Yeiser v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, for purposes of contesting a foreclosure action, “privity extends to parties who are successors to a property interest”
• finding that loan servicing company was “in privity” with mortgage holder that had obtained judgment of foreclosure against plaintiff in state court because that company “serviced the loan at the time . . . the foreclosure action [was commenced]”
• finding plaintiffs’ actions were based the same series of transactions, in part, because “the same facts and incidents” were asserted
• “According to New York law, ... res judicata ... applies to defenses that could have Lastly, the present action satisfies the privity requirement for been litigated, including defenses to a foreclosure.”
• noting that “New York law provides that privity extends to parties ‘who are successors to a property interest, those who control an action although not formal parties to it, those whose interests are represented by a party to the action, and possibly coparties to a prior action.’”
• granting motion to dismiss based on preclusive effect of prior state foreclosure action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).