A New York bank filed to foreclose on a married couple’s home, missed a 2017 court deadline and let

A New York bank filed to foreclose on a married couple's home, missed a 2017 court deadline and let

A New York court rejected the bank’s bid to reopen a foreclosure case dismissed in 2019 after a six-year delay. (AI image)

The bank had started legal proceedings against a married couple over their home in Sullivan County, New York, but missed a deadline set by the court in 2017. The case was eventually dismissed in 2019. As part of the foreclosure proceedings, the court directed the bank in March 2017 to file a required application by December 31 that year, according to the ruling . In January 2018, the court informed it that the case had been removed from the calendar. However, the bank did not approach the court again until February 2025. The court rejected the request in April 2025, prompting the bank to appeal.

As a result, the court dismissed the foreclosure case on January 7, 2019. The loan was secured by a mortgage on a residential property signed by Leis and his wife, Marie Leis.

The judges said the bank had not given a convincing explanation for failing to meet the deadline or for waiting more than six years to challenge the dismissal. A New York bank has failed in its attempt to restart a home foreclosure case after allowing it to remain inactive for more than six years. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas had approached the court after an alleged default on a loan taken by David A. Leis. It also warned the bank that the case could be removed from the court calendar if it missed the deadline. If the bank did not take steps to bring the case back within a year, it could be dismissed. The bank failed to submit the application on time. The bank then missed another opportunity to act. It did not ask the court to restart the case within the next year. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the court did not rule on the merits of the bank’s foreclosure claim. It asked for the dismissal to be cancelled and the case to be restored to the active list.

On Thursday, the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld that decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *