New York Supreme Court Holds Recorded Declaration on Property Was a Government Regulation Excluded from Coverage Under Title Policy

The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a title insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and held that a declaration recorded by a prior property owner limiting the number of houses that could be built on the insured property was a “government regulation” excluded from coverage under the policy.  See JBGR LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6055884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 13, 2018).  

Connecticut Court Holds Real Estate Broker Did Not Have Standing to Sue Closing Attorney for Failing to Provide Purchasers With Title Search

The Superior Court of Connecticut recently held that a closing attorney was not liable to a real estate agent or broker for not providing a title search to the purchasers of a property.  See Carroll v. Lyman, 2018 WL 5793531 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 19, 2018).  In the case, plaintiffs purchased a property that had been advertised as including “direct lake frontage as well as a private dock.”

New York Federal Court Holds Bank Not Liable for Providing Tips to the Government That Customers’ Safe Deposit Boxes May Contain Evidence of Illegal Acts

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a bank was not liable to its customers for losses caused by the bank’s tips to the government that the customers’ safe deposit boxes may contain evidence of counterfeiting or drug trafficking, even after no evidence is found.  See Tarazi v. Valley National Bank, et al., 11-cv-4464 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2018). 

Connecticut Court Holds Lender’s Loss Under Title Insurance Policy Is Limited to Amount of Prior Lien

The Superior Court of Connecticut recently held that a lender’s loss under its title insurance policy is limited to the amount of a prior undisclosed lien on the property that the lender had to discharge.  See RCN Capital, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4655965 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2018).  In 2012, plaintiff issued a $600,000 loan to a borrower that was secured by a mortgage on the borrower’s property.  Defendant issued a lender’s title insurance policy to plaintiff.

New Jersey Appellate Division Holds 20-Year Limitations Period Applies to Accelerated Residential Mortgage Loans

In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently made clear for all that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1 runs from the stated maturity date in a residential mortgage and not upon the acceleration of the loan after the borrowers’ default.  See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas as Tr. for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. v. Weiner, 2018 WL 5831060 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2018). 

New Jersey Appellate Court Holds 2009 Statute of Limitations for Foreclosure Action Does Not Apply Retroactively

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently held that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the underlying loan’s maturity date was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations because that statute was not enacted until the year after the maturity date and could not be applied retroactively.  See Pfeifer v. McLaughlin, 2018 WL 4167334 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 31, 2018). 

Nevada Supreme Court Holds CPL Does Not Protect Loan Assignee

The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that the assignee of a deed of trust was not entitled to bring a claim against the title insurance company arising out of the closing protection letter.  See PennyMac Holdings, LLC v. Fid. Nat’l Ins. Co., 423 P.3d 608 (Nev. 2018).  In the case, a title agent issued a title insurance policy and closing protection letter (“CPL”) to a lender as part of a 2007 refinance.  One week prior to the lender’s deed of trust being recorded, however, the homeowners association (the “HOA”) for the subject property recorded a lien for unpaid fees.

New Jersey Appellate Court Holds Fair Foreclosure Act Violation Might Trigger TCCWNA Liability

In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently vacated and remanded a trial court’s order dismissing a borrower’s complaint and held that a lender’s violation of the Fair Foreclosure Act (the “FFA”) might constitute a violation of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”).  See Wright v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2018 WL 4779028 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 4, 2018). 

Missouri Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment Decision in Favor of Title Insurance Company Based on Late Notice

The Court of Appeals of Missouri recently affirmed that a title insurance company was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claims against it when the insured failed to notify the insurer of a litigation until years after it settled.  See Lurie v. Commonwealth Land Title Co., LLC, 2018 WL 4087384 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018).  In the case, the insured filed a lawsuit against his neighbor in 2008 based on the claim that the neighbor’s fence encroached onto the insured’s property.