Provides that a default judgment against a defendant in a foreclosure action does not need to be vacated in order for the defense of lack of standing or expiration of the statute of limitations to be raised by the defendant.
S10529 amends New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to expand and clarify defenses available to a homeowner or other defendant in a foreclosure case. The bill provides that a defendant may raise lack of standing by the plaintiff, or expiration of the statute of limitations, even if those defenses were not raised in an initial responsive pleading or pre-answer motion to dismiss. It also specifies that these defenses may be raised after a foreclosure sale when the judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered on the defendant’s default, even if that default judgment has not been vacated.
The measure applies to foreclosure proceedings involving home loans and takes effect immediately. It applies both to new cases filed on or after the effective date and to certain pending cases where a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not yet been enforced. In practical terms, the bill would make it easier for defendants in foreclosure actions to challenge whether the plaintiff had the legal right to sue and whether the action was filed too late.
The bill would amend RPAPL section 1302-a by changing the title from a singular to plural "defenses" and by expressly adding statute-of-limitations defenses alongside lack of standing. It overrides the usual waiver rule in CPLR 3211(e) for these foreclosure-related defenses, meaning they cannot be lost simply because they were not raised early in the case. The bill would affect foreclosure plaintiffs, mortgage servicers, lenders, and homeowners in home-loan foreclosure actions by broadening the procedural avenues available to contest a foreclosure judgment, including in cases involving default judgments.
Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be homeowner-protective and aimed at strengthening defenses in foreclosure litigation. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is available from the legislative record included here. The framing suggests the bill is intended to correct or clarify a procedural limitation that may have prevented defendants from raising meritorious defenses after default.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether defendants should be allowed to raise standing and statute-of-limitations defenses after default and after a foreclosure sale without first vacating the judgment. Supporters would likely view the bill as a fairness measure that prevents enforcement of potentially invalid foreclosures, while opponents may argue it undermines finality of judgments and could prolong foreclosure proceedings. Another likely issue is the bill’s retroactive application to pending cases, which could affect already-advanced foreclosure matters.