From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

finding that when one brother forged his other brother's name in order to convey property that they co-owned to himself, the deed, which was based on forgery, was void ab initio, and the mortgage based on the deed was invalid

Summary of this case from In re Cohen

Opinion

Nos. 2007-11812, 2008-09115.

November 12, 2008.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), dated September 25, 2007, as amended September 12, 2008, as denied its motion for summary judgment to foreclose on the interest held by the estate of Raymond Chan in the subject property.

Kleinman, Saltzman Bolnick, P.C., New City, N.Y. (Lawrence D. Kleinman and Stanley Zwillinger of counsel), for appellant.

Soong Liu, New York, N.Y. (Arthur J. Soong, Donald Eng, and Norman Lau Kee of counsel), for respondents Robert Chan, Roger Chan, and Elizabeth Chan.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Carni, JJ.


Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The subject property was co-owned by three brothers. One of the brothers executed a deed conveying the premises to himself and one of the other brothers, obtained a loan from the plaintiff secured by a mortgage on the premises, subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and died. The respondents, in defense of the foreclosure action brought by the plaintiff, alleged that their signatures on the underlying deed and mortgage were forged by their deceased brother and that the deed and mortgage are fraudulent and invalid.

A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid ( see Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754; Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., 304 AD2d 608; Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104; Rosen v Rosen, 243 AD2d 618; Filowick v Long, 201 AD2d 893). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly held that there are triable issues of fact as to the validity of both the deed and subject mortgage and properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.


Summaries of

GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

finding that when one brother forged his other brother's name in order to convey property that they co-owned to himself, the deed, which was based on forgery, was void ab initio, and the mortgage based on the deed was invalid

Summary of this case from In re Cohen
Case details for

GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Chan

Case Details

Full title:GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Doing Business as DI-TECH.COM, Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 12, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8705
867 N.Y.S.2d 204

Citing Cases

Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Kalpakis

For the reasons set forth below, the court rejects these contentions and grants the instant motion for leave…

In re Rosenblatt

Funding Associates' argument that it is a bona fide encumbrancer for value hinges, in the first instance, on…