Buyer’s Remedies when Seller Will Not Convey Real Property

Over the last several years the real estate market has had its share of ups and downs.  It was not so long ago that several offers above the asking price would be placed on a single parcel of property.  Today, although the real estate market is not as “hot” as it once was, sales of real estate are on the climb again, and with that there are always issues that may arise.

As a buyer, what happens when you find the perfect house, on the perfect street and enter into a contract of sale. Then when you try to perform your obligations under the contract, the seller stands in your way.  Then after you file a Lis Pendens (Notice of Pendency) and commence litigation to force the seller to sell you the property (also known as specific performance), you learn there was another buyer who preceded you and also did not close.  What are your rights and remedies?

Although one would generally assume the adage, “first in time equals first in right,” that is not necessarily the case.  First, the question to ask when there are multiple purchasers is whether, as the second purchaser, you are a bona fide purchaser.

A bona fide purchaser is a purchaser who purchases property for value innocent of any circumstance that would bear upon the seller’s right to sell the property.  Therefore, if you are the purchaser of a parcel of property without having any knowledge that another buyer already purchased the land, then you are a bona fide purchaser.  If, however, you are somehow aware of any prior contracts of sale, you are deemed to have knowledge and will no longer be entitled to hold the title of bona fide purchaser.

How does a buyer establish they are a bona fide purchaser?  When a buyer purchases property, he must record his deed to the property at the clerk’s office of the county where the property is located. If a buyer fails to record the deed and a subsequent purchaser purchases the same parcel, the second purchaser is a bona fide purchaser and will have preference over the initial purchaser because the second purchaser did not have knowledge of the earlier conveyance, so long as the second purchaser records their deed prior to the first purchaser.

The principles of a bona fide purchaser are not that different when there is one seller, multiple purchasers each holding a contract of sale.  RPL §294(1) provides, “An executory contract for the sale, purchase or exchange of real property, or an instrument canceling such a contract, or an instrument containing a power to convey real property, as the agent or attorney for the owner of the property, acknowledged or proved, and certified, in the manner to entitle a conveyance to be recorded, may be recorded in the office of the recording officer…”

If there has not yet been a closing, RPL §294(1) permits a purchaser to record their contract of sale.  By recording the contract of sale, the purchaser is placing everyone on notice of their interest in purchasing the property.  If there are multiple purchasers, the first purchaser to record their contract of sale will have rights superior to any other potential purchaser, regardless of whether a down payment has been paid to the seller.

Once a purchaser has recorded the contract of sale with the clerk’s office in the county in which the property is located, they may then pursue their rights of specific performance under the contract.  Commonly in land sale contracts, there is language that allows a party to demand specific performance of the other party.  Specific performance allows a person to demand the other party to perform under the contract rather than to seek money damages. Avila v. Arsada, 34 A.D.3d 609; citing Varon v. Annino, 170 A.D.2d 445, 446; LaMarche v. Rosenblum, 50 A.D.2d 636, 637.   When a purchaser sues a seller for specific performance, the seller cannot claim as an affirmative defense that the purchaser is not ready, willing and able to close.  Courts have determined that when a seller fails to adhere to their obligations under a contract of sale, their actions are deemed to be an anticipatory breach of the contract which waives the buyer’s obligation to perform under the contract.  Gjonaj v. Sines, 69 A.D.3d 1188.  The purchaser’s lack of performance under the contract (i.e. inability to close which arose from seller’s breach) does not prevent the purchaser from exercising their right to obtain specific performance from the seller.

While this remedy, in theory, appears relatively simple and straightforward, there can be complications.  In order to record a contract of sale, the contract must be executed by both parties before a notary public. Common practice is such that people rarely if ever execute a contract of sale before a notary public.  Without a notarized contract of sale, a purchaser trying to force the seller to sell the property may end up unsuccessful.

Another remedy, which can be instead of specific performance or in addition to specific performance, is damages.  It is well settled that a purchaser, if they can establish the seller has willfully or deliberately failed to perform under the contract of sale, can obtain loss of the bargain damages, which are above and beyond the nominal damages specified in the contract of sale. Janoff v. Sheepshead Towers, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 950; Mokar Props v. Hall, 6 A.D.2d 536.

Therefore, the adage “buyer beware” may hold true in many situations, in certain circumstances, the seller, particularly as it relates to real property, may be forced to sell property under the specific performance clause in the contract of sale.

by Elisa S. Rosenthal, Esq.,
Associate
Law Office of Richard A. Klass

 

copyr. 2013 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Art credit:
Welton Grange, Cowgate, Welton, by David Wright.
Copyright David Wright. 25 August 2007

This image was taken from the Geograph project collection. See this photograph’s page on the Geograph website for the photographer’s contact details. The copyright on this image is owned by David Wright and is licensed for reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Requirement of Stating License Information in a Complaint Against a Consumer

Dunkin Donuts may want us to believe that “America runs on Dunkin,” but the truth is, America runs on its service industry.  In our everyday lives there are people who provide a service to us; whether it is waiting on us in a restaurant, a physician or health care worker taking care of us, or a contractor working on our homes.  America’s service industry is a vital part of our economy and everyday lives.

But what happens when the service provider is not paid for his services?  How can that person collect money that is due them?  Someone who has not been paid for services rendered can file a lawsuit seeking to collect unpaid monies from a consumer/client.

New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules (the CPLR) Section 3015 provides some guidance when a service provider decides to file a lawsuit against a consumer/client to pay sums due and owing.  Depending on the location or venue of the lawsuit and the type of industry that provided the service, a plaintiff may be required to include in his complaint his license number.

CPLR 3015(e) was recently amended to state that when a plaintiff starts a lawsuit against a consumer, the plaintiff must include in the complaint the name on the license, the license number and the government agency which issued the license if the plaintiff is required to be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York, Counties of Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester. CPLR 3015(e) provides:

(e) License to do business. Where  the  plaintiff’s  cause  of  action against  a  consumer  arises  from the plaintiff’s conduct of a business which is required by state or local law to be licensed by the department of consumer affairs  of  the  city  of  New  York,  the  Suffolk  county department  of  consumer  affairs,  the Westchester county department of consumer affairs/weight-measures, the county of Rockland, the county  of Putnam  or  the  Nassau  county  department  of  consumer  affairs,  the complaint shall allege, as part of the cause of action,  that  plaintiff is  duly licensed and shall contain the name and number, if any, of such license and the governmental agency which issued such license; provided, however, that where the  plaintiff  does  not  have  a  license  at  the commencement  of the action the plaintiff may, subject to the provisions of rule thirty hundred twenty-five of this article, amend the  complaint with  the  name  and number of an after-acquired license and the name of the governmental agency which issued such license or move for  leave  to amend  the  complaint in accordance with such provisions. The failure of the plaintiff to comply with this subdivision will permit the  defendant to  move for dismissal pursuant to paragraph seven of subdivision (a) of rule thirty-two hundred eleven of this chapter.

The initial purpose of this legislation was to place the burden on a “home improvement contractor” to establish it was licensed to perform the work at the time the work was performed.  Courts have consistently held that a failure to have a license at the time the work was performed will preclude the contractor from commencing an action.  Working without  a license or obtaining a license after the work was performed is too late, and will result in the lawsuit getting dismissed. (This pleading requirement, which initially began to address issues concerning home improvement contractors, was expanded to include all of the different types of licenses issued by the government agency).

The requirement of the plaintiff to include its license information in the complaint does not mean anyone who needs a government license to perform their work must include their license number.  The Court in NCSPlus v. WBR Management, 37 Misc.3d 227, 949 NYS2d 317 [Sup.Ct., Nassau Co. 2012], determined that the plaintiff, who was a debt collection agency, was not required to include its license information in the complaint because the dispute did not involve a “consumer credit transaction” against a consumer but rather between a debt collection agency and a merchant. (The term “consumer credit transaction” means a transaction where credit is extended to an individual and the money which was the subject of the transaction was primarily for personal, family or household purposes).

Therefore, it is important to remember that if you are a licensed service provider who decides to sue a customer or client, you may need to include your license information in your summons and complaint or you risk having your case thrown out.

by Elisa S. Rosenthal, Esq.,
Associate
Law Office of Richard A. Klass

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

“Then I’ll huff and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow your house in!”

Those famous words were said by the Wolf in the fairy tale Three Little Pigs. Sometimes, municipalities have to say those same words to homeowners whose buildings become so damaged that they have become “unsafe.”

The “unsafe structures” law

There is a common recognition that an unsafe or dangerous structure constitutes a threat to the public’s health, safety and welfare, and the sealing or removal of the structure is an exercise of a municipality’s police powers to protect the public. For this reason, municipalities enact building codes to ensure that owners keep and maintain their buildings.

In New York City, Administrative Code Section 26-236 provides that, immediately upon receipt of a report by an officer or building department employee that a structure is unsafe or dangerous, the Department of Buildings is to make a formal report, which triggers quick action. The next step is to notify the building owner within 24 hours of the duty to remedy the unsafe or dangerous condition. If no action by the owner is immediately taken, then the Buildings Department must order a survey of the unsafe structure, which survey (together with a report) acts as the basis of a law suit in the Supreme Court.

So important to the public is the remediation of an unsafe structure, that Administrative Code Section 26-239 states that the “determination of the issue in an unsafe structure proceeding shall have precedence over every other business” of the court. Once the trial has taken place (“without delay”), the court then issues a “precept” directed to the Superintendent of Buildings to repair or secure the unsafe structure.

Knock-down of the client’s building

The client bought a building in Brooklyn from a bank that had recently foreclosed on the property and took back the building (what is commonly referred to as an “REO” – real estate owned property in a bank’s inventory). At about the same time that the client bought the building, the City of New York determined that the building was an unsafe structure and notified the bank. The notice informed that a court proceeding would be held in the Supreme Court, Kings County on April 22nd to determine the building to be an “unsafe structure” pursuant to the New York City Administrative Code.

When the client bought the building, he had the intention of renovating it. The client hired an architect who drew up plans to utilize the skeleton of the building and its basic plumbing and heating systems. The plans filed with the Buildings Department provided for the rehabilitation and renovation of the building. The architect’s plans were allegedly approved by the Department. The architect then met with the Buildings Department’s Borough Commissioner on April 10th; assurance was allegedly made to the architect that a work permit based upon the approved plans would be issued, allowing the “rehab” of the building to start. Allegedly, the Buildings Department noted the approval of plans with the City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Unfortunately, on April 15th, prior to the upcoming court date, the City demolished the building. To add insult to injury, the City placed a lien on the building for the demolition costs.

Claim and law suit

The building owner came to Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, for help. Now that the entire building was demolished, there was tremendous added expense to the rehab of the building, given that all new building systems would have to be installed and the shell was no longer there.

Notices of claim were filed with the City of New York and its agencies. Once the requisite period of time for the City to act on those notices passed, a law suit was filed against the City. The action listed several causes of action including negligence, trespass to property, interference with quiet enjoyment of property and violation of due process rights since the building was demolished before the court proceeding.

The City agreed to settle the law suit by payment for the loss of the building (based upon the difference in fair market values for the property pre-demolition and post-demolition) along with cancellation of the demolition lien.

by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Analysis of Exempt Income Protection Act

By Richard Klass, Esq.
 

On January 1, 2009, New York State enacted new measures relating to the restraint of debtors’ bank accounts, through the enactment of the Exempt Income Protection Act (“Act”).

The Act materially changes the process of restraints on debtors’ bank accounts, and the steps that each party to the process must take. The Act imposes new requirements on (a) the bank, to identify and analyze the source(s) of income and deposits into an account; (b) the judgment creditor’s attorney, to issue new exemption notices and forms, and appropriately address claimed exemptions by the debtor; and (c) the debtor, to timely raise any exemption claims upon restraint of an account. Since this process is “brand new” to New York law, the manners in which all of these parties, as well as the court system address the process will evolve from practice and procedure.
 
To begin the analysis, it is important to first see from where it came. In the past, all attorneys for judgment creditors had to resolve the issue of whether to release a debtor’s restrained bank account upon the debtor’s claim that the moneys contained in the account were exempt funds. Normally, the attorney would ask the debtor to provide proof (through account statements or other documents) regarding the claim, at which point either the attorney would consent to release the account or the debtor would bring an Order to Show Cause to claim the exemption. Part of the considerations of the Legislature in enacting the Act was that the threat of the continued restraint of the bank account, especially where the debtor needed immediate access to the moneys, without fair consideration of any exemptions, created a perceived presumption of uneven bargaining positions between the parties.
 
Another component of the process that played a part in the passing of the Act was the increased ease of the banking institutions to create or identify accounts containing only exempt moneys. The increased ease is due to the “direct deposit” and “electronic payment” features now common – the banking institutions are now better able to quickly determine the source of funds in an account, for the most part.
 
The Act amended or added the following sections of Article 52 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules: (a) CPLR 5205 – Exemptions; (b) CPLR 5222 – Effect of Restraint; (c) CPLR 5222-a – Exemption Notice and Claim Process; (d) CPLR 5230 – Property Executions; (e) CPLR 5231 – Income Executions; and CPLR 5232.

CPLR 5205: The new subdivisions (a) create a new exemption; (b) without limiting any other exemptions; and (c) define the term “banking institution.” Most importantly, the new exemption provides that, if “statutorily exempt payments” are made electronically or by direct deposit into a judgment debtor’s account at a banking institution, then $2,625 (original amount was $2,500 but increased in 2012) is exempt from application to satisfaction of a money judgment. The time frame indicated is within 45 days prior to service of the restraining notice.
 
The key is that the direct deposits or electronic payments must be “readily identifiable” by the banking institution as statutorily exempt payments. This new language will allow the bank to analyze, prior to restraint, whether the debtor’s account should be restrained from the onset – before the debtor needs to provide any other documentation to establish an exemption. Obviously, as more payment systems, businesses, and governmental agencies move towards direct deposit and electronic payments, the identification process will become even easier; the bank’s internal procedures ought to identify the source of deposits to determine whether any moneys came into the account during the 45-day period which would trigger the $2,625 exemption.
 
CPLR 5222: The section which authorizes the “restraint” of debtor accounts was amended to (a) revise the notice sent to debtors, either before or with the restraining notice; (b) add an additional presumed exemption for wages; and (c) save debtor’s bank fees for unlawful restraints.
 
Concerning the revisions to the notice sent to debtors, a specific form must be utilized, which includes additional exemptions not found in the prior notice and more notice concerning the rights of the debtor to obtain free legal counsel or proceed in court without counsel.
 
As to restraints placed upon a debtor’s account, CPLR 5222 now contains two presumed exemptions, one being that mentioned in CPLR 5205 above, regarding “statutorily exempt payments.” The other new exemption is the presumption that the first $1,920 in an account (which figure adjusts based upon the greater of the state or federal minimum hourly wage) is deemed exempt as wages, unless a court determines that those funds are unnecessary for the reasonable requirements of the debtor and his dependents. This subdivision very effectively takes out of play the restraint of most debtor bank accounts – unfortunately, most debtors live “hand-to-mouth” and bank accounts tend not to contain more than $1,920.
 
The issue as to bank charges was resolved. Many times, debtors would pay bank fees of $100-$200 for the restraint of their accounts, whether or not the restraint was proper. Now, if the restraint is unlawful, the bank cannot charge any fees to the debtor. This seemingly applies to accounts belonging to debtors who file for bankruptcy prior to restraint, but this issue is left for future determination.
 
CPLR 5222-a: Perhaps the section that will cause the most stress and confusion to all involved parties, this section sets up the method for notifying debtors of exemptions and the process for lifting the restraints on accounts pursuant to those exemptions. These rules apply to a Sheriff or Support Collection Unit as well as judgment creditors.
 
First, the judgment creditor’s attorney must now serve (1) two copies of the restraining notice; (2) one copy of the new “exemption notice;” and (3) two copies of the new “exemption claim form.” The specifics of the notice and form are written into the statute.
 
Second, within two days after the bank receives the above process and notices, it must serve copies upon the debtor by mail.
 
Third, within twenty days of the postmarked date of the bank’s mail, the debtor must complete the “exemption claim form” (marking the appropriate claimed exemption) and serve one copy on the judgment creditor’s attorney and one copy on the bank.
 
Fourth, the bank must serve a notice to the judgment creditor’s attorney that it will release all funds in the debtor’s account within eight days unless the judgment creditor interposes an objection to the exemption. Separately, the judgment creditor, upon receipt of the exemption claim form, must instruct the bank to release the account within seven days unless it is objecting to the exemption.
 
If the account contains commingled funds (exempt and non-exempt moneys), the accounting principle of “lowest intermediate balance” shall be applied. This will require an analysis as to whether withdrawals from the account, which will be considered to be made from non-exempt funds first, reduce the portion of non-exempt funds to a level that necessitates the release of all or a portion of the funds. Most creditors’ counsel agree that, in all likelihood, this accounting principle will result in the release of the restrained account.

The manner in which the judgment creditor’s counsel may object to a claimed exemption is by moving for an Order under CPLR 5240, and including an affirmation showing a factual basis upon which there is reasonable belief that the account contains non-exempt funds. The hearing on the motion will be noticed for seven days after service of the moving papers (* note the divergence from the notice of motion requirements under CPLR 2214). The exemption claim form is deemed prima facie evidence at the hearing, and the burden of proof will be on the creditor (which will be a heavy burden, especially if the debtor does not provide appropriate proof of the claimed exemption). Once the court issues an Order on the motion (to be done within five days of the hearing), the judgment creditor’s attorney must serve a copy of the Order on the bank and the debtor within two days thereafter.
 
Scary stuff!: If the court determines that the creditor’s objection was asserted in bad faith, the debtor will be awarded costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, actual damages, and an amount not to exceed $1,000.
 
CPLR 5230/5231/5232: These sections relate to both Property and Income Executions issued by the judgment creditor’s counsel to the Sheriff (or Marshal within New York City). The amendments to these sections mirror the changes mentioned above, and apply to levies made by the Sheriff upon debtor accounts.
 
The following forms contain the changes pursuant to the Act:
 
  1. CPLR 5222 Notice to Debtor
  2. Exemption Notice
  3. Exemption Claim Form
  4. Property Execution
  5. Income Execution
 
Note: Where the debt owed is either to New York State and its agencies or municipal corporations OR if owed for child support, spousal support, maintenance or alimony, then the above rules concerning restraints are not applicable and the restraining notice should state at the top in 16-point bold type: “The judgment creditor is the State of New York, or any of its agencies or municipal corporations AND/OR the debt enforced is for child support, spousal support, maintenance or alimony.”
 
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email for any questions.
 

FORM 1

 
NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR
 
Money or property belonging to you may have been taken or held in order to satisfy a judgment which has been entered against you. Read this carefully.
 
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK
 
State and federal laws prevent certain money or property from being taken to satisfy judgments. Such money or property is said to be “exempt”. The following is a partial list of money which may be exempt:
  1. Supplemental security income (SSI);
  2. Social security;
  3. Public assistance (welfare);
  4. Spousal support, maintenance (alimony) or child support;
  5. Unemployment benefits;
  6. Disability benefits;
  7. Worker’s compensation benefits;
  8. Public or private pensions;
  9. Veteran’s benefits;
  10. Ninety percent of your wages or salary earned in the last sixty days;
  11. Twenty-six hundred twenty-five dollars ($2,625) of any bank account containing statutorily exempt payments that were deposited electronically or by direct deposit within the last forty-five days, including but not limited to your social security, supplemental security income, veterans benefits, public assistance, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, public or private pensions, railroad retirement benefits, black lung benefits or child support payments;
  12. Railroad benefits; and
  13. Black lung benefits.
If you think that any of your money that has been taken or held is exempt, you must act promptly because the money may be applied to the judgment. If you claim that any of your money that has been taken or held is exempt, you may contact the person sending this notice.

Also, YOU MAY CONSULT AN ATTORNEY, INCLUDING ANY FREE LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS IF YOU QUALIFY. You can also go to court without an attorney to get your money back. Bring this notice with you when you go. You are allowed to try to prove to a judge that your money is exempt from collection under New York CPLR sections 5222(a), 5239 and 5240. If you do not have a lawyer, the clerk of the court may give you forms to help you prove your account contains exempt money that the creditor cannot collect. The law (New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Article 4 and Sections 5239 and 5240) provides a procedure for the determination of a claim for an exemption.


Very truly yours,


Rich Klass, Esq.


FORM 2

 
CIVIL COURT: CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
——————————————————–X Index No. 123/2009
ABC COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
-against-
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
——————————————————–X
 
EXEMPTION NOTICE
As required by New York Law

Your bank account is restrained or “frozen.”


The attached Restraining Notice or Notice of Levy by Execution has been issued against your bank account. You are receiving this notice because a creditor has obtained a money judgment against you, and one or more of your bank accounts has been restrained to pay the judgment. A money judgment is a court’s decision that you owe money to a creditor. You should be aware that FUTURE DEPOSITS into your account(s) might also be restrained if you do not respond to this notice.

You may be able to “vacate” (remove) the judgment. If the judgment is vacated, your bank account will be released. Consult an attorney (including free legal services) or visit the Court Clerk for more information about how to do this.

Under state and federal law, certain types of funds cannot be taken from your bank account to pay a judgment. Such money is said to be “exempt.”

DOES YOUR BANK ACCOUNT CONTAIN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF FUNDS?
  1. Social security;
  2. Social security disability (SSD);
  3. Supplemental security income (SSI);
  4. Public assistance (welfare);
  5. Income earned while receiving SSI or public assistance;
  6. Veterans benefits;
  7. Unemployment benefits;
  8. Payments from pensions and retirement accounts;
  9. Disability benefits;
  10. Income earned in the last 60 days (90% of which is exempt);
  11. Workers’ compensation benefits;
  12. Child support;
  13. Spousal support or maintenance (alimony);
  14. Railroad retirement; and/or
  15. Black lung benefits.
If YES, you can claim that your money is exempt and cannot be taken. To make the claim, you must (a) complete the EXEMPTION CLAIM FORM attached; (b) deliver or mail the form to the bank with the restrained or “frozen” account; and (c) deliver or mail the form to the creditor or its attorney at the address listed on the form.

You must send the forms within 20 DAYS of the postmarked date on the envelope holding this notice.

You may be able to get your account released faster if you send to the creditor or its attorney written proof that your money is exempt. Proof can include an award letter from the government, an annual statement from your pension, pay stubs, copies of checks, bank records showing the last two months of account activity, or other papers showing that the money in your bank account is exempt. If you send the creditor’s attorney proof that the money in your account is exempt, the attorney must release that money within seven days. You do not need an attorney to make an exemption using the form.
 

FORM 3

 
CIVIL COURT: CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
——————————————————–X Index No. 123/2009
ABC COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
-against- EXEMPTION
JOHN DOE, CLAIM FORM
Defendant.
——————————————————–X
 
Name and address of judgment creditor or attorney
(To be completed by judgment creditor or attorney)
Address A
Name and address of financial institution
(To be completed by judgment creditor or attorney)
Address B
RICHARD A. KLASS, ESQ.
16 Court Street, 28th Floor
Brooklyn NY 11241
BANK
1 Court Street
Brooklyn
 NY 11201

Directions: To claim that some or all of the funds in your account are exempt, complete both copies of this form, and make one copy for yourself. Mail or deliver one form to Address A and one form to Address B within twenty days of the date on the envelope holding this notice.


** If you have any documents, such as an award letter, an annual statement from your pension, paystubs, copies of checks or bank records showing the last two months of account activity, include copies of the documents with this form. Your account may be released more quickly.

I state that my account contains the following type(s) of funds (check all that apply):
( ) Social security; ( ) Income earned in the last 60 days (90% of which is exempt);
( ) Social security disability (SSD); ( ) Wages while receiving SSI or public assistance;
( ) Supplemental security income (SSI); ( ) Payments from pensions and retirement accounts;
( ) Public assistance; ( ) Workers’ compensation benefits;
( ) Veterans benefits; ( ) Disability benefits;
( ) Child support; ( ) Spousal support or maintenance (alimony);
( ) Unemployment insurance; ( ) Railroad retirement or black lung benefits;
( ) Other (describe exemption):

I request that any correspondence to me regarding my claim be sent to the following address:
________________________________________________________________________________
(FILL IN YOUR COMPLETE ADDRESS)

I certify under penalty of perjury that the statement above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: _________________
_________________________________
SIGNATURE OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR
 

FORM 4

 
CIVIL COURT: CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
——————————————————–X Index No. 123/2009
ABC COMPANY,
Plaintiff, EXECUTION WITH
-against- NOTICE TO
JOHN DOE, GARNISHEE
Defendant.
——————————————————–X
 
TO THE SHERIFF (or MARSHAL) OF ANY COUNTY, GREETING:

WHEREAS, in an action in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Kings, between ABC Company, as Plaintiff, and John Doe, as Defendant, a judgment was entered on February 3, 2009, in favor of Plaintiff and against John Doe, Defendant, 123 Main Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, in the amount of $1,000, of which $1,000, together with interest from February 3, 2009, remains due and unpaid;

WHEREAS, a transcript of judgment was filed with the Clerk of the County of Kings on February 3, 2009;

NOW, THEREFORE WE COMMAND YOU to satisfy the said judgment from the real and personal property of the above-named judgment debtor, and the debts due to him; and that only the property in which said judgment debtor, who is not deceased, has an interest or the debts owed to him shall be levied upon or sold hereunder; and to return this Execution to the Clerk of the above-captioned court within 60 days after issuance unless service of this Execution is made within that time or within extensions of that time made in writing by the attorney for the judgment creditor.

PURSUANT to CPLR 5205(l), $2,625 of an account containing direct deposit or electronic payments reasonably identifiable as statutorily exempt payments, as defined in CPLR 5205(l)(2), is exempt from execution and the garnishee cannot levy upon or restrain $2,625 in such an account.

PURSUANT to CPLR 5222(i), an execution shall not apply to an amount equal to or less than 90% of the greater of 240 times the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or 240 times the state minimum hourly wage prescribed in Labor Law 652 as in effect at the time the earnings are payable, except such part as a court determines to be unnecessary for the reasonable requirements of the judgment debtor and his or her dependents.

NOTICE TO GARNISHEE To:
Address:
BANK
1 Court St., Brooklyn NY 11201

WHEREAS, it appears that you are indebted to the judgment debtor, or in possession or custody of property not capable of delivery in which the judgment debtor has an interest, including the following specified debt and/or property:

all savings, checking, and time deposit accounts; safe deposit boxes; loan security; etc.

NOW THEREFORE, you are required by CPLR Section 5232(a) forthwith to transfer to the Sheriff all personal property not capable of delivery in which the judgment debtor is known or believed to have an interest now in or hereafter coming into your possession or custody including any property specified in this notice; and to pay to the Sheriff, upon maturity, all debts now due or hereafter coming due from you to the judgment debtor; and to execute any documents necessary to effect such transfer or payment; and


TAKE NOTICE, that until such transfer or payment is made, or until the expiration of 90 days after the service of this Execution upon you, or such further time as is provided by any Order of the Court served upon you, whichever event occurs first, you are forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment, or transfer of, or interference with, any such property, or pay over or otherwise dispose of any such debt, to any person other than the Sheriff, except upon direction of the Sheriff or pursuant to an Order of the Court; and

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that at the expiration of 90 days after a levy is made by service of this Execution, or of such further time as the Court, upon motion of the judgment creditor has provided, this levy shall be void except as to property or debts which have been transferred or paid to the Sheriff, or as to which a proceeding under CPLR Sections 5225 or 5227 has been brought.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 1, 2013
________________________
RICHARD A. KLASS, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
16 Court Street, 28th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11241
 

FORM 5

 
CIVIL COURT: CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS

Index No. 123/2009
ABC COMPANY,
Judgment Creditor INCOME EXECUTION

Judgment Debtor (name and last known address):
John Doe
123 Main Street
Brooklyn, NY  11201
To the Enforcement Officer,
GREETING:

A judgment was entered in the within court in favor of Judgment Creditor and the particulars are as follows:
Court of Original Entry: Entry Date: Original Amount: Amount Due: Interest from:
Civil Court, Kings County 2/3/09 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2/3/09

The judgment was recovered against John Doe, Defendant, and transcripted with the Clerk of Kings County on February 3, 2009.


This Execution is issued against John Doe, whose last known address is: 123 Main Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, and whose social security number is 123-45-6789, and who is receiving, or will receive wages of $500.00 for each weekly pay period from the Employer. “Employer” herein shall include any payor of money to Judgment Debtor. The Employer’s name and address is:
XYZ Warehouse, 25 Court St., Brooklyn, NY 11201

You are directed to satisfy the judgment with interest together with your fees and expenses out of all moneys now and hereafter due and owing to Judgment Debtor from the Employer pursuant to CPLR §5231.

Directions to Judgment Debtor: You are notified and commanded immediately to start paying to the Enforcement Officer serving a copy of this Income Execution on you: installments amounting to 10% (but no more than the limits set forth in I. Limitations below) of any and all salary, wages, or other income, including any and all overtime earnings, commissions, or other irregular compensation received or hereafter to be received from your Employer and to continue paying such installments until the judgment with interest and the fees and expenses of this Income Execution are fully paid and satisfied, and if you fail to do within 20 days, this Income Execution will be served upon the Employer by the Enforcement Officer.

Directions to the Employer: You are commanded to withhold and pay over to the Enforcement Officer serving a copy of this Income Execution upon you: installments amounting to 10% (but no more than the limits set forth in I. Limitations below) of any and all salary, wages, or other income, including any and all overtime earnings, commissions, or other irregular compensation now or hereafter becoming due to Judgment Debtor until the judgment with interest and the fees and expenses of this Income Execution are fully paid and satisfied.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
January 1, 2013
________________________
RICHARD A. KLASS, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
16 Court Street, 28th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11241
718-643-6063
 

IMPORTANT STATEMENT

This Income Execution directs the withholding of up to 10% of Judgment Debtor’s gross income. In certain cases, however, state or federal law does not permit the withholding of that much of Judgment Debtor’s gross income. The Judgment Debtor is referred to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 5231 and United States Code, Title 15, Section 1671.


I. Limitations on the amount that can be withheld:
A. An Income Execution for installments from a judgment debtor’s gross income cannot exceed 10% of the judgment debtor’s gross income.
B. If a judgment debtor’s weekly disposable earnings are less than the greater of 30 times the current federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) or $217.50, or the New York State minimum wage ($8.00 per hour) or $240.00, no deduction can be made from the judgment debtor’s earnings under this Income Execution.
C. A judgment debtor’s weekly disposable earnings cannot be reduced below the amount arrived at by multiplying 30 times the greater of the current federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour) or $217.50, or the New York State minimum wage ($8.00 per hour) or $240.00 under this Income Execution.
D. If deductions are being made from a judgment debtor’s earnings under any orders for alimony, support, or maintenance for family members or former spouses, and those deductions equal or exceed 25% of the judgment debtor’s disposable earnings, no deduction can be made from the judgment debtor’s earnings under this Income Execution.
E. If deductions are being made from a judgment debtor’s earnings under any orders for alimony, support, or maintenance for family members or former spouses, and those deductions are less than 25% of the judgment debtor’s disposable earnings, deductions can be made from the judgment debtor’s earnings under this Income Execution. However, the amount arrived at by adding the deductions from earnings made under this Execution to the deductions made from earnings under any orders for alimony, support, or maintenance for family members or former spouses cannot exceed 25% of the judgment debtor’s disposable earnings.
Note: Nothing in this notice limits the proportion or amount which may be deducted under any order for alimony, support, or maintenance for family members or former spouses.

II. Explanation of limitations:
Definitions: a) Disposable earnings – Disposable earnings are that part of an individual’s earnings left after deducting those amounts that are required by law to withheld (for example: taxes, social security, and unemployment insurance, but not deductions for union dues, insurance plans, etc.); b) Gross Income – Gross Income is salary, wages, or other income, including any and all overtime earnings, commissions, and income from trusts, before any deductions are made from such income.

Illustrations regarding earnings:

If disposable earnings is:
 

Amount to pay or deduct from earnings under this
Income Execution is:

a) 30 times the greater of the federal minimum wage ($217.50) or the New York State minimum wage ($240.00) or less. No payment or deduction is allowed.
b) more than 30 times the greater of the federal minimum wage ($217.50) or the New York State minimum wage ($240.00) and less than 40 times the greater of the federal minimum wage ($290.00) or the New York State minimum wage ($320.00). The lesser of: the excess over the greater of 30 times the federal minimum wage ($217.50) or the New York State minimum wage ($320.00) in disposable earnings, or 10% of gross earnings.
c) 40 times the greater of the federal minimum wage ($290.00) or the New York State minimum wage ($320.00) or more. The lesser of: 25% of disposable earnings or 10% of gross earnings.

III. Notice: You may be able to challenge this Income Execution through procedures provided in CPLR §§5231(i) and 5240.
If you think that the amount of your income being deducted under this Income Execution exceeds the amount permitted by state or federal law, you should act promptly because the money will be applied to the judgment. If you claim that the amount of your income being deducted under this Income Execution exceeds the amount permitted by state or federal law, you should contact your employer or other person paying your income. YOU MAY CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY, INCLUDING LEGAL AID IF YOU QUALIFY. New York law provides two procedures through which an Income Execution can be challenged.
CPLR 5231(i) – Modification: At any time, the judgment debtor may make a motion to a court for an Order modifying an Income Execution.
CPLR 5240 – Modification or protective order: supervision of enforcement: At any time, Judgment Debtor may make a motion to a court for an Order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending, or modifying the use of any post-judgment enforcement procedure, including the use of Income Executions.

Return (for Sheriff’s or Marshal’s use only)
( ) Fully satisfied on: _____________________ ( ) Unsatisfied
( ) Partially satisfied: _____________________ $___________
( ) Because I was unable to find the Garnishee (Employer) within my jurisdiction, I returned this Income Execution to Judgment Creditor’s Attorney on: ______________________.
Date and time received: _________________________
( ) Marshal, City of New York
( ) Sheriff, County of
 

License Information


Analysis of Exempt Income Protection Act by Richard A. Klass, Esq. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. For permissions beyond the scope of this license, please contact Mr. Klass (email: RichKlass@CourtStreetLaw.comcreate new email). Insert the words “reprint permission request” in the subject line of the email.

Publishing Guidelines

Permission is granted to publish this article electronically in free-only publications, like a website or ezine (print and non-free publications require permission) as long as the resource box is included without any modifications. All links must be active. A courtesy copy is requested on publication (email: RichKlass@CourtStreetLaw.com).
Article Title:
Analysis of Exempt Income Protection Act
Author Name:
Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Contact Email Address:
RichKlass@CourtStreetLaw.com
Author’s Firm’s Website:
www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Word Count:
4,595 words

[This resource box must be included in any publications.]
* * *

Resource Box

About the Author:
Richard A. Klass, Esq. maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York. He may be reached by phone at (718) COURT-ST [(718) 268-7878)] or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Back issues of Mr. Klass’ quarterly newsletter, Law CURRENTS, are available on the firm’s website.
Articles from Law CURRENTS may be available for reprint. Please see individual articles for license information.
* * *
 


copyr. 2013 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Right to Surplus Moneys

In certain cases, the Referee in the foreclosure action conducted a sale of the subject real property generates surplus moneys after an auction sale, which are then deposited with the court. After filing of the Referee’s Oath and Report of Sale after foreclosure auction sale, a party can move for confirmation of the Report of Sale more than 3 months but not later than 4 months after the filing of the Report of Sale. RPAPL §1355. Further, upon confirmation of the Report of Sale, and on motion of any party prior to or within 3 months of confirmation of the Report and Sale claiming the surplus moneys which have arisen from the foreclosure auction sale, the Supreme Court shall determine the priorities in such surplus moneys and order distributions thereof. RPAPL §1361.

The Second Department has held that the failure to move to appoint a Referee in a Surplus Money Proceeding following foreclosure of a mortgage within the time prescribed by statute is a mere irregularity which, in the absence of prejudice of any substantial right of a party, may be disregarded. Associated Financial Services, Inc. v. Davis, 183 AD2d 686, 583 NYS2d 274 (2d Dept. 1992).

The potential issue of a defendant or claimant not having filed an Answer or Notice of Appearance in the foreclosure action is not relevant as to whether that party may pursue recovery of surplus moneys. It is well settled that a defendant who defaulted in answering the foreclosure action is not precluded from proving its lien in Surplus Money Proceeding. Riverhead Savings Bank v. Garone 183 AD2d 760, 583 NYS2d 483 (2d Dept. 1992), citing to The Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn v. Pine Drive Associates, Inc., 28 Misc.2d 648, 212 NYS2d 111 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Co. 1961). Further, a second mortgagee/lienor, as a party named in the foreclosure action, is not required to file a Notice of Claim to Surplus Moneys in order to preserve its right to satisfaction of its lien from surplus proceeds of a foreclosure sale. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Grant, 224 AD2d 656, 639 NYS2d 72 (2d Dept. 1996) (“As a party to the foreclosure action, the respondent, secondary mortgagee Marine Midland Bank, was not required to file a notice of claim to the surplus moneys in order to preserve its right to the satisfaction of its lien from the surplus proceeds of the foreclosure sale.”).

Where, under a mortgage foreclosure sale, a surplus is realized, and the premises are at the time of such sale subject to a second mortgage, the respective rights of the parties will be determined as of the date of the foreclosure sale. Elsworth v. Woolsey, 19 AD 385, 46 NYS 486 (1st Dept. 1897), affirmed, 154 NY 748, 49 NE 1096 (1897). New York courts have held that those respective rights in the surplus moneys, as enunciated by Elsworth, transfer from the “res” of the action, to wit: the land, to the surplus moneys. In Roosevelt Savings Bank v. Goldberg, 118 Misc.2d 220, 459 NYS2d 988 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Co. 1983), the court held:

“Surplus money realized upon a foreclosure sale is not a general asset of the owner of the equity of redemption, but stands in the place of the land for all purposes of distribution among persons having vested interests or liens upon the land. Surplus money takes the place of the equity of redemption, and only one who had a vested estate or interest in the land sold under foreclosure which was cut off by the foreclosure sale, is entitled to share in the surplus money, with priority in each creditor determined by the filing date of his lien or judgment.”

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post