This article could have been titled – Another intransigent lender bites the dust.
In an interview on Friday January 24th, 2014 attorney Brian McCaffrey said “it serves them right, all my client wanted was a loan modification that would allow him to keep his property”.
In a legal battle that spanned more than 5 years the Plaintiff, Suntrust Mortgage, made a motion to ratify a 4 year old judgment of foreclosure and sale. In their opposition McCaffrey’s office made several arguments including lack of standing due to questions surrounding ownership of the note and mortgage, and lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of process.
McCaffrey got involved in the case late in the game and after a thorough review of the case “it became obvious that the Plaintiff’s version of events simply didn’t add up”.
In his opposition to the Suntrust motion McCaffrey argued “This Court is now faced with a Plaintiff who comes before this Court having misrepresented their ownership of the mortgage and note in an attempt to foreclose having used fraudulent assignments of mortgage to create the illusion of standing to foreclose.” and “The summons and complaint were never delivered to the Defendant personally.”
On August 22, 2013 the Honorable Judge Kevin J. Kerrigan ruled that “Mattiello’s sworn affidavit denying that the summons and complaint was personally delivered to him is sufficient to raise a traversable issue of fact”, and ordered a traverse hearing to determine the veracity of the process servers affidavit of service.
“After several adjournments of the traverse hearing based on hollow promises to the Court that Suntrust was making an effort to modify the loan, Suntrust issued another of a plethora of loan modification denial letters” said McCaffrey.
The traverse hearing was held on January 14, 2014 and Judge Kerrigan wasted no time issuing his order after the hearing. McCaffrey explained that “Judge Kerrigan held us after the hearing so that he could issue an immediate written decision”.
Judge Kerrigan ruled “After a traverse hearing held this day, January 14, 2014, the traverse is sustained, plaintiff’s motion to confirm the referee’s report is denied and Mattiello’s motion to vacate the default and to dismiss the action is granted.”
Mr. Mattiello said “I have tried for years to get a loan modification from these clowns, I don’t know why they don’t want payments. They could have been collecting payments for years.” and “I don’t know if it’s Suntrust, their attorney’s or the fact that they don’t even know who owns my mortgage that’s causing the problem.”
Mattiello expressed gratitude for what McCaffrey had achieved and said “if it weren’t for Mr. McCaffrey and his office I would have lost my house, I can’t believe how hard they fought for me.”
The case is Suntrust v Mattiello under Index No: 26911/2008