Foreclosure Halted As Questions Surround Court Filings; Brooklyn Judge Calls Multiple Corporate Hat-Wearing Bank Exec "A Milliner's Delight"

In a February, 2009 ruling, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Arthur M. Schack refused to allow a foreclosure action to continue, raising questions as to the propriety of a certain bank executive, one Keri Selman, signing mortgage assignments and affidavits in a number of his cases in which she identified herself as an Assistant Vice President for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), Bank of New York, and Countrywide Home Loans.

Troubled by the apparent incestuous relationships among the mortgage companies (commenting that "Ms. Selman is a milliner's delight by virtue of the number of hats she wears") and expressing concern "that Ms. Selman might be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats," Justice Schack refused to allow the foreclosure action to continue until:

1. an affidavit from Keri Selman is filed, explaining her employment history for the past three years and why Ms. Selman didn't have a conflict of interest as the assignor of the instant mortgage and note from MERS, as nominee for the original mortgagee, Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp., to plaintiff The Bank of New York, as Trustee;
2. an affidavit from an officer of the original mortgagee, Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp., explaining whether Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. was aware of Ms. Selman's conflict of interest, and if Ms. Selman, in her dual roles, as Assistant Vice President of MERS, the nominee for Homebridge, and as Assistant Vice President of The Bank of New York, fully disclosed to Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. the implications of her simultaneous representation and the advantages and risks involved; and
3. an affidavit or affirmation identifying whether the instant mortgage loan, pursuant to L2008, ch 472, § 3-a is a subprime home loan as defined in Real Property and Actions Proceedings Law § 1304 or is a high-cost home loan as defined in Banking Law § 6-l.

For Justice Schack's ruling, see Bank of NY v Myers, 2009 NY Slip Op 50159(U) [22 Misc 3d 1117(A)], February 3, 2009.

For other cases in which Justice Schack wrestled with the employment status of multiple corporate hat-wearing bank executives in foreclosure actions before him, see:

• HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Charlevagne, 2008 NY Slip Op 51652(U) [20 Misc 3d 1128(A)]; Decided on August 4, 2008 (comments that with all the corporate hats one bank exec has worn, she might become the contemporary millinery rival to the late gossip columnist Hedda Hopper and the late United States Representative Bella Abzug, both of whom notorious for wearing many colorful hats);

• HSBC Bank USA v Antrobus, 2008 NY Slip Op 51639(U) [20 Misc 3d 1127(A)]; Decided on July 31, 2008.

For posts that reference the failure of mortgage lenders and their attorneys to file the proper paperwork when bringing foreclosure actions, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here, and Go Here. ThetaMissingDocsMtg