doc. No. 142; NYSCEF Doc. No. 144; NYSCEF Doc. No. 145; NYSCEF Doc. No. 153; NYSCEF Doc. No. 155; NYSCEF Doc. No. 156; NYSCEF Doc. No. 157; NYSCEF Doc. No. 159; NYSCEF Doc. No. 166; NYSCEF Doc. No. 169. Only Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, Ellington Management Group, L.L.C., and Ambac Assurance Corporation asserted interests in the GPMF 2006-AR3 Trust. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1059 at 4. 154984/2021 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL vs. X Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 045

2 of 6 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2026 03:44 PM INDEX NO. 154984/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2026

Interested Persons with an additional opportunity to appear and be heard. The Court approved

the supplemental notice by Order (the March 2022 Order; NYSCEF Doc. No. 305) dated

March 8, 2022. The March 2022 Order required Interest Parties who wished to appear to file

appropriate papers no later than April 8, 2022 (the Second Claims Bar Date). As with the July

2021 Order, the March 2022 Order provided that the failure to appear by that date would result in

the Interest Person being barred from being heard in the future. By Affidavit dated April 13,

2024, the Trustee detailed its compliance with the supplemental notice program (NYSCEF Doc.

No. 321). Although other parties did appear, including 400 Capital Credit Opportunities Master

Fund Ltd. and Robert Dechert (NYSCEF Doc. No. 314, 319), Mr. Glidewell did not.3

In fact, he did not file anything on the docket until October 6, 2025, approximately three and a

half years after the deadline for Interested Persons to appear (April 8, 2022), eight months after

the order he seeks to vacate was issued (February 3, 2025), five months after trial on the merits

(June 11, 2025), and two months after the Court’s post-trial decision (July 21, 2025). Thus, Mr.

Glidewell appearance is untimely and pursuant to the Court’s prior orders, Mr. Glidewell waived

his right to be make the application that he now makes.

On January 31, 2025, after approximately three years and four months of litigation, and before

the hearing on the merits took place, the parties filed a proposed order seeking severance (see

NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1055-1057). The proposed severance order required the Trustee to (i) treat

Deferred Principal Collections as Subsequent Recoveries, (ii) apply the PSAs’ write-up

provisions to permit all Classes of Certificates, including Senior Certificates with outstanding

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

Related

Bronx International Cable v. Metropolitan Construction Corp.
278 A.D.2d 131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 30855(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-all-for-this-special-proceeding-nysupctnewyork-2026.