The Supreme Court of New York, Westchester County, recently granted a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims and held that the parties’ merchant agreement whereby plaintiff purchased defendant’s future receivables was a valid contract, and not a usurious loan, as defendant alleged. See Rapid Capital Fin., LLC v. Natures Mkt. Corp., 2017 WL 4764559 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 11, 2017).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted a mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claim because the allegations should have been brought in the parties’ foreclosure action. See Sanchez v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2017 WL 4711475 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2017). In the case, plaintiff defaulted on a loan and defendant’s predecessor in interest instituted a state court foreclosure action in 2008.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed that a lender who winterizes and secures a property during a foreclosure is not deemed a mortgagee in possession subject to condominium association fees, even if the lender performed “modest repairs” to the property. See Union Hill Condo. Ass’n v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 WL 5478310 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2017). There, the borrower became delinquent on both his mortgage loan and his condominium association assessments.
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.