New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department, recently dismissed an action brought by an insured property owner against its title insurer, finding that the title insurer was not obligated to bring an action against the insured’s neighbor over a disputed portion of property, and therefore that the insurer was not obligated to pay the insured’s attorneys’ fees when the insured brought the action against the neighbor.
The New York Supreme Court, Kings County, recently dismissed a foreclosure action and the lender’s motion to amend to add a claim of fraudulent conveyance, finding they were untimely. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Point Holding Alpha, LLC, Index No. 511835/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 22, 2020).
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina recently held that a homeowner was not entitled to coverage from its title insurer for a neighbor’s claims regarding a prior litigation and regarding an easement on the insured property. See Dudek v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 3130232 (D.S.C. June 12, 2020).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed an action against a loan servicer and denied plaintiff’s motion to amend to add FDCPA, RESPA, and TILA claims, holding that plaintiff’s initial allegations were mooted by defendant’s refund of the allegedly improper charges, and that plaintiff did not sufficiently set forth the elements of these other causes of action. See Izmirligil v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2020 WL 1941192 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020).
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently held that New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine did not prohibit a lender from bringing a foreclosure complaint after the homeowners’ federal lawsuit against its insurance companies and the lender was dismissed. See Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC v. Moore, 2020 WL 3067503 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 10, 2020).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that an individual’s FDCPA claim was not untimely because the three-year litigation of a class action raising similar claims tolled the limitations period for the individual. See Williams-Hopkins v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 2020 WL 2731101 (D.N.J. May 26, 2020). The defendant debt collector sent a collection letter to plaintiff in 2015.
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that insured homeowners did not have coverage under their title insurance policy for an easement permitting city sewer pipes across the property, based in part in the city’s later disclaimer of the easement. See Harris v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 969208 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a loan to a trustee that was used to repair the trust beneficiary’s home could be a consumer credit transaction subject to TILA and RESPA. See Gilliam, Tr. of Lou Easter Ross Revocable Tr. v. Levine , Tr. of Joel Sherman Revocable Tr., 955 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2020).
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently held that a lender’s claim regarding an HOA lien was not covered by its title insurance policy because the lien was recorded after the policy date. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Am. Home Mortg. Inv. Tr. 2007-2 v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 1638808 (D. Nev. Apr. 2, 2020).
The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas recently dismissed an individual plaintiff’s RESPA claims because the borrower under the loan was actually her LLC. See Cocchia v. LendingHome Funding Corp., 2020 WL 1879223 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2020). Plaintiff purchased the subject property “with an LLC, . . . for the initial purpose of using the property as a rental.”
