blog

NY - Loan Modification Law Suit Against Chase

Wed, 09 May 2012 13:55:06 +0100

Picini v. Chase Home Finance, 11-CV-2393(JS)(GRB), NYLJ 1202544590023, at *1 (EDNY, Decided Feb. 16, 2012), Seybert, J.

Borrower Alleged That Bank Engaged in "Deny and Delay" Tactics That Prevented a Permanent Loan Modification Even Though the Borrower Complied with Required Payments

Original Article By Scott Mollen, Esq. published in the New York Law Journal May 9, 2012

I am posting here Scott Mollen's excellent summary of this Eastern District of New York case - Picini v Chase because as a Foreclosure Mediator and witnessing countless loan modification denials, many homeowners ask me if they can pursue a law suit against the lender. While every case is fact specific, this is a useful decision to study because it presents (as far as this court is concerned) what argument prevailed and which arguments did not. Most importantly the court permitted one fraud claim to survive. We all wait the results.

The plaintiff homeowners commenced an action against the defendant bank (bank) which held their mortgage. The plaintiffs alleged that the bank engaged in "deny and delay" tactics that prevented the plaintiffs from securing "a permanent loan modification" (modification) despite their "timely compliance with their [Temporary Payment Plan (TPP)]."

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was "designed to incentivize…lenders to modify…mortgage loans for eligible homeowners." The bank and Fannie Mae had entered into a Service Participation Agreement (SPA) for the HAMP and the bank agreed to be bound by HAMP's guidelines. The guidelines specified that "lenders must halt foreclosure proceedings" against eligible borrowers "whose applications for loan modifications were pending…." "Under HAMP, eligible borrowers would be enrolled in a Temporary Payment Plan ('TPP')…." The TPP typically lasted three months, during which time the borrower had to make timely mortgage payments and provide certain financial documentation. Borrowers who timely made TPP payments and who satisfied "all other trial period requirements" were to be offered a modification.

The plaintiff husband had lost his job and the plaintiffs had contacted the bank to obtain a modification. After they were advised that nothing could be done until they were three months in default, the plaintiffs defaulted on their loan. However, "their repeated requests for a…modification fell on deaf ears." The plaintiffs thereafter filed for bankruptcy. The bank obtained relief from the automatic stay and initiated foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiffs then applied for a modification and entered into a TPP. A bank representative told plaintiffs "that it was 'pretty definite' that Plaintiffs would receive a…modification."

The TPP provided that "upon Plaintiffs' successful completion of the trial period, Defendants 'will send [Plaintiffs] a Modification Agreement….'" and that if all payments were timely made, "we will consider a permanent workout solution…." The plaintiffs alleged that "contemporaneously with offering the TPP," the bank represented "that the Foreclosure Action would be stayed while Plaintiffs were enrolled in the TPP."

Notwithstanding the plaintiffs' compliance with the TPP, they could not obtain a modification. A bank representative had allegedly stated that the modification department was "backed up" and the plaintiffs should keep making payments beyond the three-month TPP trial period. The plaintiffs made payments for another seven months, but still did not hear from the bank. Although a bank representative advised the plaintiffs that "they had been dropped from their TPP and that the Foreclosure Action would resume….," two bank representatives advised the plaintiffs to continue making payments under the TPP.

After the plaintiffs complained to local elected officials, the bank sent the plaintiffs a letter congratulating them on completing the TPP. However, when the plaintiffs called the bank, they were told that "they had been dropped from HAMP." Thereafter, the plaintiffs were advised that "A," from the bank's "Resolutions Group," had been assigned to their case." "A" and other bank representatives allegedly gave the plaintiffs "conflicting information" about what additional documents plaintiffs needed to submit and who was "responsible for Plaintiffs' file." After months of getting the runaround, the plaintiffs were advised that "their application for a…modification was denied because Plaintiffs' home had a negative 'net present value.'" The plaintiffs then commenced the subject action.

The plaintiffs asserted claims for "breach of the SPA on a third-party beneficiary theory;" "breach of the SPA's covenant of good faith and fair dealing on a third-party beneficiary theory;" "breach of the TPP contract on a direct contract theory;" "breach of the TPP's covenant of good faith and fair dealing on a direct contract theory;" "in the alternative, breach of an implied contract;" "in the alternative, promissory estoppel;" "fraud;" "negligent misrepresentation;" and "unjust enrichment."

The court dismissed the third-party beneficiary claims because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on the SPA. Since the SPA is governed by "federal common law," "a third party must be an intended, rather than incidental, beneficiary in order to enforce a contract." Although the plaintiffs were clearly intended to benefit from the HAMP-SPA contract, there was "no hint that third-party actions are consistent with the SPA or with the policy underlining the SPA or HAMP."

The bank argued that there was "no consideration for the alleged contract because the TPP simply obligated Plaintiffs to continue making mortgage payments pursuant to a pre-existing duty." However, since the TPP also required the plaintiffs to provide the bank with additional financial documents, the court held that there was consideration.

The bank also argued that the TPP breach of contract claims "are simply disguised HAMP claims;" that "Plaintiffs have failed to allege the terms of the supposed contract," and the TPP did not constitute a promise to permanently modify the plaintiffs' loan. The court was "not persuaded" that the plaintiffs' TPP theory was merely "a HAMP claim in disguise." The bank had not identified any "rule that where a state common law theory provides for liability for conduct that is also violative of federal law, a suit under the state common law is prohibited so long as the federal law does not provide for a private right of action." The bank had not argued that "HAMP preempts state law breach of contract claims in this context." Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs' breach of the TPP claim is not "foreclosed simply because they are not third-party beneficiaries to the SPA—a different contract."

The court then rejected the defendants' argument that the alleged terms of the contract had not been specified and that the TPP was not a contract, since such claims were raised for the first time in the bank's reply. However, if the court were to consider such arguments, it would have rejected such arguments. The court found that the plaintiffs had "sufficiently stated the terms of the TPP upon which liability is based…." and the TPP was, in fact, a contract.

The bank argued that a majority of courts have found that the TPP is not a binding contract "unless and until a permanent loan modification agreement" is signed. Those cases cited language in the TPP which provides, in essence, that "the [bank] was not obligated to modify the borrowers' loans until the borrower received a fully-executed permanent Modification Agreement." The court found such reasoning to be "persuasive but irrelevant," since such language was not alleged to be part of the plaintiffs' TPP and the court did not have a copy of the plaintiffs' TPP before it. Therefore, the court denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract based on violation of the TPP.

The plaintiffs alleged that they had relied on the bank's promise that the plaintiff would obtain a modification if they timely made payments under the TPP, "even after the three month trial period had expired." They allegedly "relied on [the bank's] promise to their detriment because they opted not 'to pursue other strategies to deal with their default and prevent foreclosure' while the extended trial period was in effect." The court found that such allegations sufficiently stated a promissory estoppel claim that is independent from the plaintiffs' TPP contract claim.

The bank had also argued that the TPP did not obligate it to provide a modification and reliance on the bank's promise to extend the trial period was not reasonable. However, the court did not have the TPP before it and, on the motion, had to accept the plaintiffs' allegations as true. Thus, it could not agree with courts that held that other TPPs "had language to the effect that the [bank] was not bound to permanently modify any loans" and denied the bank's motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim.

Additionally, the bank had argued that the plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were "duplicative of their breach of contract claims." Fraud claims "may coexist with a breach of contract" claim "only where the alleged fraud constitutes the breach of a duty separate and apart from the duty to abide by the terms of the contract." Thus, the plaintiffs could state a fraud claim "where the alleged misrepresentations concerned duties apart from [bank's] duties under the TPP." The court held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated a fraud claim to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the bank had misrepresented that it would place the foreclosure action on hold while the plaintiffs were enrolled in the TPP. The court stated that such promise was "apart from the alleged bargained-for deal set forth in the TPP contract…."

As to the plaintiffs' allegations that "after the three-month TPP had expired, they were fraudulently induced to continue making payments in exchange for a promise that their loan would be…modified," the plaintiffs had not alleged that their alleged reliance had caused them damages beyond what they were required to pay anyway. The plaintiffs' assertions that they had to repeatedly gather and send the same documentation and forego "the opportunity to pursue other avenues to save their home from foreclosure," were insufficient to state a fraud claim. Therefore, the court dismissed the fraud claim that was based on the bank fraudulently inducing the plaintiffs to continue making payments after the three-month TPP had expired.

The court then dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. The plaintiffs had not alleged the existence of "a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff;" "that the information was incorrect;" and "reasonable reliance on the information." The bank argued that it did not have a special relationship with the plaintiffs. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a special relationship. The plaintiffs alleged that the bank possessed "special expertise and sophisticated understanding of servicing mortgage loans and of available loss mitigation options" and that the bank had assigned a manager from the bank's "'Resolutions Group' to help guide them through the loan modification process…and that a series of [bank's ] representatives—under the guise of resolving Plaintiffs' situation—provided them with conflicting information…." The court acknowledged that "a typical borrower-lender relationship will not support a negligent misrepresentation claim." Thus, the court granted in part and denied in part the bank's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. The plaintiffs' fraud claim as to the status of the foreclosure action was upheld and the fraud claim was dismissed in all other respects. The court also granted the plaintiffs 30 days to re-plead their fraud claim and denied the motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Finally, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim. The plaintiffs had cited the "extra costs and fees that accrued on their account while [bank] unreasonably delayed acting on the plaintiffs' request for a…modification." However, any such fees "by definition, arose out of their underlying mortgage contract and thus Plaintiffs cannot maintain a separate unjust enrichment claim."

Fannie Mae had seen benefits to lowering some home loans, documents indicate - the Washington ...

Wed, 02 May 2012 15:52:01 +0100

Oh my goodness - why are people not storming the proverbial Citadel? We have actual proof of Citibank considering the reduction of loan principal back in 2009 - but FannieMae dismissed the idea!

This article published yesterday in the Washington Post is superb and should be known. I reprint it below with all consideration to the excellent reporting by Brady Dennis.

Fannie Mae had seen benefits to lowering some home loans, documents indicate

By Brady Dennis, Published: May 1

Officials at government-backed mortgage giant Fannie Mae concluded years ago that the company could “reduce its losses substantially” by lowering loan amounts for some troubled borrowers, according to internal documents cited Tuesday by the top Democrat on the House oversight committee.

The new insights into Fannie Mae’s analyses about the potential benefits of so-called principal reduction surfaced in a letter from Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) to Edward J. DeMarco, the acting director of the independent agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Since being appointed head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in 2009, DeMarco has refused to allow Fannie and Freddie to write down loan balances, in part because he worries that some homeowners would stop paying their mortgages to get relief, ultimately costing taxpayers more money. He has been steadfast in his disapproval in recent months despite growing pressure from Obama administration officials and House Democrats to allow principal reductions.

In the letter, Cummings and another committee member, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), cite documents provided by a former Fannie employee. They accuse DeMarco of withholding key documents from the oversight committee and of failing to mention Fannie’s findings during past testimony, in which DeMarco explained his reasons for opposing reductions in loan balances.

“We have very serious concerns about your public statements, your previous responses to us, and your failure to provide Congress with complete and accurate information about these important matters,” the two men wrote.

The letter details a specific pilot program that Fannie Mae officials considered creating in conjunction with Citibank beginning in 2009. Under the program, the loan balances of qualified homeowners would have been reduced to help them remain in their homes, with the homeowners agreeing to share any profits on the future sale of the home.

The letter cites presentations in which Fannie officials estimated that the program would cost $1.7 million, while the benefits could have saved more than $410 million. Despite its approval by a company risk officer in April 2010, the program was killed that July, and the documents provide no clear explanation why, Cummings said.

“This was not merely a missed opportunity, but a conscious choice that appears to have been based on ideology rather than Fannie Mae’s own data and analyses,” the letter asserted.

Cummings noted that in November 2010, after the pilot program had been suspended, some Fannie officials continued to make the case for principal reductions. He cited one 30-page research paper that concluded the firm “might reduce its losses substantially in many cases by writing down principal.”

The letter marks the latest in a long struggle by Cummings, other lawmakers and administration officials to persuade DeMarco to allow Fannie and Freddie to write down loans to help homeowners who owe far more than their homes are worth.

Later Tuesday, DeMarco responded to the two Democratic lawmakers with a letter of his own, expressing dismay over their suggestion that his motives were based on ideology and that the FHFA’s responses had been “anything but in keeping with the professionalism expected of this agency.” He also accused Cummings and Tierney of releasing “selective elements of the proprietary and confidential materials you received.”

DeMarco noted that the FHFA had explored multiple pilot programs in recent years and that documents the agency previously had provided to the oversight committee “reflect an open and robust interest in this topic, enthusiasm for meeting the goals of finding a workable approach for a pilot program and adherence to review of ideas from all sides, including gathering data and undertaking its analysis.”

DeMarco also attached a letter that the FHFA’s general counsel had sent to Cummings and Tierney in April that included a detailed summary of several pilot programs that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had considered in recent years, including the one with Citibank that was terminated.

DeMarco has long said that more study is needed and that he prefers other tools to help aid struggling homeowners, including helping refinance borrowers into loans with lower interest rates or reducing payments and extending the length of the loan.

Fannie and Freddie “have been reviewing principal forgiveness alternatives. Both have advised me that they do not believe it is in the best interest of the companies to do so,” DeMarco told lawmakers during a Senate hearing in February, adding, “I believe that assuring that we’re taking appropriate steps to provide assistance to troubled borrowers is very much at the heart of what we’re trying to do, but we need to do so in a way in which we are meeting our mandate to protect the taxpayers.”

During a speech in April at the Brookings Institution, DeMarco cited preliminary new data showing that Fannie and Freddie could save an estimated $1.7 billion by taking advantage of greater incentives from the Treasury Department to write down the principal for some homeowners.

But he said those calculations alone were not enough to persuade him to allow Fannie and Freddie to offer principal writedowns. “A key risk in principal forgiveness targeted at delinquent borrowers is the incentive created for some portion of the current borrower population to cease paying in search of a principal forgiveness modification,” DeMarco said in his speech.

That same day, DeMarco said he expected the FHFA to wrap up a detailed analysis about the merits of principal reductions by the end of April. On Friday, however, the agency said it would need more time to make a final decision.

Federal Government & Attorneys General reach landmark settlement with major banks

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:58:01 +0100

Roughly $25 billion in relief for distressed borrowers, states and federal government.

After many months of negotiation, 49 state attorneys general and the federal government have reached agreement on a historic joint state-federal settlement with the country’s five largest loan servicers:

    Ally/GMAC
    Bank of America
    Citi
    JPMorgan Chase
    Wells Fargo

The settlement will provide as much as $25 billion in relief to distressed borrowers and direct payments to states and the federal government. It’s the largest multistate settlement since the Tobacco Settlement in 1998.

Please read more at the government website.

Settlement Refinance Program - Chase Reports

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:49:27 +0100

As part of the attorneys general settlement, the banks report today that they are completing a review to determine accounts that may be eligible for the refinance option. Chase claims that if you are eligible for a refinance through the settlement, they will notify you by mail in the next few months. "You do not need to apply."

Your loan must be owned and serviced by Chase
Please note that your loan must be owned and serviced by Chase in order to be considered. Loans owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private investors are not eligible for a refinance through the settlement, nor are any FHA or VA loans.

Find out if your loan is owned by Fannie Mae

Find out if your loan is owned by Freddie Mac

Your loan must meet other criteria too

In addition to being owned and serviced by Chase, your loan must also:

Have no missed payments or delinquencies in the last 12 months
Have a balance that is greater than the current value of the property
Have a closing date prior to January 1, 2009
Have a current interest rate of 5.25% or higher
Have a balance of no more than $729,750 (for a single family dwelling) in any of the 50 states and within the highest of the 2010 Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac limits for two-to-four family homes
Be a loan in a first lien position, not a second mortgage. (Any property type could be eligible: primary residence, second home, or investment property.)
Have no modifications in the last 24 months
Not be secured by manufactured housing
Be fixed rate, adjustable rate or interest-only, provided the initial period is 5 years or more
Meet any additional requirements detailed in the settlement, including no bankruptcy or foreclosure within the last 24 months

Right now - NY Attorney General Schneiderman is my hero

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:06:52 +0100

Announced yesterday:
A.G. SCHNEIDERMAN SECURES $136 MILLION FOR STRUGGLING NEW YORK HOMEOWNERS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING SETTLEMENT

After Schneiderman's Persistence, Narrow Settlement Preserves Sweeping Legal Claims For Housing Crisis Misconduct That Has Not Yet Been Investigated

New York To Receive More Per Underwater Borrower Than Any Other State, Plus Loan Modifications, Principal Reductions

Schneiderman: Civil & Criminal Investigations Will Continue As We Seek Accountability For Those Responsible For Crisis And Leverage Greater Relief For Homeowners

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:25:18 +0100

Today I was reading the current legislative bills being considered by the 112th Congress. Among them is H.R.1981 - Latest Title: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (Sponsor: Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] (introduced 5/25/2011) Cosponsors (39)
Related Bills: S.596, S.1308 Latest Major Action: 12/16/2011 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 224. House Reports: 112-281 Part 1 SUMMARY AS OF:
5/25/2011--Introduced.)

In reading the summary the following is stated:

"Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly conducting in interstate or foreign commerce a financial transaction that will facilitate access to, or the possession of, child pornography."

"Adds as predicate offenses to the money laundering statute provisions regarding: (1) such financial facilitation of access to child pornography, (2) obscene visual representation of the abuse of children, and (3) a felony by a registered sex offender involving a minor."

Let's support this legislation.

US Gov't to Extend and Expand Foreclosure Program

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:21:18 +0100

Well, some interesting news was published today in the New York Times.

The Associated Press reported that The Obama administration will expand its signature foreclosure-prevention program to try to help those with heavy debt loads avoid losing their homes.

The Home Affordable Modification Program will also be extended through 2013.

The government will triple the financial incentives for private lenders to reduce the principal amount of mortgages for homeowners at risk of losing their homes. And for the first time, the government will offer incentives for principal reductions to government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The three-year old program has strived to help those at risk of foreclosure lower their monthly payments. But it has failed to help more than half of those who have applied lower their payments on a permanent basis. Many have complained that the program is a bureaucratic nightmare.

The government has tried several different approaches to help struggling homeowners.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack Obama said many Americans have suffered steep losses because of the housing crisis. And while he didn't address the criticism of his administration's efforts, Obama suggested the government could do a better job.

"While government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief," Obama said in his speech.

His administration has promised to unveil new legislation in the coming days to allow more homeowners to refinance their mortgages under a separate program, the Home Affordable Refinance Program.

Throughout the history of the $29 billion mortgage modification program, homeowners have complained that they were disqualified after banks lost their documents and failed to return phone calls. Banks have blamed homeowners for failing to submit needed paperwork.

Homeowners who are accepted into the program receive interest rates as low as 2 percent for five years. They can repay their loans over a longer period. The average savings for those who remain in the program is about $500 per month.

More than 1.7 million troubled homeowners received trial modifications over the past two years. Less than half of those who applied, or more than 900,000, have had their mortgage permanently lowered. A majority of the applicants have dropped out of the program altogether.

The Obama administration has blamed some of the nation's biggest mortgage lenders for not doing enough to help Americans avoid foreclosures. In June, the Treasury Department criticized four lenders — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Ocwen Loan Servicing — and began withholding financial incentives of up to $1,000 per modification.

Wells Fargo, Ocwen and Bank of America got off the list in September and December. JPMorgan Chase has still been cited for rejecting people who were eligible for mortgage modifications.

After First No-Fault Divorce Trial, Judge Ends 56-Year Marriage

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:48:53 +0100

And so reads the headline in an article published today in the New York Law Journal. What appears to be the first trial of a contested no-fault divorce in New York, a Long Island judge brought to a conclusion a 56-year marriage that he determined was "irretrievably broken." The divorcing parties, Gloria and Sebastian J. Sorrentino, are in their ‘80’s.

Although the state's 2010 no-fault divorce law was intended to reduce lengthy litigation, Acting Supreme Court Justice James F. Quinn in Suffolk County held in Sorrentino v. Sorrentino, 13315/11, that Gloria Sorrentino was not entitled to a divorce from Sebastian J. Sorrentino just upon her say so.

But Justice Quinn furthered that the evidence heard at trial had convinced him that the marriage was beyond salvation.

Justice Quinn wrote, "It is this Court's determination that the parties' relationship has so deteriorated irretrievably for a period in excess of six months and that the defenses of fraud, and undue influence, and incapacity were without merit, and that all other economic issues having been previously resolved by way of agreement and on file with the court, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of absolute divorce".

Ms. Sorrentino had testified at trial that she and her husband had not had sex for five years and although they lived in the same house, they sleep in separate bedrooms and never have meals together.

Ms. Sorrentino additionally testified that she socializes with her children but her husband does not, and they have no common friends. Additionally, although she has serious medical problems, she stated that her husband had not taken her to the doctor for five years nor had he asked about her health in a decade.

Moreover, she said that Mr. Sorrentino had denied her access to her jewelry for 25 years, did not pay for her dental bills, and failed to repair the air conditioner or refrigerator.

Ms. Sorrentino told Justice Quinn that "she has no hope for the marriage, that the defendant failed to live up to his obligations and that her only wish is for a divorce so that she can have one-half of the marital assets and leave them to her four children on her demise."

Mr. Sorrentino denied the allegations of his wife and a daughter who testified that her father was "argumentative" and had been arrested once after pushing his wife. He insisted that he "took his vows of marriage seriously and worked hard to acquire everything the parties had, and that only after his wife aborted a pregnancy he no longer had a relationship with her."

Domestic Relations Law §170(7) added the no-fault option as a ground for divorce to six fault-based grounds: abandonment, cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery, imprisonment, and a one-year separation by court judgment or agreement.

The no-fault provision can be used where "the relationship between husband and wife has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months, provided that one party has so stated under oath."

The statute also requires that all outstanding financial issues and other matters between the spouses, such as child custody and visitation, be settled before they can terminate their marriages.

But Justice Quinn wrote in Sorrentino that the Legislature's approval of the no-fault option (NYLJ, July 6, 2010) did not necessarily settle the issue raised when only one party wants a divorce.

"It is interesting to note that the legislature wanted to create a no-fault provision, but maintained all six other grounds for divorce in the statute," he wrote in the Jan. 12 ruling. "It appears that New York is a quasi-no-fault state based upon the availability of grounds, and no-fault provisions."

The judge noted that only two state trial-level courts have yet to rule definitively on the rights of spouses who oppose their partners' attempt to divorce them on no-fault grounds.

In A.C. v. D.R., 32 Misc. 3d 293, a Nassau County judge held that a spouse's declaration that a marriage is "irretrievably broken" is all that is needed to trigger the no-fault divorce statute.

But in Strack v. Strack, 31 Misc. 3rd 258, a judge in Essex County decided that a contention by one spouse that a marriage is "irretrievably broken" may be challenged in court by the other spouse (NYLJ, Oct. 12, 2011).

In Sorrentino, Justice Quinn held that Mr. Sorrentino had raised affirmative defenses CPLR 3018(b) against the automatic granting of his wife's divorce request. They included allegations that she was extremely frail, was not of her "right mind" and was under the unnatural sway of at least two of her four children.

"The legislature did not abrogate fault nor did it relieve any provision under DRL 170 from the requirements of particularity in specific actions of CPLR 3016," Justice Quinn wrote. "The defendant, in this court's opinion, had the right to put forth a defense."

But the judge ultimately rejected that defense and granted Ms. Sorrentino a judgment of divorce.

While it appears that the intent of granting a “no fault divorce” has been upheld, practioners are still without clear knowledge as what constitutes the level of proof, if any is required, to grant a no-fault divorce. This is an area of law that we will continue to see develop.

NJ - Driving with a GPS on your windshield - No Go!

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:47:01 +0100

"Green Tips" A Source

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:38:20 +0100

I received an email from the accounting firm Eisner & Lubin today and their resident "Geek" suggested a terrific site for green tips. Here we go: http://www.sustainablelifesolutions.com/ Enjoy!