Betina G Koloch

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
In Re 	Case No. 1-07-73919-dem
BETINA G. KOLOCH, 	Chapter 13
Debtor.
----------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION AND ORDER ON PROOF OF CLAIM OF CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
Appearances:
Avrum J. Rosen, Esq.
The Law Offices of Avrum J. Rosen, PLLC
Attorneys for Lidia Swiatkowski
38 New Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Rashel M. Mehlman, Esq.
Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, LLP
Attorney for CitiMortgage, Inc.
95-25 Queens Boulevard, Sixth Floor
Rego Park, NY 11374
DENNIS E. MILTON
United States Bankruptcy Judge
The matter comes before the Court on the objection of Lidia Swiatkowski
(“Swiatkowski”) , a party in interest and co-obligor, to Proof of Claim No. 2 filed by
CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”). Swiatkowski seeks an Order pursuant to Section 502 of
the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure reducing,
expunging and/or reclassifying Proof of Claim No. 2.1 As set forth more fully below, based
1 The parties have agreed that the Court, having granted the motion of the chapter 13 case trustee to dismiss the case
on October 3, 2008, shall enter an Order dismissing this case without prejudice upon determination of the Objection
to CitiMortgage’s Proof of Claim.
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

upon the evidence which Swiatkowski presented and the failure of CitiMortgage to meet its
burden of proof with regard to several matters, the Court reduces the Proof of Claim to allow
CitiMortgage's Claim in the reduced amount of $444,590.14. 	.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1334(b)
and 157(b)(2) and the Eastern District of New York standing Order of reference dated August
28, 1986. This decision constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law to the
extent Fed. R.Bank. P. 7052 requires.
INTRODUCTION
This case is the seventh case in this Court involving the debtor and co-obligors
and CitiMortgage, Inc. and its predecessor in interest regarding the note and mortgage dated
September 18, 1990 between the debtor, co-obligors and Citibank, N.A. regarding the real
property located at 7 Park Lane Place, Massapequa, New York 11758 (the “Massapequa
Property”). 	There has been additional litigation involving the parties in the Supreme Court,
Nassau County and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
central issue for determination here is the amount of the Proof of Claim of CitiMortgage. A brief
recitation of the underlying facts of these cases follows.
A. 	Background
On or about September 18, 1990, Citibank, N.A. financed the Massapequa
Property with debtor Betina G. Koloch a/k/a Betina Swiatkowski, Michael Swiatkowski a/k/a
Michal Swiatkowski and Lidia Swiatkowski. The debtor and the co-obligors executed a
mortgage note in the principal amount of $264,000.00 and delivered a mortgage against the
2
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

Massapequa Property.
On or about June 1, 1998, the debtor and co-obligors defaulted under the note and
mortgage. Citibank’s successor in interest commenced a foreclosure action in the Supreme
Court, Nassau County, and obtained a judgment of foreclosure on or about April 20, 1999.
On or about September 1, 1999, Michal and Lidia Swiatkowski filed a voluntary
joint petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “First Case”). On or about
July 20, 2000, the First Case was dismissed upon the application of the debtors. On or about
October 2, 2000, the First Case was closed.
On or about October 25, 2000, Michal Swiatkowski filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Second Case”). This filing stayed the
scheduled foreclosure sale of the Massapequa Property. 	On or about January 16, 2001, the
Second Case was dismissed on the application of the Chapter 13 case trustee due to the debtor’s
default in making payments. On February 16, 2001, the Second Case was closed.
On March 7, 2001, Lidia Swiatkowski filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Third Case”). This filing stayed a scheduled
foreclosure sale of the Massapequa Property. On or about November 6, 2001, the case was
dismissed with prejudice on the motion of the Chapter 13 case trustee. On December 12, 2001,
the Third Case was closed.
While the Third Case was pending, the debtor and co-obligors requested a
workout arrangement with CitiMortgage. However, they refused to sign a stipulation of
settlement which was part of the forbearance agreement process. According to CitiMortgage,
the loan representative working with the Swiatkowskis authorized the acceptance of funds
3
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

without an executed stipulation. CitiMortgage accepted payment of $101,230.49 without a
written settlement agreement. The forbearance agreement was calculated at the monthly
payment amount of $3,231.00. However, according to CitiMortgage, the annual taxes and
insurance at the time of reinstatement were $12,553.41, and the $3,231.00 monthly payment was
insufficient to reinstate the escrow deficit.
CitiMortgage’s documentation reflected considerable confusion at CitiMortgage
concerning the amount of the monthly mortgage payment. It appears from its own records that
the mortgagors may not have been in default under the mortgage in May 2002. 	By letter dated
June 25, 2002, CitiMortgage informed the mortgagors that they were current through May 1,
2002 and were due for the June 1, 2002 payment. The payment history further reflects that in
May 2002, a time when CitiMortgage allegedly notified the mortgagors that they were current
with their mortgage payments, CitiMortgage referred the file to its attorneys for foreclosure.
On or about April 24, 2002, CitiMortgage issued a notice to the debtor and co-
obligors that the monthly payment had adjusted upward to $4,703.00 per month; CitiMortgage
claimed that the debtor and co-obligors were given notice of this adjusted mortgage payment on
or about May 1, 2002. On or about June 19, 2002, the debtor and co-obligors received a letter
from CitiMortgage informing them that the amounts remitted in the June 2002 payment were not
sufficient to cover the monthly amount due of $4,753.28. On June 20, 2002, CitiMortgage
informed the mortgagors that their payment was late and imposed a late payment charge of
$50.28. On or about July 11, 2002, CitiMortgage, according to the payment history, reversed the
payments in the amount of $3,231.00 for the months of May and June 2002 and returned the
payments to the co-obligor Lidia Swiatkowski.
4
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

In May 2002 CitiMortgage referred the file to its attorneys for foreclosure
proceedings. On or about September 30, 2005, Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale was entered in
the pending foreclosure action. On or about November 4, 2005, Michal Swiatkowski filed a
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Fourth Case”). On
November 16, 2006, the Fourth Case was dismissed on the motion of the Chapter 13 case trustee.
In or about November 2006, the debtor tendered two payments in the amount of $6,000.00 and
$19,200.00. On January 19, 2007, the Fourth Case was closed.
On or about December 12, 2006, Lidia Swiatkowski filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Fifth Case”). On or about April 17, 2007,
the Fifth Case was dismissed with prejudice on the debtor’s motion. On June 19, 2007, the Fifth
Case was closed.
On April 2, 2007, Michal Swiatkowski filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Sixth Case”). On August 8, 2007, the Sixth Case was
dismissed with prejudice on the motion of the Chapter 13 case trustee.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS CASE
On October 4, 2007, Betina G. Koloch (the “debtor”) filed a voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. On November 7, 2007, CitiMortgage filed
Proof of Claim No. 2. On or about January 11, 2008, counsel for Lidia Swiatkowski filed an
Objection to Proof of Claim No. 2 dated November 7, 2007 which CitiMortgage filed. 	On
March 4, 2008, counsel for CitiMortgage filed an Affirmation in Opposition to the Objection.
On March 6, 2008, counsel for Swiatkowski filed a reply to the affidavit in opposition. On
March 6, 2008, counsel for CitiMortgage filed a supplemental affidavit in opposition to the
5
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

Objection. On March 28, 2008, counsel for Swiatkowski filed a Memorandum of Law. On
April 17, 2008, counsel for CitiMortgage filed a reply affirmation and cross-application for fees
and costs. On May 9, 2008, the Court conducted a hearing on the Objection. At a continued
hearing on October 17, 2008, the Court directed counsel for CitiMortgage to file a post hearing
submission on the issue of calculation of interest and the placing of forced placed insurance. On
October 24, 2008, counsel for CitiMortgage submitted a supplemental affidavit and the Court
took the matter under submission. This decision follows.
DISCUSSION
The Debtor Has Met Her Burden of Proof And
The Objection to CitiMortgage’s Proof of Claim Is Sustained
A proof of claim filed in conformance with the rules is presumptively valid. See
11 U.S.C. §502. See also In re Hemingway Transp., Inc., 993 F.2d 915 (1st Cir. 1993). The
party objecting has the initial burden of going forward and of introducing evidence sufficient to
rebut the presumption of validity. In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1992). Such
evidence must be sufficient to demonstrate a true dispute and must have probative force equal to
the contents of the claim. Id. Upon introduction of sufficient evidence by the objecting party,
the burden shifts, and the claimant will have to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of
the evidence. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Metro Communications, Inc., 945 F.2d 635 (3d Cir. 1991).
The debtor has met the burden of proof in objecting to CitiMortgage’s proof of
claim. Conversely, as seen below, CitiMortgage has failed to meet its burden of proof on the
issue of deficiencies and late fees.
6
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

A. Challenge of the Proof of Claim
Lidia Swiatkowski is the co-obligor (the “Objectant”) of a mortgage and note
executed in favor of CitiMortgage and the mother of the debtor. The mortgage and note are
secured by an interest in the Massapequa Property. On November 7, 2007, CitiMortgage filed
Proof of Claim No. 2. The Proof of Claim alleged a total secured debt in the amount of
$475,473.99, broken down as follows:
(A) Principal Balance 	221,773.69
(B) Interest 	122,176.31
(C) Escrow Advances 	79,463.31
(D) Late Charges 	3,217.92
(E) Deficiency Expenses 	38,366.98
(F) Appraisal Fees 	1,565.00
(G) Inspection Fees 	736.55
(H) Interest on Escrow Advances 	8,174.23
A. 	Principal Balance
With regard to the principal balance, the Objectant challenged the amount of the
monthly mortgage payment. 	As previously noted, the documentation reflected significant
confusion at CitiMortgage concerning the amount of the monthly mortgage payment. 2 Referring
to a prior foreclosure action in which the Massapequa Property was the subject and which
resulted in the reinstatement of the mortgage in December 2001, the Objectant noted that the
2 On or about June 19, 2002, mortgagors received a letter from CitiMortgage informing them that the amounts
remitted in the June 2002 payment were not sufficient to cover the monthly amount due of $4,753.28. On June 20,
2002, CitiMortgage informed the mortgagors that their payment was late and imposed late payment charge of
$50.28. Later that month, by letter dated June 25, 2002, CitiMortgage informed the mortgagors that they were
current through May 1, 2002 and were due for the June 1, 2002 payment. On or about July 11, 2002, CitiMortgage,
according to the payment history, reversed the payments in the amount of $3,231.00 for two months and returned the
payments to the objectant.
7
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

mortgagors remitted the prior payment amount of $3,231.00 to CitiMortgage from January 2002
through May 2002, and CitiMortgage accepted them. CitiMortgage’s proof of claim states that
the mortgagors failed to make mortgage payments for the period November 1, 2002 through
October 1, 2007, a period of 60 months at a rate of $4,703.00, for a total principal balance of
$282,180.00. The payment history reflects that effective May 2002, a time when CitiMortgage
notified the mortgagors that they were current with their mortgage payments, CitiMortgage
referred the file to its attorneys for foreclosure, even though it appears from its own records that
the mortgagors were not in default in May 2002.
As the Objectant has established, CitiMortgage initially failed to provide
sufficient documentation to support its Proof of Claim. In subsequent pre-and post-hearing
submissions, in March and October 2008, CitiMortgage supplemented its Proof of Claim and
responded to the Objection as noted below. CitiMortgage presented documentation to support
the element in its Proof of Claim that the mortgagors failed to make mortgage payments from
November 1, 2002 through October 1, 2007, a period of 60 months at a rate of $4,703.00, for a
total principal balance of $282,180.00.
In conclusion, CitiMortgage has adequately established that the principal
balance consisted of $221,773.69.
B. 	Interest
The documentation reflects that the interest was calculated from October 1, 2002
through October 9, 2007 at a rate of 11% per annum (based on the mortgage note) for a total of
$122,510.49, and the amount of interest set forth on the Proof of Claim has been sustained.
8
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

C. 	Escrow Advances
In its Proof of Claim, CitiMortgage claimed escrow advances in the amount of
$79,463.31. CitiMortgage had failed to describe these payments in sufficient detail in the
documentation accompanying the Proof of Claim. In response to the Objection, CitiMortgage
described those advances as follows:
Pre-petition Advances 	74,165.88
Post-Petition Advances 	4,970.74 (school tax)
CitiMortgage provided documentation for payments totaling these amounts for school taxes,
town taxes and insurance advances.
D. 	Late Charges
CitiMortgage has presented sufficient evidence to establish its entitlement to late
charges and uncollected late charges in the amount of 3,217.92. The amount claimed is allowed
in this amount.
E 	Deficiency Expenses
The Proof of Claim contained a claim for deficiency expenses in the amount of
$38,366.98. CitiMortgage claimed it had incurred fees and expenses in the foreclosure and
federal proceedings in the amount of $38,066.98 as described below:
Legal fees and expenses in the foreclosure action,
Federal proceedings and three related appeals 	34,611.38
Bankruptcy Costs 	2,800.00
Cost of Appraisal 	655.60
9
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

In the Objection, counsel for Swiatkowski argued that the post judgment charges
merged into the foreclosure judgment. The Judgment of Foreclosure relied upon for this portion
of the claim limits legal fees to the amount of $15,657.36. In order to collect amounts beyond
the amounts allowed in the Judgment of Foreclosure, the mortgage documents must contain
specific language allowing the clause to survive the mortgage merger in the judgment of
foreclosure. In Re Lehal Realty Associates, 112 B.R. 588 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990). 	The
Objectant contended that under the doctrine of merger, CitiMortgage may not collect additional
fees and other expenses not expressly provided for in the judgment of foreclosure. In re Lehal
Realty, supra. The Judgment of Foreclosure limits CitiMortgage to a recovery of $15,657.36.
The Court adopts the reasoning and awards CitiMortgage deficiency expenses in the amount of
$15,657.36.
F. 	Other Expenses
The final items of CitiMortgage’s Proof of Claim consisted of the following
items.
Appraisal Fees 	1,565.00
Inspection Fees 	736.55
Interest on Escrow Advances 	8,174.23
This Court finds that the interest on the escrow advances were not included in the
Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, and therefore reduces this portion of the Proof of Claim by
$8,174.23, resulting in a total allowed amount of $2,301.55.
In conclusion, the Court finds that CitiMortgage has established entitlement to
10
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59

allowance of claims on its Proof of Claim in the following amounts:
Amount Sought 	Amount Allowed
(A) Mortgage Balance 	221,773.69 	221,773.69
(B) Interest 	122,176.31 	122,176.31
(C) Escrow Advances 	79,463.31 	79,463.31
(D) Late Charges 	3,217.92 	3,217.92
(E) Deficiency Expenses 	38, 366.98 	15,657.36
(G) Appraisal Fees 	1,565.00 	1,565.00
(H) Inspection Fees 	736.55 	736.55
(I) Interest on Escrow Advances 	8,174.23 	0.00
Total 	475,473.99 	444,590.14
CONCLUSION
The Court grants the Motion to the extent that it reduces CitiMortgage’s Proof of
Claim and allows CitiMortgage's claim in the reduced amount of $444,590.14, as follows:
(A) Mortgage Balance 	221,773.69
(B) Interest 	122,176.31
(C) Escrow Advances 	79,463.31
(D) Late Charges 	3,217.92
(E) Deficiency Expenses 	15,657.36
(F) Appraisal Fees 	1,565.00
(G) Inspection Fees 	736.55
(H) Interest on Escrow Advances 	0.00
Total 	444,590.14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 30, 2009
S/ Dennis E. Milton
DENNIS E. MILTON
United States Bankruptcy Judge
11
Case 8-07-73919-dem Doc 53 Filed 09/30/09 Entered 09/30/09 16:12:59