Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Ditech Financial, LLC v. Naidu

Posted on 2019-03-082021-03-23

The question in this case is whether a stipulation of discontinuance in a foreclosure action “decelerates” a mortgage by operation of law. 

A mortgage foreclosure action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Generally, a separate cause of action accrues, and the limitations period runs separately, for each monthly payment missed. But if a mortgage is accelerated, the limitations period runs on the entire debt from the date of acceleration. Filing a foreclosure action accelerates the loan, but a lender can revoke its acceleration–or “decelerate” the loan–by an affirmative act.  

Defendant originally obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on property in Flushing, Queens. The note and mortgage were transferred several times. In 2009, a prior holder of the note and mortgage commenced a foreclosure action that accelerated the loan. The action was voluntarily discontinued without prejudice through a stipulation that did not revoke the loan acceleration.

In 2016, Ditech Financial LLC held the note and mortgage and commenced this foreclosure action. Defendant moved to dismiss on timeliness grounds, arguing that six years had passed since the loan’s acceleration, but Supreme Court denied that motion. The Second Department reversed, finding that the stipulation withdrawing the prior foreclosure action had not decelerated the loan because it was “silent on the issue of the revocation of the election to accelerate” and did not “otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the appellant.”

The Court of Appeals granted defendant leave to appeal.

By Phil on 2019-03-08.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com