Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Mercure
Docket 1004 CA 25-00829
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02583
- Docket
- 1004 CA 25-00829
Appeal from an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a foreclosure action
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court's denial of Deutsche Bank's summary judgment motion in a mortgage foreclosure. The loan was originated by Ameriquest, later placed into a trust under a pooling and servicing agreement that named Deutsche Bank as trustee, and an assignment to Deutsche Bank was executed in 2009 by the servicer acting under a limited power of attorney. The appellate court held Deutsche Bank met its burden to show standing by producing the assignment and mortgage documents, and directed the trial court to appoint a referee to compute the amount due.
Issues Decided
- Whether plaintiff established standing to foreclose by producing the mortgage, note, and a written assignment prior to commencement of the action
- Whether the 2009 assignment executed by the servicer under a limited power of attorney sufficed to transfer the mortgage and note to plaintiff
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the settled rule that a foreclosing plaintiff must show it is the holder or assignee of both the mortgage and the underlying note when standing is contested. Deutsche Bank submitted the mortgage, unpaid note, and the 2009 written assignment to it, which satisfied its prima facie burden. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue disputing that documentation, so summary judgment was warranted and the case was remitted for a referee to calculate the debt.
Authorities Cited
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Kobee140 AD3d 1622 (4th Dept 2016)
- Sanfilippo v Bohme217 AD3d 1498 (4th Dept 2023)
- Zuckerman v City of New York49 NY2d 557 (1980)
Parties
- Plaintiff-Appellant
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-R1
- Defendant-Respondent
- Michael J. Mercure, also known as Michael Jeremy Mercure
- Judge
- Robert J. Muller
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Supreme Court order appealed (entry date)
- 2024-02-14
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceedings in trial court
Supreme Court should appoint a referee to compute the amount owed and then continue foreclosure procedures consistent with the referee's report.
- 2
Defendant evaluate defenses
Defendant should consult counsel to assess and, if appropriate, present any other factual or legal defenses in the trial court that were not resolved on appeal.
- 3
Plaintiff prepare accounting materials
Plaintiff should assemble detailed payment histories, advances, and computations needed by the referee to calculate the outstanding balance.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the trial court and held that Deutsche Bank showed it had standing to foreclose by producing the mortgage, note, and a written assignment, so summary judgment should be granted.
- Who is affected by this ruling?
- The borrower (defendant) is affected because the foreclosure proceeds; Deutsche Bank, as the foreclosing plaintiff, is allowed to pursue the foreclosure and obtain a referee's accounting of the debt.
- What happens next in the foreclosure case?
- The case is sent back to Supreme Court, Washington County, where a referee will be appointed to compute the amount owed and further foreclosure proceedings will continue.
- Can the defendants raise standing again?
- Defendants may attempt to raise other defenses or factual challenges in the trial court, but the appellate panel found their opposition did not raise a triable issue on standing based on the submitted documents.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Mercure - 2026 NY Slip Op 02583 Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Mercure 2026 NY Slip Op 02583 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-R1, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v MICHAEL J. MERCURE, ALSO KNOWN AS MICHAEL JEREMY MERCURE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 1004 CA 25-00829 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Smith, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ. MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD PLLC, NEW YORK CITY (MATTHEW J. GORDON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SANDRA POLAND DEMARS, ALBANY, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Washington County (Robert J. Muller, J.), entered February 14, 2024, in a foreclosure action. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Washington County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In 2005, defendants executed a note and mortgage in favor of nonparty Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Ameriquest). In 2006, Ameriquest, nonparty Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. (Ameriquest Securities), and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) entered into a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA), which created a trust, appointed Deutsche Bank as trustee for Ameriquest Securities, asset-backed pass-through certificates, series 2006-R1 (plaintiff), and provided that the note and mortgage would be assigned to plaintiff. In 2007, Ameriquest appointed nonparty Citi Residential Lending Inc. (Citi Residential), the prior loan servicer, as its attorney-in-fact pursuant to a limited power of attorney. Pursuant to the limited power of attorney, Ameriquest granted Citi Residential authority to substitute plaintiff as the mortgagee in accordance with the PSA. In 2009, Citi Residential executed the assignment of the note and mortgage to plaintiff. Defendants later defaulted, and plaintiff commenced this action seeking to foreclose on the mortgage. Defendants served an answer that, inter alia, asserted an affirmative defense based upon plaintiff's purported lack of standing. Plaintiff moved for, inter alia, summary judgment on the complaint and the appointment of a referee, and Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden on the issue of standing. Plaintiff appeals, and we reverse. "Generally, in moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its prima facie case through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default" ( Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Brewton , 142 AD3d 683, 684 [2d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Anderson , 151 AD3d 1926, 1927 [4th Dept 2017]; HSBC Bank USA , N.A. v Spitzer , 131 AD3d 1206, 1206-1207 [2d Dept 2015]). Where, as here, "the plaintiff's standing has been placed in issue by reason of the defendant's answer, the plaintiff additionally must prove its standing as part of its prima facie showing" ( HSBC Bank USA , N.A. v Baptiste , 128 AD3d 773, 774 [2d Dept 2015]; see Bank of N.Y. Mellon , 151 AD3d at 1927). We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in determining that it failed to meet its burden on the motion of establishing standing to foreclose on the mortgage. " 'In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff has standing where, at the time the action is commenced, it is the holder or assignee of both the subject mortgage and the underlying note' " ( JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A. v Kobee , 140 AD3d 1622, 1623-1624 [4th Dept 2016]; see NNPL Trust Series 2012-1 v Lunn , 149 AD3d 1552, 1553 [4th Dept 2017]), " 'either by physical delivery or execution of a written assignment prior to the commencement of the action' " ( Sanfilippo v Bohme , 217 AD3d 1498, 1499 [4th Dept 2023]). Here, by submitting on its motion the 2009 assignment of the note and mortgage to plaintiff, plaintiff established that it had standing to foreclose on the mortgage ( see Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. v Newhouse , 218 AD3d 1117, 1120 [4th Dept 2023], lv dismissed 41 NY3d 977 [2024]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Liebel , 154 AD3d 1302, 1302-1303 [4th Dept 2017]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to plaintiff's standing ( see U.S. Bank N.A. , 154 AD3d at 1303; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We therefore reverse the order, grant the motion, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount owed by defendants to plaintiff. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn