The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss a class action complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. Judah v. Total Card, Inc., 2017 WL 2345636 (D.N.J. 2017). At issue in the case was a certain letter sent by defendant to plaintiff attempting to collect a debt (the “Collection Letter”). The Collection Letter offered to settle plaintiff’s debt through a single payment or through six monthly payments but also stated, “[t]he law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, [the owner of the debt] will not sue you for it, and [the owner of the debt] will not report it to any credit agency.”
In a case brought by plaintiffs under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) to rescind their mortgage loan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant lender and servicer (collectively as “defendants”), finding that plaintiffs’ conclusory affidavits could not rebut the presumption that they received the required notices under the TILA and that the disclosure statements received by plaintiffs were within TILA’s allowable margin of error.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed that an insured who received only a title commitment and title insurance policy did not have a cause of action against the policy-issuing agent for negligence or breach of contract if the agent omitted a prior mortgage.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently granted a law firm’s motion for summary judgment and held that its referrals of business to title agents it partially owned did not violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”).
In an action arising out of a failed real estate transaction, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated an order from the Court of Common Pleas denying appellant-insured’s motion for partial summary judgment and granting a cross-motion for summary judgment by appellee-title insurance company on appellant’s claims. See Michael v. Stock, 2017 PA Super 99 (Super. Ct. 2017), reargument denied (June 13, 2017).
In a decision approved for publication on July 10, 2017, New Jersey’s Appellate Division held that if a lender holds a priority lien on a property and replaces it with a new mortgage via a refinancing, that new mortgage is entitled to priority regardless of the lender’s knowledge of other encumbrances so long as the intervening lienors are not materially prejudiced. See Ocwen Loan Servs., LLC v. Quinn, 2016 WL 6156209 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 24, 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 658798 (N.J. Feb. 13, 2017).
In a noteworthy decision that was approved for publication on June 29, 2017, the New Jersey Chancery Division held that the appointment of a custodial receiver in a foreclosure action of a single-family home or condominium would run counter to the purpose of the Fair Foreclosure Act (“FFA”) (N.J.S.A. 2A:50-03 et seq.) and the FFA’s required notices and other procedures providing homeowners with opportunities to cure foreclosure defaults and keep their homes.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed an insured lender’s bad faith claim against a title insurance company and held that Exclusion 3(a) of the policy may bar the lender’s breach of contract claim. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 2215012 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2017).
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently held that a claim that a lender’s captive reinsurance arrangement violated the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) was time-barred, and that each new mortgage payment did not constitute a new, separate RESPA violation.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against multiple defendants, including the title agent and title insurance company, alleging fraudulent transfer of title to realty, holding that “one, who knows a deed transferring her ownership in property has been filed, but declines to repudiate that conduct and also acts to later approve the conduct and benefits from same, has ratified the conduct and loses the right to challenge the forgery.”