Nephew Evicts Aunts

[TenantNet]

Anna, without going into details, I know some press has been contacted in addition to Lofter's NY1 thing. I'm in contact with some people in BK who are looking into it.

While Curbed did raise some questions, I think Hawco and Aubergine discovered the apparent fraud. Haven't seen references to that elsewhere.

[Anna]

At least one of the the folks (described in that thread as 'mostly yuppie landlords) over at Brownstoner has discovered internet search engines :

The folks at Tenant.net have discovered what appears to be some fraud concerning the deed for the property. http://www.tenant.net/.WWW/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000174

Posted by: Anonymous at November 16, 2005 01:45 PM
______________________________

One wonders about the Do-Gooders at Tenant.net -- from the link above:

lofter1's curbed link has 3 links on it: one is a forum on the Brownstoner (a Brooklyn newspaper) with lots of ugly posts from people too lazy to use Google or other search engines or search local papers before posting ugly opinions about the sisters (mostly) and their nephew/LL. Three from 8:07pm to 9:11pm, 11/15, sound like one poster w/ax to grind... or related to LL?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 16, 2005 04:40 PM

<small>[ November 16, 2005, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]</small>

[NYHawk]

If it is true that the notary public notarized the dead woman's forged signature and knew it was a forgery it seems that a felony was committed!

According to the NYS Department of State Division of Licensing Services, Notary Public License Law: "Fraudulent certificates of acknowledgment. A notary public who knowingly makes a false certificate that a deed or other written instrument was acknowledged by a party thereto is guilty of forgery in the second degree, which is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not exceeding 7 years (Penal Law, §§170.10 and 70.00[2(d)]." Here is the link

aubergine. wrote:

What is odd is that the life estate should not have presented a problem if the life tenant had died and the owner of the reversion in fee simple (Joseph) could prove it. I don't know how people normally establish to the satisfaction of a title insurance company, purchaser, or lender that a life estate has been extinguished. NYHawk, do you know?

No I don't know. It sure seems very odd to me that someone would need to forge a signature in this situation. Obviously a life estate ends when the life ends. So, why commit a felony and forge a signature on a deed ???????

Anybody know if the tenants have a lawyer and, if so, has he or she been notified of this thread?

[ponko]

I did a little detective work and discovered something fishy: the most recent deed for this property states that an Anna Deleonibus gave up her life estate by a deed dated March 25, 2005. An Arnold Davis, Notary Public, acknowledged her signature also on March 25, 2005. Here is the deed from ACRIS. The problem is that Anna had died on March 12, 2005.

Excellent find - perhaps the earlier deed where the home was transfered from Anna to her son was invalid somehow.

[NYHawk]

I think I've come up with the solution to this pathetic dilemma.

BTW, super major kudos to Aubergine for very astutely analyzing the 2003 deed and discovering and exposing that the 2003 deed had a New Jersey notary who allegedly "notarized" Anna's signature, whereby she supposedly conveyed the property to her scumbag son. I think that is the key fact to resolving this mess. (IMHO, it is mindbogglingly that the Clerk's Office did not discover this defect, reject the deed and not record it.)

So, assuming that a New Jersey notary cannot properly notarize a signature in New York which concerns a New York property, which if someone does the legal research, sounds very plausible, then the 2003 deed should be declared null and void, as a matter of law, because Anna's signature was never properly acknowledged.

Of course, the 2005 deed should also be declared null and void because of Anna's fraudulently notarized signature -- weeks after she died.

Thus, assuming that the 2003 and 2005 deeds are declared null and void, and assuming that Anna died without a will, then the intestate rules in New York will kick in. Therefore, assuming that Anna had no living spouse at the time of her death, I'm not sure, but I believe that her estate will automatically go to her siblings -- the two sisters being evicted -- and so the scumbag son will get absolutely nothing. Am I wrong???? (Sorry scumbag but I think your gonna lose that 1 million inheritance you were dreaming about.)

What to do???? If the "sisters" have no lawyer I'd be willing to represent them pro bono and bring a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court on their behalf -- to have the 2003 and 2005 deeds declared null and void -- and to obtain a temporary restraining order to stay their eviction.

Oh, it would be so wonderful to expose the scumbag's fraudulent shenanigans and have him inherit absolutely nothing because of his sham "inheritance."

What to do???????????????????

[Aubergine]

I don't think that getting the 2003 deed set aside would be that simple. The lack of a proper acknowledgment may be a bar to recording the deed but my understanding is that it does not invalidate the transfer as a matter of law. Still, there is no question that it raises doubts about the legitimacy of the transfer, and that this could delay the Housing Court proceedings.

Also, New York's rules of intestate succession provide for distribution to issue (children) before the issue of parents (siblings). EPTL § 4-1.1.

[NYHawk]

well, EPTL § 4-1.1 kills my idea. now what?

[Anna]

Well, no one said she died without a will; perhaps she did intend to leave the house to the people who live in it, or to leave her sisters with 'leases' for the remainder of their lives.

ps: HC cannot determine title disputes, but HC should stay the proceedings if it appears that respondent-tenant has a legitimate claim to title of the bldg or that petitioner does not.