Preliminary Statement
                        ---------------------

                    TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT

            The final Judgement for Foreclosure and Sale that is being
        appealed in toto herein, contains a false and misleading
        statement which could jeopordize Defendants-Appellants instant
        appeal because it implies that this was an uncontested
        foreclosure as it contains on the first page the following
        critical wording:

            "... and stating that more than the legally required
            number of days had elapsed since said Defendants were so
            served and/or appeared; and that none of the Defendants
            had served any answer to said Complaint, nor had their
            time to do so been extended..."

            That statement is entirely false and not true as Defendants-
        Appellants had submitted a timely 63 paragraph answer with 8
        affirmative defenses and 2 counterclaims.  Defendants-Appellants
        had recently submitted to this Court a motion for clarification,
        which was denied without prejudice, see page __t.  However Plaintiff-
        Respondent's sworn affidavit in response to that motion stated
        several times that the wording was due to a "de minimus
        scriveners error" the second time Plaintiff-Respondent's
        attorneys have used that excuse to gain advantage before this
        and the Lower Court, as shown in the brief and supported by the
        record.


              APPEAL IS ABOUT THE ABUSES OF THE LOWER COURT

            This appeal should not have been necessary if the Lower
        Court had merely followed black letter law of the statutes and
        not had changed its original Decision and allowed
        Plaintiff-Respondent to submit directly to chambers via fax, an
        illegal motion, from one of Plaintiff's legal assistants,
        Plaintiff's own version of an "Amended Decision and Order" which
        completely changed the major findings of the court's initial
        findings.  The allowing of the submission which was clearly a
        motion submitted by an "legal assistant" of Plainitff-
        Respondent that was never legally noticed to
        Defendants-Appellants, was well after the 30 day window to file
        a notice of appeal or a CPLR 2221 for leave to reargue the
        Decision, circumstantially amounted to what had to have been ex
        parte communications.  Since the "motion" was from a mere legal
        assistant who whould obviously never willy nilly fax a Supreme
        Court Judge a request to completely change a prior standing
        Decision and Order which had become the law of the case.


        FORECLOSURE WAS INITIATED ON A FULLY PAID AND SATISFIED MORTGAGE

            This was an action brought on by Plaintiff-Respondent Wells
        Fargo Bank, N.A. against Defendants-Appellants to foreclose on a
        1995 mortgage which had been certified as paid off by Plaintiff-
        Respondent that was followed up with a written acknowledgement
        that the satisfaction would be duly filed with the County Clerk,
        as the documented exhibits in record shows.   The Lower Court
        initially held this to be a fact when it stated "Defendants
        allege the $162,000 [mortgage being foreclosed] was satisfied
        and not in default.  They are correct."


        CONTRACT OF ADHESION WAS CREATED AT CLOSING WITH A CONSOLIDATED
        MORTGAGE - THE ONLY LEGALLY SURVIVING MORTGAGE

            Part of a what was to have been a simple and traditional
        refinancing arrangement, the terms were changed on the very
        morning of the closing as to create a "Consolidated Mortgage"
        which, as the wording in the underlying Agreement clearly
        states, creates an entirely new and surviving mortgage, that was
        signed by both parties and witnessed.  The Agreement clearly
        states: "This means that all the lender's rights in the Property
        are combined so that under the law Lender has one mortgage and I
        have one loan obligation..." The last minute change, after the
        parties had a "meeting of the minds" created a contract of
        adhesion.  Plaintiff-Respondent never initiated action upon the
        Consolidated Mortgage and tried to keep it from the litigation,
        and only when challenged by Defendants-Appellants, acknowledged
        it claiming it had been "inadvertantly" left out of their
        exhibits.


        PLAIINTIFF-RESPONDENT DID NOT OWN OR HOLD THE MORTGAGE BEING
        FORCLOSED HEREIN UNTIL WELL AFTER INITIATING FORECLOSURE SUIT

            Plaintiff-Respondent failed to file the satisfaction, and
        instead initiated the underlying suit by serving Defendants-
        Appellants with a summons and complaint without its Notice of
        Pendency, again was based solely upon the paid off and satisfied
        1995 mortgage.  Since Defendants-Appellants had full knowledge
        that the original $162,000 mortgage had been paid and satisfied,
        that the foreclosure action had been initiated upon the
        Consolidated Mortgage.


            Plaintiff-Respondent repeatedly stated and implied through
        its documents and Affidavits that it owned and held actual
        possession of the 1995 mortgage, when they took over the
        servicing of it in 2001.  This mortgage, however, was not
        transferred and sold to Plaintiff-Respondent in until 2007, only
        well after the initiating and filing of their foreclosure
        action, and only after Defendants-Appellants challenged their
        actual ownership of the original note and mortgage in various
        affidavits.  The Lower Court was fully aware of these issues of
        the satisfied mortgage and ownership when it issued its first
        Decision and Order, which held that the aforementioned mortgage
        was in fact paid off and satisfied.


                       THE LAW OF THE CASE VIOLATED

            Plaintiff-Respondent then filed a notice of entry of the
        Original Decision, whereupon neither of the parties filed any
        notice of appeal or motioned the Lower Court for reargument
        within the 30 day window of time, rendering the original
        Decision and Order the law of the case.


        ILLEGAL MOTION GRANTED BY THE LOWER COURT IN VIOLATION OF
        THE LAW OF THE CASE AND STARE DECISIS

            Plaintiff-Respondent however, decided weeks later that it
        urgently wanted a major change from the initial holdings in the
        Original Decision and Order, and so had one of its mere legal
        assistants fax directly to Lower Court chambers, a covering
        letter along with their own carefully re-worded Amended Decision
        and Order for signing.  This was in direct violation of black
        letter law, as it was clearly a motion intended to disturb the
        original Decision and Order and replace it with their own
        version.  No notice of motion was served upon Defendatns-
        Appellants or filed with the Clerk of the Court, no application
        to reargue CPLR 2221, nor was the fee to pay for that motion, as
        per CPLR 8020(a).  Defendants-Appellants were merely mailed a
        copy of that faxed letter (without the attached exhibits faxed
        to the Court), that arrived days after it was delivered to the
        Court Chambers.


            In response, Defendants-Appellants immediately faxed their
        outrage and challenged the major changes to the holdings from
        the Original Decision and Order, and demanded that the Lower
        Court reject their "motion"  out of hand for Plaintiff-
        Respondent's not complying with the proper noticing and filing
        of that motion, as well as that Plaintiff-Respondent's "motion"
        was untimely as well as illegal.  Defendants-Appellants
        immediately filed a notice of appeal, which became an
        intermediate appeal after the filing of the this instant appeal
        on the signed Judgement for Foreclosure and Sale which was
        grounded in the Amended Decision and Order.


            The Amended Decision and Order was the underlying basis for
        the signing of the final Judgement for Foreclosure and Sale
        which is the basis of this instant appeal, ab initio.


        SUMMARY OF APPENDIX DOCUMENTS CONDENSED AT THE END OF APPENDIX

            Defendants-Appellants in an effort to aid the Appellate
        Court and simplify matters have repeated and summarized certain
        critical documents which appear scattered throughout the
        Appendix.  These duplicated documents were exhibits presented by
        both Defendants- Appellants and Plaintiff-Respondent as various
        exhibits in and during litigation.  All these Documents were
        initially created by Plaintiff-Respondent or their Attorney, and
        are not self-serving creations by Defendants-Respondents.  They
        essentially lie at the core of this Appeal, and make it easy to
        understand, the reasons behind this Appeal.


            They begin at A - 409 through A - 425 of the Appendix with a
        very brief statement of each document of their importance and
        its relevance on pages 2 and 3 of this Brief.  There are notations
        of where they are to be found within the Appendix.





Go to Facts presented
     
Go back to Appeal home page