The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a debt collector’s motion to dismiss a debtor’s claim that a debt collection notice violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because the notice failed to state that certain requests must be in writing. See Kausar v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 2017 WL 5175596 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2017).
The Superior Court of Connecticut recently held that insured owners were barred from coverage under a title insurance policy for an easement that the policy did not disclose because the sellers had informed the insureds about the easement before the closing, even if the insureds had misunderstood the scope of the easement. See Pamela Egan et al. v. Eastland Title Servs., Inc. et al., 2017 WL 5202842 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2017).
Florida’s District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court and vacated a final judgment of foreclosure because the bank, as trustee of a mortgage pool trust governed by a pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA”) was unable to prove standing. See Friedle v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2017 WL 4280592 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017). In the case, the trial court granted the bank final judgment of foreclosure and the borrower appealed, arguing that the bank did not prove that it had possession of the note at the time it filed the complaint. On appeal, the appellate court agreed that the bank had not proved it possessed the note and reversed.
The Surrogate’s Court of New York, Oneida County, recently denied a petitioner’s motion for summary judgment seeking to compel the executor to deliver all of the funds withdrawn from a decedent’s accounts to the petitioner, as the alleged surviving joint owner, on grounds that there is insufficient proof to warrant a finding that title to the accounts is vested in the petitioner as the survivor.
A Florida appellate court recently reversed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a mortgagee and instead held that a tax lien originating from improper homestead benefits had priority over the mortgage recorded seven years earlier. See Miami-Dade Cty. v. Lansdowne Mortg., LLC, 2017 WL 4655060 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2017).
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to defendant and instead held that there were issues of fact regarding whether the easement between plaintiff’s and defendant’s neighboring properties was terminated by estoppel. See 1701 E. Main, LLC v. Wawa, Inc., 2017 WL 4531772 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 11, 2017). In the case, plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest owned property on which it operated a gas station, and which was bordered on two sides by defendant’s property on which defendant operated a convenience store.
The United States District Court for Nevada recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s decision and held that a title insurance company’s bankruptcy claim was not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because, among other reasons, it was not a party to the underlying state court action. See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Creditor Grp., 2017 WL 4683968 (D. Nev. Oct. 17, 2017). In the case, two individuals (the “Owners”) formed two companies (the “Companies”) to purchase and develop property.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted a defendant loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim, holding that plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not proximately caused by defendant. See Galli v. Astoria Bank, 2017 WL 4325824 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2017). In the case, plaintiff defaulted on his loan with defendant and defendant foreclosed on the property and scheduled a foreclosure sale.
New York’s Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) recently issued two regulations regarding title insurance “marketing costs” and affiliated entities that will affect the way title insurance underwriters and agents generate referrals and do business.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a defendant loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim, holding that plaintiff borrowers had adequately pled that defendant had failed to respond to their qualified written request (“QWR”) under RESPA. See Herrera v. Cent. Loan Admin. & Reporting, 2017 WL 4548268 (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2017).