Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Levine-Rodriguez
153 Misc. 2d 8, 579 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 771 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York Real Property Law § 316, an improperly indexed mortgage does not provide constructive notice to a subsequent mortgagee, causing the prior mortgage to lose priority to a subsequent mortgage recorded by a party who lacks actual knowledge of the prior encumbrance.
Facts:
- In September 1983, Susan Levine-Rodriguez executed a mortgage in favor of Intercounty Mortgagee Corp., which was then assigned to the plaintiff.
- The deed for the property listed the owner's name without a hyphen ('Rodriguez'), but the mortgage document used a hyphen ('Levine-Rodriguez').
- When the mortgage was recorded, the Rockland County Clerk indexed it under the letter 'L' for 'Levine' instead of 'R' for 'Rodriguez'.
- Rockland County uses an alphabetical mortgagor-mortgagee indexing system.
- On May 1, 1989, Susan Levine-Rodriguez and her husband executed a second mortgage on the same property in favor of Chemical Bank.
- Chemical Bank conducted a title search under the name 'Rodriguez' before executing its mortgage.
- The title search did not uncover the plaintiff's prior mortgage because it was indexed under 'L'.
- Chemical Bank had no actual knowledge of the plaintiff's mortgage at the time its own mortgage was created and recorded.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, the assignee of the first mortgage, initiated an action to foreclose its mortgage in the Supreme Court of Rockland County, a trial-level court in New York.
- Defendant Chemical Bank, the holder of a subsequent mortgage, filed a motion seeking an order to dismiss the complaint as to it.
- In its motion, Chemical Bank also sought a declaratory judgment establishing that its mortgage has priority over the plaintiff's mortgage.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior mortgage that is recorded but improperly indexed by the mortgagor's name lose its priority to a subsequent, properly recorded mortgage, when the subsequent mortgagee lacks actual knowledge of the prior mortgage?
Opinions:
Majority - Lefkowitz, J.
Yes. A prior mortgage that is recorded but improperly indexed loses its priority to a subsequent, properly recorded mortgage taken without actual notice. The court held that the 1924 amendment to New York Real Property Law § 316, which made official indexes part of the record, effectively overruled the prior common law rule from Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Dake. Under the modern statute, an improperly indexed instrument fails to provide constructive notice because a diligent searcher relying on the alphabetical index would not be able to find it. The court reasoned that between two innocent parties, the loss should be borne by the party who filed the instrument, as that party is in the best position to verify that it was recorded and indexed correctly. Because Chemical Bank lacked both constructive and actual notice of the plaintiff's mortgage due to the indexing error, its subsequent mortgage gains priority.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that in New York, the burden of ensuring proper indexing of a real property instrument falls on the party submitting it for recording, not on subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers. It solidifies the interpretation that the 1924 amendment to Real Property Law § 316 made the index an integral part of the record, meaning an error in indexing is a fatal defect for the purpose of providing constructive notice. This precedent places a practical responsibility on filers, such as mortgagees and their title insurers, to verify indexing accuracy to protect their priority status, potentially altering standard closing and post-closing procedures to include such verification.
