U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gordon

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order dismissing a mortgage foreclosure action and vacating the foreclosure judgment and sale. The court held that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and that a purported deacceleration letter could not reset or otherwise affect the limitations period under CPLR 203(h). The court rejected constitutional challenges to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, including substantive and procedural due process, Contracts Clause, and Takings Clause challenges.

Holdings

1. A deacceleration letter sent after the mortgage debt had been accelerated could not reset or otherwise affect the statute of limitations under CPLR 203(h).
2. The retroactive application of CPLR 203(h) does not violate substantive due process because the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act has a legitimate purpose and the retroactive application rationally advances those purposes.
3. The statutory restriction on deacceleration did not take away or impair a vested right because the right to deaccelerate was conditioned on whether the borrower had changed position in reliance on the lender's acceleration.
4. The enactment and retroactive application of CPLR 203(h) did not violate procedural due process, notwithstanding the absence of a grace period.
5. The plaintiff's Contracts Clause challenge to CPLR 203(h) and FAPA was unavailing.
6. CPLR 203(h) and FAPA did not effect an unconstitutional taking.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a purported deacceleration letter could reset or otherwise affect the statute of limitations under CPLR 203(h).
2. Whether the retroactive application of CPLR 203(h), enacted as part of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, violated substantive or procedural due process.
3. Whether CPLR 203(h) and its retroactive application violated the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution.
4. Whether the statute and its retroactive application effected an unconstitutional taking.

Disposition

affirmed