At page 754 Deeds based on fraud or forgery are void ab initio23 citing cases“a deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid”
- Shvartser v. Lekser, No. 2018-0473 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2018).published(A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid.)
- In re Cohen, 422 B.R. 350 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).published (A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab ini-tio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid.)
- Shvartser v. Lekser, 308 F. Supp. 3d 260 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published (A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid.)
- Matter of Solomon, 2026 NY Slip Op 04423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published Here, the letters of administration issued to Sproul were obtained under the false pretense that Thomas was the decedent's sole distributee and, thus, were void ( see Matter of Bowser , 167 AD3d at 1002; Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d at 754).
- Watson v. Lampkin, 214 A.D.3d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2023).publishedA deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, as it is "legally impossible for anyone to become a bona fide purchaser of real estate, or a purchaser at all, from one who never had any title" ( Marden v Dorthy ,…
- Rockwell v. Despart, 212 A.D.3d 27 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).published Faison v Lewis , 25 NY3d at 225 ; Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2d Dept 2007]; Yin Wu v Wu , 288 AD2d 104, 105 [1st Dept 2001]).
- Ehlenfield v. Kingsbury, 206 A.D.3d 1671 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022).publishedAlthough it is well settled that "[a] deed based on [*3]forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio" ( Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2d Dept 2007]; see Jiles , 116 AD3d at 666 ), plaintiff does not contend that the deed was…
- Matter of Marini, 119 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published“A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid” (Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2007]).
- Jiles v. Archer, 116 A.D.3d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published “A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initia, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid” (Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2007]; see ABN AMRO Mtge.
- Cashel v. Cashel, 94 A.D.3d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).publishedThus, Thomas made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the signature on the deed purporting to be his signature was inscribed by Francine (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 […
Show 10 more citing cases
- ABN AMRO Mortg. Grp., Inc. v. Stephens, 91 A.D.3d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published“A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid” (Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2007]; see First Natl.
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Mayala, 87 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011).publishedAlso contrary to the appellants’ contention, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly declared the subject mortgages invalid in their entirety (see Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2007]; see also First Natl.
- First Nat'l Bank v. Williams, 74 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published“A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid” (Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754, 754 [2007]; see Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge.
- Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, 991 A.2d 20 (D.C. 2010).published(�‘A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid.)
- Matter of Oglesby, 247 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published "A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid" ( Matter of Bowser , 167 AD3d 1001 , 1002; see Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d 754, 754 ).
- Selene Fin., L.P. v. Jones, 203 A.D.3d 1191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2022).published"A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid" ( Matter of Bowser , 167 AD3d 1001 , 1002; see Cruz v Cruz , 37 AD3d 754, 754 ).
- Dorothy M. Faison v. Tonya Lewis, 32 N.E.3d 400 (N.Y. 2015).published (A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid)
- Ortiz v. Silver Invs., 165 A.D.3d 1156 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2018).published
- Citibank N.A. v. Burns, 187 A.D.3d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2020).published
- Rhiney v. Rhiney, 2026 NY Slip Op 02428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
Other citing cases
- Matter of Oglesby, 247 A.D.3d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026).published
- Park Knoll Assoc. v. Conover, 228 A.D.3d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2024).published
- Aurora Loan Servs. LLC v. Wider, No. 2:11-cv-06111 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2021).
- Euba v. Euba, 40 A.D.3d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).published
v.
Gilda Cruz, and Long Beach Mortgage Company
In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed on the ground of fraud, the defendant Long Beach Mortgage Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), entered April 27, 2006, as denied those branches of its cross motion which were for summary judgment declaring that its mortgage interest in one sixth of the subject premises was valid, and for an equitable lien on the subject premises.
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The owner of the subject premises died intestate, survived by six adult children who then became co-owners of the premises. Milton Brown, one of the surviving children, executed a deed conveying the entire premises to himself as sole heir, obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on the premises from the defendant Long Beach Mortgage Company (hereinafter Long Beach), and subsequently died. A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid (see Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., 304 AD2d 608, 608-609 [2003]; Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104, 105 [2001]; Rosen v Rosen, 243 AD2d 618, 619 [1997]; Filowick v Long, 201 AD2d 893 [1994]). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly cancelled the deed and mortgage which were obtained under false pretenses (see Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., supra). Under these circumstances, Long Beach’s only recourse is to file a claim against the estate of Milton Brown (see Filowick v Long, supra).
Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of Long Beach’s cross motion which was for an equitable lien to recover sums paid by it for property taxes and insurance premiums for the subject premises, because Long Beach failed[*755] to submit sufficient proof as to its payment of these amounts. Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.