Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Hershey
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Real property—quiet title and mortgage validity where the street address and tax lot are correct but the metes and bounds description in the mortgage is erroneous.
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment on quiet title and declaratory relief and denied the Hersheys’ cross-motion to dismiss as time-barred and for summary judgment on their counterclaims.
The denial of Wells Fargo’s request for summary judgment under RPAPL article 15 and a declaration that the mortgage is a valid lien was reversed and granted; the denial of the Hersheys’ CPLR 3211(a) branch as to the equitable lien was modified to be denied as academic.
Under RPAPL 1501(1) [allows an action to determine adverse claims to real property], and Real Property Law § 240(3) [instruments affecting real property are construed according to the parties’ intent], a single discrepancy in the metes and bounds is not fatal where other loan documents and the deed identify the correct property. The mortgage listed the correct street address and tax lot, the deed contained the correct metes and bounds, and parol evidence may resolve the ambiguity; defendants raised no triable issue.
Background
In 2012, Mark and Sally Hershey purchased property in Manorville and executed a $471,008 note and mortgage securing the property. The deed and mortgage were recorded on July 2, 2012. The mortgage’s Schedule A listed the correct street address and tax lot but contained an incorrect metes and bounds description; the deed’s Schedule A had the correct metes and bounds. In 2021, Wells Fargo sued under RPAPL article 15 to quiet title and sought a declaration that the mortgage is a valid lien, or alternatively an equitable lien. The Hersheys asserted statute of limitations and sought to quiet title in their favor.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment on quiet title and declaratory relief (and on an equitable lien) and denied the Hersheys’ cross-motion under CPLR 3211(a)(5) [rule permitting dismissal on statute of limitations and other grounds] and for summary judgment on their counterclaims.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the law: granted Wells Fargo summary judgment under RPAPL article 15 and declared the mortgage a valid lien and encumbrance on the property; denied as academic the Hersheys’ CPLR 3211(a) branch targeting the equitable lien claim. As modified, otherwise affirmed, and remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the mortgage a valid lien.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that an erroneous metes and bounds description does not invalidate a mortgage where the street address and other identifiers are correct; such an inconsistency creates an ambiguity that may be resolved by parol evidence. RPAPL article 15 is available to mortgagees to confirm lien validity against adverse claims, and courts will look to the parties’ intent under Real Property Law § 240(3).
A mortgage remains enforceable despite a mistaken metes and bounds description when other identifying information establishes the parties’ intent; summary judgment declaring lien validity is proper under RPAPL article 15 when no triable issues exist.