New Jersey Federal Court Holds Rooker-Feldman and Entire Controversy Doctrines Did Not Apply to Post-Foreclosure Action, but That Plaintiff Still Failed to State a Claim

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a post-foreclosure action alleging claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman or entire controversy doctrines, but that these claims nonetheless should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.  See Mensah v. Manning, 2020 WL 91089 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2020).

Sixth Circuit Holds That Debtor’s Anxiety Caused by Receiving Debt Collection Letters Was Insufficient to Confer Standing

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that the anxiety felt by a debtor upon receiving a dunning letter was insufficient to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  See Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 2020 WL 35431 (6th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020).  In the case, plaintiff received two debt collection letters from the defendant law firm. 

New York Federal Court Grants Lender Summary Judgment on Strict Foreclosure Claim

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted a lender’s motion for summary judgment on a strict foreclosure claim against a junior lienholder not named in a foreclosure action.  See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass'n as Tr. for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortg. Loan Tr., Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-23 v. Haskins, 2019 WL 6888654 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019). 

Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Slander of Title Claim, Finds the Filing of Lis Pendens Was Protected by Privilege

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a counterclaim for slander of title arising out of the filing of lis pendens, finding that the act was protected by an absolute privilege.  See Steelcast Ltd. v. Makary, 2019 WL 4934697 (N.D. Ill. 2019).  Plaintiff brought an action on behalf of an LLC for which plaintiff and defendant were the only members. 

New York Supreme Court Grants Lender’s Motion for Equitable Subrogation in Alleged Forged Deed Matter

The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently held that a lender whose mortgage was executed after an allegedly forged deed was nonetheless entitled to an equitable lien on the property.  See Otero v Montenegro, 2019 WL 6334917 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 14, 2019).  Plaintiff and the individual defendant lived together in the subject property as joint tenants. 

New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses Claims Against Title Insurance Company and Its Attorney After Owner Sold Property

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a breach of contract and a legal malpractice claim against a title insurance company after the insured owner sold the property.  See Westcor Land Title Ins. Co. v. Alicea, 2019 WL 6724311 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2019).  In 2004, a prior owner of the property at issue executed a mortgage on the property.  

Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split, Holds FDCPA Claim Accrues on Date of Violation, Not Date of Discovery

The United States Supreme Court recently held that the one-year statute of limitations for an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) begins to run on the date of the alleged violation, not the date of discovery.  See Rotkiske v. Klemm, 2019 WL 6703563 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019).  In 2008, defendant sued plaintiff over unpaid credit card debt.  Defendant attempted service at plaintiff’s former address, and the resident there accepted service.  

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of RESPA and TILA Claims Regarding Escrow Account, Holding There Was No RESPA Private Right of Action and TILA Claim Was Time-Barred

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim and a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a lender, finding that the particular RESPA provision cited by plaintiff did not provide a private right of action, and that the TILA claim was time-barred.