Published on:

Plaintiff Requests an Accounting


This case involves Richard P. Booth as the administrator for the Estate of Donald W. Booth Sr. as the plaintiff. The defendant in the case is the Ameriquest Mortgage Company. The Supreme Court of the State of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

A New York Probate Lawyer said the plaintiff, Richard P. Booth is seeking a judgment to set aside and declare a leasehold mortgage given by the defendant, Ameriquest Mortgage Company to be null and void and to cancel and discharge the mortgage, and to direct the Clerk of Suffolk County to cancel and discharge the record of the mortgage.

Case Background

Donald W. Booth Sr. died intestate on the sixth of October, 2000. He left behind a lease on a piece of property located at 4164 Broadway, Gilgo Beach, in Suffolk County, New York along with other assets including, but not limited to, a Chase Bank account, Merrill Lynch accounts, and a life insurance policy. His three children, Donald Booth Jr., Gail Booth, and Richard Booth all survived him.

Gail died intestate on the 20th of October, 2000. She left her two surviving brothers. On the 23rd of March, 2003, Donald Jr. and Michelle entered into a mortgage with Ameriquest.

An action against Donald Jr. and Michelle was brought up in the Supreme Court. This estate litigation action was then transferred to the Surrogate’s Court by Richard to set aside an assignment of the lease to the property and for an accounting of the assets that were allegedly taken by Donald Jr. and Michelle from the estate of Donald Sr. before and after his death. Donald Jr. and Michelle both died on the 12th of January, 2005. A stipulation entered into by Richard Booth and the representatives of the estates and the claims were settled.

Plaintiff’s Argument

Long Island Probate Lawyers said the plaintiff argues that Ameriquest was on inquiry notice of the claims to an interest and or equity in the subject property, that it ws not a bona fide mortgagee, and that the defendant is chargeable with the knowledge of all of the facts that a diligent inquiry into the matter would have revealed. More specifically the plaintiff argues that the defendant should have known that according to the judgment made by the Surrogate Court in March of 2006 that stated that Donald Jr. did not have any right to the title or the leas of the property in question.

Defendant’s Argument

Ameriquest states that the only legal issues in the case are whether they acquired a valid mortgage on the property in question through the intestate share of the property owned by Donald Jr. and whether the court is bound by the order made in the Surrogates court in March. Ameriquest more specifically states that Donald Jr. had a 50% interest in the lease after their sister passed away and as such the mortgage is valid.

Court Discussion and Decision

When reviewing the facts of the case including the paperwork that has been provided by the plaintiff and the defendant, the court finds that the mortgage is in fact not valid. A Queens Probate Lawyer said the mortgage was made to a person who did not have the right to the property at the time. For this reason, the relief sought by the plaintiff in this case is granted.

If you need legal advice of any kind, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates for help. Our offices are located in the metropolitan area of Manhattan. You may contact any of our offices at any time in order to speak with an expert litigator regarding your legal issues. A free consultation is provided on your first visit to one of our offices.

Contact Information