A New York appellate court has ruled in a mortgage foreclosure case that affects how parties can claim lack of personal jurisdiction. The decision, issued on September 23, 2026, reverses a prior ruling that favored defendant Madeleine Cassis. This ruling is significant for both mortgage lenders and homeowners involved in similar disputes.

The case, Federal National Mortgage Association v. Cassis (Docket No. 2024-09023), centers on a foreclosure action initiated by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) against Cassis. The ruling clarifies the rules around personal jurisdiction and the implications of a defendant's actions in court.

Background

The Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, filed a lawsuit against Madeleine Cassis in 2009 to foreclose on a mortgage for a residential property in Brooklyn. The case has seen numerous motions and hearings since its inception. In 2010, Cassis filed a limited notice of appearance for a settlement conference, and subsequent legal representation was provided by the Petroff Law Firm in 2012.

In 2016, Cassis cross-moved to dismiss the complaint against her, claiming lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion was held in abeyance while the court determined the validity of service of process. A hearing in March 2017 concluded that Fannie Mae had not proven proper service. However, the case continued to evolve with various motions and appeals, leading to the July 2024 order that granted Cassis’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on jurisdiction.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the lower court erred in granting Cassis's motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court stated, "A defendant may waive the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss."

In its decision, the court noted that Cassis had made a general appearance in the case by filing a notice of appearance in 2012 and did not raise the jurisdiction issue until 2016. The court concluded that her delay in asserting this defense constituted a waiver of her right to challenge the court's jurisdiction over her.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future foreclosure cases and personal jurisdiction claims in New York. It establishes that defendants must be proactive in asserting jurisdictional defenses or risk waiving those rights. The decision clarifies that participation in court proceedings, even if not directly related to the merits of the case, can be interpreted as an acceptance of the court's jurisdiction.

The ruling also impacts how mortgage lenders approach foreclosures, emphasizing the importance of proper service and timely responses from defendants. It reinforces the notion that defendants must act quickly to protect their legal rights in foreclosure proceedings.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Cassis plans to appeal this decision. However, the case highlights ongoing legal challenges in foreclosure actions and the importance of understanding jurisdictional issues in such cases.