The Michigan Court of Appeals recently found that a title insurance company was not required to reimburse its insured after the company negotiated a settlement that reduced the size of an easement used by the insured. See Horwood v. N. Am. Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7635765 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2020). Plaintiffs purchased the real property at issue in this action and obtained a title insurance policy from defendant. A portion of the property was accessible only through an easement across a neighboring property owned by the Roses, and the legal description to plaintiffs’ property noted that it was “subject to an easement for a 33-foot roadway to be used in common with others.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently reversed a District Court decision and held that a creditor was not entitled to an equitable lien arising from a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) when the debtor did not actually own the property and used the proceeds from the loan to buy another property. See Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Collart, 980 F.3d 210 (1st Cir. 2020).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently denied a debt collector’s motion to dismiss, holding that the one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA may not have commenced if the creditor brought its action against the debtor in an improper venue. See Barboza v. Weinstein & Riley, P.S., 2020 WL 5849549 (E.D. Tex. 2020).
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently held that an insured lender’s breach of contract claim against a title insurance company was untimely under Maryland three-year statute of limitations. See Pennymac Holdings, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7024845 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 30, 2020).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a District Court and held that a debt collector who sends a collection letter seeking an incorrect amount owed cannot use the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense solely because its contract with the creditor required the creditor to provide accurate information. See Urbina v. Nat’l Bus. Factors Inc., 979 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2020).
The Supreme Court of Florida recently reversed an appellate court and found that a trial court retained jurisdiction to hear the motion of a foreclosure sale purchaser regarding whether he was entitled to compensation for improving the property before the sale was vacated. See Griffin v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 579183 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2020).
In a decision approved for publication, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that the holder of a tax lien who, upon attempting to foreclose on the property, learns that it is encumbered by a previously undisclosed conservation easement, is unable to recoup municipal taxes paid on the property in the absence of bad faith on the part of the Township. Garden State Investment & Isadore H. May v. Township of Brick, 2020 WL 7250904 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 10, 2020).
The New York Appellate Division, Third Department, recently held that a tax sale foreclosure extinguished a mortgage on a property and, more important, the mortgage was not reinstated when the City later quitclaimed the property back to the borrowers as part of the borrowers’ bankruptcy action. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Tr. for Carrington Mortg. Loan Tr., Series 2006-NC2 Asset- Backed Pass-Through Certificates v. Budram, 188 A.D.3d 1324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed that a title insurance policy was terminated when the insureds sold the property to their LLC, and that the policy was not reinstated when they rescinded this transaction. See Pak, v. First American Title Insurance Company, 2020 WL 6886551 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2020).
The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed that the statute of limitations in a quiet title action does not begin to run against a party while they are still in possession of the property, even where that possession is shared with another person. See Reuter v. Macal, 2020 WL 6777962 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
