CFPB Proposes COVID-19 Rule to Amend Its Mortgage Servicing Rule and Provide Additional Guidance Related to the Pandemic

Jonathan K. Moore, Scott D. Samlin, Chenxi Jiao, and Louise Bowes Marencik

On April 5, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes amendments to its Mortgage Servicing Rule (the “Proposed Rule”) to provide additional assistance for borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. The pandemic has resulted in nearly three million borrowers with delinquent mortgages, which is more homeowners in default than any time since the peak of the Great Recession in 2010. Nearly 1.7 million borrowers will exit forbearance programs in September and the following months upon expiration of the maximum term of 18 months in forbearance for federally backed mortgage loans. The Proposed Rule is intended to ensure that these homeowners have the opportunity to be evaluated for loss mitigation options prior to their loans being referred to foreclosure.

If finalized, the Proposed Rule would apply to all mortgages on a principal residence and amend Regulation X (12 CFR 1024).

To read the full client alert, please click here.

CFPB Proposes Delay of Effective Date for Debt Collection Rules

Jonathan K. Moore and Louise Bowes Marencik

On April 7, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking delaying the effective date of its recent debt collection final rules. The final rules, which were issued on October 30, 2020 and December 18, 2020, were scheduled to become effective on November 30, 2021. However, in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the CFPB has proposed delaying the effective date until January 29, 2022, in order to give the affected parties additional time to review and comply with the new rules.

To read the full client alert, please click here.

NY Department of Financial Services Enforces First-in-the-Nation Cybersecurity Rules and Fines Mortgage Lender $1.5 Million for Failure to Comply

Andrea M. Roberts and Diana M. Eng

In March 2017, New York State’s Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) implemented the nation’s first cybersecurity rules requiring all regulated entities, such as banks, insurers, financial businesses, and regulated virtual currency operators, to fortify their cybersecurity protocols by implementing and maintaining cybersecurity policies (the “Cybersecurity Regulation”). These protocols and policies include, among other things, establishing a detailed security plan, increasing the monitoring of third-party vendors, appointing chief information security officers, and reporting breaches to the Superintendent of the Department of Finance within 72 hours of identifying a Cybersecurity Event.[1] The Cybersecurity Regulation is codified at 23 NYCRR 500.

For the second time, DFS has fined a regulated entity for failure to comply with the Cybersecurity Regulation. In March 2020, DFS commenced an examination of Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Residential”), a Mortgage Banker (as defined in the Banking Law) based in Maine and licensed in New York. The examination encompassed a general compliance, safety, and soundness review, as well as compliance with the Cybersecurity Regulation. During the review, Residential disclosed for the first time a Cybersecurity Event, which had occurred nearly 18 months earlier. Specifically, an employee, who handles sensitive personal data, received a phishing e-mail and clicked on a hyperlink to a malicious website. DFS determined that although Residential’s technical support staff was alerted to the suspicious activity, Residential’s internal investigation was inadequate since it did not conduct any further inquiry after concluding the unauthorized access was limited to the employee’s e-mail account. Further, DFS determined Residential failed to satisfy the notification requirements of the Cybersecurity Regulation, as Residential failed to (i) identify whether the employee’s mailbox contained private consumer data during the breach and which consumers were impacted; and (ii) notify the Department of Finance within 72 hours of identifying a Cybersecurity Event. Finally, DFS determined that Residential was missing a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment, which should have led to the periodic evaluation of controls designed to protect nonpublic information and information systems.

Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court Holds “Autodialer” Definition under the TCPA Is Limited to Equipment Using a Random or Sequential Number Generator

Wayne StreibichDiana M. Eng, and Andrea M. Roberts

Financial institutions, debt collectors, and consumer-facing businesses should take note that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of an “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as written, requires that the device must use a random or sequential number generator. This narrow interpretation should shield companies from liability in current or future actions, where the consumers’ telephone numbers are known and not random or sequentially generated.

In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) narrowly interpreted the definition of “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), holding the definition excludes equipment that does not use a random or sequential number generator. SCOTUS specifically held that an “automatic telephone dialing system” is limited to equipment that either stores a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator, or produces a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.

Summary of Facts and Background

Plaintiff Noah Duguid (“Plaintiff”) began receiving several login-notification text messages from defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), alerting him that someone had attempted access to the Facebook account associated with his phone number from an unknown browser. Plaintiff never had a Facebook account and had not given Facebook his phone number. As such, Plaintiff commenced a putative class action in the District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) against Facebook, alleging it violated the TCPA by maintaining a database that stored phone numbers and programmed its equipment to send automated text messages to the stored phone numbers each time the person’s account was accessed by an unrecognized device or browser.

Facebook moved to dismiss, arguing that it did not violate the TCPA because Facebook did not use an automatic dialer, as its text messages were not sent to phone numbers that were randomly or sequentially generated. Rather, Facebook sent targeted, individualized texts to phone numbers linked to specific accounts. The District Court agreed with Facebook and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) reversed the District Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that an autodialer “need not be able to use a random or sequential generator to store numbers; it need only have the capacity to ‘store numbers to be called’ and ‘to dial such numbers automatically.’” SCOTUS granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split among the Courts of Appeals regarding whether the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” includes equipment that can “store” and dial phone numbers, even if such equipment does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”

To read the full client alert, please click here.

New York’s Highest Court Makes Key Rulings in Favor of Lenders Clarifying What Accelerates and De-Accelerates a Mortgage Debt for Statute of Limitations Purposes

Wayne Streibich, Diana M. Eng, and Chenxi Jiao

On February 18, 2021, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the Appellate Division, First Department (“First Department”) and Appellate Division, Second Department’s (“Second Department”) decisions in Freedom Mortgage Corp. v. EngelDitech Financial, LLC v. NaiduVargas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ferrato. Specifically, the Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that:

  1. a default letter stating that the lender “will” accelerate the debt referred to a future event and therefore did not accelerate the debt;
  2. the voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action (whether by motion or stipulation) within six years of acceleration, alone, revokes acceleration as a matter of law, unless the noteholder expressly states otherwise;
  3. the reason for a noteholder’s revocation is irrelevant, thereby expressly rejecting the concept that a noteholder’s revocation of acceleration cannot be “pretextual” to merely avoid the expiration of the statute of limitations; and
  4. a verified foreclosure complaint that accelerates the mortgage debt must clearly and accurately refer to the loan documents and debt at issue.

The Court of Appeals’ decision resolves a split between the First and Second Departments regarding whether a default letter clearly and unequivocally affirmatively accelerates a mortgage debt and provides much needed clarity on what conduct sufficiently accelerates a mortgage debt and revokes acceleration.

To read the full client alert, please click here.

New Requirements and Stays Imposed by New York’s COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020

Diana M. Eng and Alina Levi

On December 28, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the New York legislature met in a Special Session and passed the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (the “Act”) (S.9114/A.11181), which became effective immediately. The Act is aimed at providing relief to tenants facing residential eviction (Part A) and mortgagors/borrowers facing pending or future residential foreclosure proceedings (Part B, Subpart A). In addition, the Act (i) prohibits local governments from proceeding with tax lien sales or commencing tax foreclosures until May 1, 2021, on residential properties (Part B, Subpart B); (ii) prohibits credit discrimination and negative credit reporting (Part B, Subpart C); and (iii) requires local governments to carry-over the Senior Citizens’ Homeowners Exemption and the Disabled Homeowner Exemption to 2021 (Part B, Subpart D). Highlights of the Act are summarized below, but please refer to the full text of the Act for additional information.[i]

Limits of the Act

  • The Act does not apply to residential eviction and foreclosure actions involving vacant and abandoned properties, as defined in RPAPL 1309(2), listed on the statewide vacant and abandoned property electronic registry, as defined in RPAPL § 1310, prior to March 7, 2020, and that remain on such registry.[ii]
  • The Act also does not apply to, and does not affect, any mortgage loan made, insured, purchased, or securitized by a corporate governmental agency of the state constituted as a political subdivision and public benefit corporation or the rights and obligations of any lender, issuer servicer, or trustee of such obligations.[iii]

Eviction Highlights – Part A of the Act

  • Stays pending residential eviction proceedings for 60 days and bars new filings for 60 days through the end of February 2021, or to such later date that the chief administrative judge shall determine is necessary to ensure that the courts are prepared to conduct proceedings in compliance with the Act[iv];
  • Allows residential tenants to submit to their landlord and/or file with the court, a Hardship Declaration,[v] under penalty of perjury regarding their inability to pay their rent or secure alternative housing and suffering a financial hardship or suffering a health-related hardship that will extend the stay on eviction proceedings until May 1, 2021;
  • Certain proceedings can continue if the court receives an authorized new petition stating that the tenant is persistently and unreasonably engaging in behavior that substantially infringes on the use and enjoyment of other tenants or occupants or causes a substantial safety hazard to others;
  • Requires the landlord and the court to serve on tenants, the Hardship Declaration Form, along with all required notices of petition;
  • Requires the state Office of Court Administration to post such information and forms on its website in multiple languages;[vi]
  • Allows tenants to vacate default judgments upon oral or written request; and
  • Creates a presumption of financial hardship upon filing a Hardship Declaration that would support a defense based on financial hardship under the Tenant Safe Harbor Act.[vii]

Foreclosure Highlights – Part B of the Act

Stay of Residential Foreclosures

  • All pending residential foreclosure actions are stayed for at least 60 days through the end of February 2021, or to such later date that the chief administrative judge shall determine is necessary to ensure that the courts are prepared to conduct proceedings in compliance with the Act.[viii]
  • The 60-day stay applies where the owner or mortgagor of the property is a natural person, regardless of how title is held, and owns 10 or fewer dwelling units whether directly or indirectly.
  • Any owner, borrower, mortgagor, or natural person who owns 10 or fewer residential dwellings (as long as this includes the borrower’s primary residence) and experiences a financial hardship, can file a Hardship Declaration[ix] with the lender, its agent, or the court to stay a pending foreclosure proceeding until May 1, 2021, and prevent the commencement of a foreclosure action until May 1, 2021.
  • Where a judgment of foreclosure sale was issued before December 28, 2020, but has not yet been executed, execution of the judgment shall be stayed until the court holds a status conference with the parties. If borrower/mortgagor submits a Hardship Declaration prior to the execution of the judgment, the action shall be stayed until May 1, 2021.

Statute of Limitations

  • The statute of limitations to foreclose will be tolled during the initial 60-day stay. The Act also provides that “any specific time limit for the commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage shall be tolled until May 1, 2021.”[x]

Requirements for New Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Actions

  • New York Courts will not accept new foreclosure complaints for filing, unless the foreclosing party files an Affidavit of Service stating that:

(a) the required notices under RPAPL § 1303 (Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure/Notice to Tenants or “1303 Notice”) and RPAPL § 1304 (the “90-Day Notice”) and the Hardship Declaration (in English and mortgagor’s primary language, if other than English[xi]) were served on borrower/mortgagor; and

(b) attesting that at the time of filing, neither the foreclosing party nor its agent has received a Hardship Declaration from the mortgagor.

  • Importantly, the foreclosing party should not rely on 1303 Notices served, or 90-Day Notices that were mailed, before the Act was effective. Rather, the foreclosing party should serve new 1303 Notices and mail new 90-Day Notices with the required Hardship Declaration.[xii]
  • After a foreclosure action is commenced, the court shall seek confirmation on the record or in writing that borrower/mortgagor has received a Hardship Declaration and has not returned the Hardship Declaration to the foreclosing party or its agent.
  • If the court determines that the borrower/mortgagor has not yet received a Hardship Declaration form, the court must stay further proceedings for no less than 10 business days to ensure borrower/mortgagor receives and fully considers whether to submit a Hardship Declaration.

Continue reading

NY’s Third Department Holds Action Enforcing Note Is Neither Barred by Estoppel Doctrines Nor the Applicable Statute of Limitations

Andrea M. Roberts and Diana M. Eng

In CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Ramirez, 2020 WL 7647749, at *3 (3d Dept. Dec. 24, 2020), the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that CitiMortgage, Inc.’s action to recover under a note (i) was not precluded because of CitiMortgage, Inc.’s right to an election of remedies; and (ii) was timely because the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the prior foreclosure action.

Summary of Facts & Background

In May 2010, plaintiff, CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), commenced an action to foreclose against borrower, Jose Ramirez (“Borrower”) (the “First Foreclosure Action”). The foreclosure action was dismissed in October 2013 for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal, which was denied in April 2015. In 2017, plaintiff commenced a second foreclosure action (the “Second Foreclosure Action”), which was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the statute of limitations to foreclose had expired in May 2016. The Court also discharged the mortgage.

In May 2019, Plaintiff commenced another action against Borrower seeking a money judgment in the amount of the unpaid balance of the note. Borrower moved to dismiss on the grounds that the (i) action was time-barred and (ii) barred by res judicata. The Schenectady County Supreme Court (“Lower Court”) granted Borrower’s motion holding that Plaintiff was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of whether the statute of limitations period was tolled. Plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading

CFPB Issues Second Final Rule Clarifying Regulation of Fair Debt Collection Practices

Wayne Streibich, Jonathan K. Moore, and Louise Bowes Marencik

On December 18, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a final rule concerning debt collection disclosures, which follows its October 30, 2020 final rule regarding debt collection communications. The two final rules implement and interpret the consumer protections set forth in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) of 1977. The final rules will both become effective on November 30, 2021.

The latest final rule outlines various requirements regarding debt collection disclosures. Specifically, a debt collector must send a written disclosure to a consumer containing information concerning the debt and actions the consumer may take in response, within five days of its initial communication with the consumer. This disclosure must be sent unless such validation information was provided in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt. The final rule includes a model validation notice, which, if used, provides a safe harbor for compliance with the disclosure requirements. The final rule also requires debt collectors to disclose the existence of a debt to the customer, orally, in writing, or electronically, before it can report information concerning the debt to a consumer reporting agency.

Please click here to read the full client alert.

Florida Supreme Court Resolves Conflict on Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule and Clarifies Standard for Qualified Witness Testimony

Wayne Streibich, Edward W. Chang, Nicole R. Topper, Anthony R. Yanez

On July 2, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court issued its written opinion[i] in Jackson v. Household Finance Corporation, III, 236 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) to resolve a conflict with a case decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Maslak v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 190 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Specifically, the issue concerned whether the predicates were met for admissions of records into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule during the course of a bench trial in a residential foreclosure case. The Florida Supreme Court held that the proper predicate for admission can be laid by a qualified witness testifying to the foundation elements of the exception set forth in Section 90.803(6) of the Florida Evidence Code.

Background

On June 23, 2014, the originating lender, Household Finance Corporation III (“HFC”), filed a foreclosure complaint alleging a default under the note and mortgage. Before the loan was originated, HFC was purchased by HSBC Holdings (“HSBC”) and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC. The borrower did not challenge the default, but opted to challenge whether the lender could establish its case in chief at trial.

At trial, HFC called an assistant vice president at HSBC, with 25 years’ experience at the company, to establish the foundation for admission of records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The borrower objected to the witnesses’ testimony on hearsay grounds and the original note, mortgage, and payment history were received into evidence over the borrower’s objections. The borrower elected not to introduce any evidence of her own and the trial court entered final judgment of foreclosure. The borrower appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the final judgment of foreclosure.

The Jackson case conflicted with the Maslak decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which reached the opposite conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the bank witness’ testimony. In Maslak, despite the bank employee’s testimony describing her job duties and familiarity with the bank’s loan servicing practices, the court held that the witness was not qualified to lay a foundation for the admission of the loan servicing documents that were offered into evidence at that trial. As a direct conflict of two intermediate appellate court decisions on the same issue of law, the Florida Supreme Court had jurisdiction to resolve the issue.

Florida Supreme Court’s Decision

In examining the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the Florida Supreme Court noted that a party has three options to lay the foundation to meet that exception: (1) offering testimony of a records custodian, (2) presenting a certification that or declaration that the elements have been established, or (3) obtaining a stipulation of admissibility. If the party elects to present testimony, the applicable case law explains that it does not need to be the person who created the business records. The witness may be any qualified person with knowledge of each of the elements.

Patterned closely after the federal rule, Section 90.803 of the Florida Evidence Code[ii] lists the following foundational elements of the business records exception: (1) that the record was made at or near the time of the event, (2) that it was made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, (3) that it was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity, and (4) that it was a regular practice of that business to make such a record.

Turning to the testimony of the HFC trial witness, the majority opinion determined that the foundational elements were met and that no additional foundation was required by the business records exception language of the Section 90.803(6). The majority rejected the notion that the witness was required to detail the basis for his or her familiarity with the relevant business practices of the company, or give additional details about those practices in order to lay the foundation for the admission of those records. Since no such requirements were in the statute, any requirement imposed by the trial court or the appellate court would be inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. The majority explained that once the proponent lays the predicate for admission, the burden shifts to the opposing party to prove that the records were untrustworthy or should not be admitted for some other reason. According to the majority, the Jackson borrower failed to do that in this case and only waited until after the documents were received into evidence to question the witness about the basis for his knowledge.

The dissenting opinion posited that the majority’s ruling “[took away] the proponent’s burden to lay a proper foundation for admission” and focused on whether the proper foundation was met in the Jackson case. The dissent argued that the testimony at the Jackson trial was merely “general statements” that recited the elements of the statute but did not explain how the business records at issue were generated, what they were used for, or how they were maintained. For that reason, the dissenting judges maintained that the burden never shifted to the borrower to prove the untrustworthiness of those records, and concluded that the majority’s treatment of the business records exception as a “magic words” test would only increase the likelihood of inadmissible documents being admitted into evidence.

Conclusion

Compliance with the business records exception to the hearsay rule will almost always be a hotly contested issue at a foreclosure non-jury trial in Florida. The Jackson opinion, and the arguments raised in the dissenting opinion, will remind the trial courts to pay careful attention to the foundational requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule when timely objections are made to the evidence on those grounds. Despite competing opinions on the issue, the Florida Supreme Court agrees that the proponent’s witness should demonstrate personal knowledge and establish that the offered exhibits are reliable business records. To remove all doubt, a witness’ testimony should demonstrate a working knowledge of the company’s business record practices and systems. As a result of the Jackson opinion, it is important to effectively prepare the business records custodian witness to withstand any increased scrutiny as to the foundation requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

[i] The Florida Supreme Court decided the case by a 4 to 2 margin. Newly appointed justice, Renatha Francis, did not participate in the opinion. This decision is not final until the disposition of a timely-filed rehearing motion.

[ii] This section was last revised in 2003, adding language that a certification or declaration is an acceptable means of authenticating a business record under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See ch. 2003–259, § 2, at 1299, Laws of Fla.; see also Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6) (2003) (providing for admission of business records upon testimony of the custodian of the records, “or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11)”).

New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms Assignee’s Right to Enforce Note Lost by Predecessor in Interest

Wayne Streibich, Edward W. Chang, Jonathan F. Ball

On July 1, 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued its unanimous opinion in Investors Bank v. Torres confirming that an assignee of a note lost by a predecessor in interest can enforce the lost note.[1] The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division, which had affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the assignee.[2] The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that an assignee seeking to enforce a note lost by its predecessor in interest must present: (1) an admissible and sufficient Lost Note Affidavit; and (2) competent proof of the terms of the lost note. The Supreme Court expressly declined to adopt the Appellate Division’s reasoning that the equitable principle of unjust enrichment required allowing the assignee to enforce the note lost by its predecessor in interest to prevent a borrower from keeping a home for which they are not paying the mortgage.

The borrower, Torres, executed a promissory note in favor of AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (“ABN”), which was secured by a residential mortgage in 2005. ABN subsequently merged into CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”). Torres defaulted on the note in 2010. CitiMortgage instituted a foreclosure action, which it voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after discovering that it could not locate the original note.

In 2013, CitiMortgage executed a Lost Note Affidavit explaining that it was the “lawful owner of the note,” and had not “cancelled, altered, assigned, or hypothecated the note,” but was unable to locate the original note despite a “thorough and diligent search.” CitiMortgage attached a digital copy of the note to the Lost Note Affidavit. The digital copy was not endorsed, but CitiMortgage explained in the Lost Note Affidavit that the digital version was a true and correct copy of the original note that Torres had executed after the digital copy had been made.

CitiMortgage served a Notice of Default and Intention to Foreclose in 2014. After doing so, CitiMortgage assigned the mortgage to Investors Bank, thereby conveying to Investors Bank the right to enforce the note and mortgage executed by Torres. Investors Bank then brought the foreclosure action at issue in opposition to which Torres asserted that Investors Bank could not enforce the note due to the loss of the original.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Investors Bank. The Appellate Division affirmed based upon its interpretation of N.J.S.A. 12A:3-309 (New Jersey’s version of Section 3-309 of the Uniform Commercial Code pertaining to enforcement of lost instruments) and based on the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court granted Torres’ request for review on certification.

The Supreme Court concluded that N.J.S.A. 12A:3-309 does not limit the right to enforce a lost instrument exclusively to the possessor of the instrument at the time it is lost. Rather, Investors Bank’s right to enforce the assigned mortgage and the transferred lost note were supported by New Jersey’s statutes addressing assignments, N.J.S.A. 2A:25-1 and N.J.S.A. 46:9-9, as well as New Jersey’s common law principles regarding assignments. Because the Supreme Court concluded that New Jersey’s statutory and common law dictated the conclusion that Investors Bank could enforce the lost note, the Supreme Court expressly declined to rely on the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment that the Appellate Division had invoked in support of its decision.

With this threshold legal issue having been resolved in Investors Bank’s favor, the Supreme Court turned to Torres’ challenges to the admissibility of the Lost Note Affidavit. The Supreme Court, like the Appellate Division, concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and relying on the Lost Note Affidavit. The Supreme Court reasoned that: (1) the Lost Note Affidavit was properly authenticated under N.J.R.E. 901, and it qualified as a business record, an exception to the hearsay rule, under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6); (2) a business record is admissible even if it was not created by the proponent of the report at trial (i.e., Investors Bank could introduce the Lost Note Affidavit as a business record even though it had been prepared by CitiMortgage); (3) the passage of unknown amount of time between the loss of the original note and execution of the Lost Note Affidavit did not render the Affidavit inadmissible; and (4) the Lost Note Affidavit was not inherently untrustworthy because: (a) it had been prepared more than a year before CitiMortgage assigned the mortgage to Investors Bank; (b) there was no incentive for CitiMortgage to fabricate a claim that it lost the original note and could not locate it despite diligent efforts; and (c) the digital copy of the note set forth the terms that Investors Bank was seeking to enforce.

In summary, an assignee has the same rights to enforce a lost promissory note that the possessor of the note at the time of its loss would have had. However, the assignee must present a sufficient Lost Note Affidavit and competent proof of the terms of the lost note.

Wayne Streibich would like to thank Edward W. Chang and Jonathan F. Ball for their assistance in developing this alert.

[1] Investors Bank v. Torres, ___ N.J. ___ (July 1, 2020). The slip opinion is available on the Court’s website here.

[2] Investors Bank v. Torres, 457 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 2018), certif. granted, 236 N.J. 594 (2019).