Tag: 颛桥南街晚上有人吗

Emergency appeals boost Trocaire income

first_img Howard Lake | 25 February 2015 | News  58 total views,  1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Emergency appeals boost Trocaire income AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis As development organisation Trocaire launches its key Lenten fundraising campaign, the latest annual report for the charity shows that its voluntary income increased to nearly €30 million in 2014.The increase in income included nearly €8 million of restricted income for a number of emergency campaigns but when that figure is excluded unrestricted fundraising income fell from €25 million in 2013 to €22 million in 2014.General donations and bequests fell from €14.7 million to €13.8 million last year while the Lenten Campaign income was also down from €8.7 million to €7.4 million. Trocaire’s main Christmas fundraising campaign, Trocaire Gifts, was €1.3 million last year against €1.7 million in 2013.Trocaire’s income over the last four years fluctuated between €67 million and €60 million depending on the number and scale of emergency appeals in Syria, Philippines and East Africa.The charity put the fall in unrestricted income last year down to ‘the difficult economic climate in Ireland.’Overall income increased from €60 million to €61 million last year, with the non-fundraising income coming from a number of government grants. As in previous periods, the Irish Government is Trócaire’s single largest donor, contributing 30% of the total organisational income.Fundraising and publicity expenses increased in 2014 to €5.2 million from €4.9 million in 2013. Tagged with: Finance Ireland Lent Research / statistics About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.last_img read more

Read more…

Save the Proof: Mailing Pre-Foreclosure Notices

first_imgHome / Commentary / Save the Proof: Mailing Pre-Foreclosure Notices Rich Haber is Managing Partner of McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC’s mortgage servicing litigation practice in New York and New Jersey. Haber has over 20 years’ experience handling mortgage foreclosures, bankruptcy actions, evictions, and related litigation. Haber has litigated thousands of contested foreclosures and title-related matters, and he regularly defends mortgage servicers from claims brought under state consumer fraud laws and federal statutes including FDCPA, TILA, RESPA, FCRA, and TCPA. February 25, 2019 3,219 Views Tagged with: 90-day past due Foreclosure mailing proof Pre-foreclosure notice Statute of limitations The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Sign up for DS News Daily Save the Proof: Mailing Pre-Foreclosure Notices  Print This Post Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Previous: Home Prices and the “Bifurcated Market” Next: Ravi Singh to Head Auction.com’s Tech Organization Share Save Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Brian P. Scibetta is Partner at McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC. His practice focuses on complex foreclosure and commercial litigation in New York and New Jersey, with an emphasis on appellate practice in both state and federal court. Scibetta also has experience in title disputes and post-foreclosure litigation. In particular, he has successfully litigated numerous matters in which the statute of limitations to foreclose has been the central issue. He prefers a creative approach to litigation, centered on problem-solving and finding a way to amicably resolve even the most challenging of disputes. in Commentary, Daily Dose, Featured, Foreclosure, News 90-day past due Foreclosure mailing proof Pre-foreclosure notice Statute of limitations 2019-02-25 Radhika Ojha Related Articles Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Subscribe One area of foreclosure law that continues to develop in New York relates to proof of mailing of required pre-foreclosure notices. There are generally two notices that must be sent prior to foreclosure; the 30-day breach notice contractually required by most mortgages, and the 90-day statutory notice required by RPAPL § 1304. Because the 30-day requirement is contractual and thus governed by whatever language exists in any given mortgage instrument, there is not a lot of case law specifically addressing these notices. However, the little that does exist suggests that the standard is comparable to the demonstration required for proving that the 90-day statutory notices were mailed. Service of the 90-day notice is considered a “condition precedent” to the commencement of foreclosure, and the burden lies with the foreclosing plaintiff to establish that the condition has been satisfied. See, e.g., CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Pappas, 147 A.D.3d 900 (2d Dept. 2017). What it takes to meet this burden is not consistent among the trial courts throughout New York and may vary depending on the county in which the property sits. To prove the mailing, there is no requirement of a “particular set of business records,” so long as the records offered are admissible under the business records exception to hearsay rule. The mailing “may be proved by any number of documents meeting the requirements of the business records exception to hearsay rule.” HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Ozcan, 154 A.D.3d 822 (2d Dept. 2017). Generally, an “affidavit of service” is required, made by someone with personal familiarity with the servicer’s mailing practices and procedures. See Pappas, supra; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wheatley, 158 A.D.3d 736 (2d Dept. 2018).There are two paths to making the showing: 1) actual proof of mailing from the USPS; or 2) proof of an office practice or procedure designed to ensure notices are properly addressed and mailed. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Mandrin, 160 A.D.3d 1014 (2d Dept. 2018); U.S. Bank N.A. v. Henderson, 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49999 (2d Dept. 2018). The former is far cleaner, though you must have both first class and certified proofs of mailings, as to each notice delivered to each address. In many instances, proof of each specific mailing is not available. The latter is also difficult to prove, as there is very little guidance regarding what specifically is required to demonstrate proof of an office practice or procedure. Certain cases also seem to tie in this requirement with whether the affiant has personal knowledge of the mailing and/or the affiant’s personal familiarity with the mailing practices. See Henderson, supra.; U.S. Bank N.A. v. Richards, 155 A.D.3d 522 (1st Dept. 2017); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Cogen, 159 A.D.3d 428 (1st Dept. 2018); See TD Bank, N.A. v. Leroy, 121 A.D.3d 1256 (3d Dept. 2014). Successful litigants often prevail with a combination of actual proof from the USPS, internal business records corroborating the mailing, and testimony as to the office practice and procedure. See Ozcan, supra; Nationstar Motg. LLC v. LaPorte, 162 A.D.3d 784 (2d Dept. 2018); CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Wallach. Conclusory and unsubstantiated statements that the notice was mailed are insufficient. See Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Toral, 2018 NY Slip Op 31659(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. July 19, 2018).Failing to strictly comply can lead to dismissal of the case, even if the borrower does not contest (i.e., courts often raise the issue on their own). A dismissal late in the case for failure to prove strict compliance can have disastrous consequences–especially if the statute of limitations threatens a potential restart. The most successful mitigation against this possibility is the use of the best possible mailing proofs and continued affiant training on mailing practices and procedures. Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago About Author: Brian Scibetta Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago About Author: Rich Haberlast_img read more

Read more…