Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Blick/Pak (2025 NY Slip Op 03601), decided June 11, 2025, by New York’s Second Department
Case Summary
• Background
In 2005, Stuart Blick and Sunny Blick executed a $452,000 note and mortgage. The borrower died in July 2018. Wilmington (successor to WaMu) commenced foreclosure in September 2020, naming Yun Pak as holder of the equity of redemption. Pak answered.
• Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (Orange County) granted Wilmington summary judgment and appointed a referee, who calculated arrears of $407,224.43 (as of Dec 2, 2022) and recommended sale. The Court confirmed this report and entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale in July 2023.
• Appellate Reversal
On appeal, the Second Department reversed in full: it denied conformation of the referee’s report, rejected the report, and remitted the matter to the lower court for a new computation per CPLR 4403 .
Key Takeaways
1. Challenging Referee Reports
Defendants like Pak may properly object to a referee’s report for lack of sufficient evidentiary support—even after summary judgment .
2. Affidavit-Based Evidence
Reliance on a loan servicer’s affidavit alone may be insufficient; courts may require more comprehensive documentation before confirming amounts due.
3. Procedural Safeguards Matter
Remittal means Wilmington must recompute arrears and properly document the accounting before foreclosure can proceed—a borrower’s win for due process.
Tips for Homeowners Facing Foreclosure
• Review and challenge referee reports for incomplete or unsupported calculations.
• Demand detailed loan statements, escrow histories, and evidence of default.
• Assert your rights to notice and a full accounting.
• Explore defenses such as estoppel, loss mitigation options, or procedural errors.
• Consider retaining counsel when confronting summary foreclosure judgments, especially where foreclosure amounts are complex or disputed.
Advice for Investor-Buyers
• Due Diligence: Scrutinize foreclosure history for remittals or judicial reversals—they may indicate unresolved title issues.
• Title Risk: If the foreclosure judgment was rescinded and remanded, you could face uncertainty until the accounting is finalized and a new judgment issued.
• Time & Cost: Be prepared for potential delays and increased costs; a remittal means additional court appearances and possibly renewed litigation.
• Protective Measures: Negotiate timelines allowing for appeal periods, ensure title insurance covers judicial remittals, and monitor the case until the new judgment is final.
Concluding Thoughts
The Second Department’s decision underscores an essential principle: procedural and evidentiary correctness matter in foreclosure. Borrowers can—and should—challenge summary processes that lack documentation, and investors should tread carefully in remanded foreclosures that may cloud title or extend timelines.
