The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently dismissed class action claims against two banks alleging that the banks were liable for a decade-long Ponzi scheme that utilized the banks’ account. See Heinert v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2019 WL 5287950 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019). In the case, the plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants defrauded them from about $102 million as part of a Ponzi scheme.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed a trial court’s decision that granted a foreclosing lender summary judgment and struck the borrower’s answer and counterclaim in which the borrower made predatory lending allegations. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. of IndyMac INDX Mortg. Tr. 2007-AR19, Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR19 v. Merz, 2019 WL 4940213 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 8, 2019).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted a lender’s motion to dismiss an action in which the borrowers alleged numerous violations of consumer laws, finding that the state court final judgment of foreclosure precluded any further claims relating to the borrowers’ loan. See Bell v. Deutsche Bank, 2019 WL 4917901 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).
The Court of Appeals of Washington recently found that a purchaser of property was not entitled to coverage from his title insurance company after he discovered that the prior owner of the property abandoned an easement, because an accurate survey would have shown the abandonment. See Haley v. Hume, 448 P.3d 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a District Court’s decision that a debt collector seeking post-judgment enforcement costs as part of a writ of garnishment did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), nor did the debt collector filing a “continuing lien.” See Archie v. Nagle & Zaller, P.C., 2019 WL 5212213 (4th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019).
The Superior Court of Connecticut recently granted a title insurance company’s motion to strike certain defenses raised by homeowners in the title company’s unjust enrichment claim against them arising out of incorrectly wired funds. See Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Vontell, 2019 WL 4513087 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 29, 2019). In the case, the homeowners purchased a property in 2000 and executed a mortgage that ultimately was assigned to Wells Fargo.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California, interpreting New Jersey law, recently denied a bank’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss a breach of contract claim brought by the bank’s depositors for multiple out-of-network ATM fees. See Figueroa v. Capital One, N.A., 2019 WL 4962971 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019). In the case, the plaintiffs opened a bank account with the defendant bank in New Jersey and received documents disclosing the fees that the bank would charge for certain activities.
In a decision approved for publication, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that tenants who entered into a pay-and-go consent judgment with their landlord were barred from bringing a counterclaim against the landlord in a subsequent proceeding because the claim should have been raised in the prior negotiations. See Raji v. Saucedo, 2019 WL 4741165 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 30, 2019).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted a lender’s motion to dismiss an action in which the borrower alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) for the lender’s failure to properly respond to three qualified written requests (“QWRs”) and for improperly reporting the borrower’s credit score to reporting agencies despite having received notices of error. See Jackson v. Caliber Home Loans, 2019 WL 3426240 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2019).
The Court of Appeals of Nebraska recently held that an insured owner was not entitled to coverage when a lender foreclosed on its property based on a prior mortgage that the insured had assumed and that was excepted in the policy, even if the foreclosure was initiated based on the mortgage’s cross-default provision and caused by the prior owner’s default on a separate loan not mentioned in the policy. See Fo Ge Investments LLC v. First Am. Title, 27 Neb. App. 671 (2019).