A California Appellate Court recently affirmed that an insured lender was not entitled to coverage for an action in which a party challenged the validity of a subdivision, and that a court’s determination that the subdivision was invalid did not render title unmarketable under the policy. See Northern California Comm. Development Corp. v. First American Title Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1397040 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2019).
In a split decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reversed Judge Spatt of the Eastern District of New York and held that a landlord may be liable under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (the “FHA”) for failing to address a situation in which one tenant repeatedly used racially-charged language to harass another. See Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 917 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2019). This decision is significant in that it opens the door to landlords being subject to a duty to intervene when made aware of discriminatory conduct between tenants.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court and held that a reverse mortgage lender was not entitled to summary judgment on the claim that it was a bona fide lender for value because there was a series of irregularities in the public records. See CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Porter, 261 So. 3d 739 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). In 2005, the borrower executed a mortgage on his property that eventually was assigned to CitiMortgage. In 2010, CitiMortgage initiated a foreclosure action and filed a notice of lis pendens.
In a decision approved for publication, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently reversed a District Court and found that a title insurance company did not have a duty to defend an insured lender in an action alleging that the borrower’s conveyance of deeds of trust to the lender was fraudulent. See Banner Bank v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2019 WL 924792 (10th Cir. Feb. 26, 2019).
New York’s First Department Appellate Division recently affirmed a lower court decision and held that a judgment creditor can recover property from a safe deposit box on which the debtor and his wife are joint tenants, despite the claim that the box’s property was solely owned by the wife. See New York Cmty. Bank v. Bank of Am., N.A., 169 A.D.3d 35 (1st Dept. 2019). In 2012, New York Community Bank (“NYCB”) obtained a judgment against a debtor.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a lower court decision and held that an entity who purchases a defaulted debt and engages in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts can be a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, 2019 WL 847920 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2019).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed an insured owner’s negligent misrepresentation claim against a title insurance company arising out of a title commitment and policy that omitted liens and contained an incorrect legal description. See Wheaton Theatre, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6573222 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
A California appellate court recently affirmed a decision dismissing a complaint against a title insurance company, finding that that title insurance company owed no duty to a third-party landowner and could not be liable to the landowner for issuing a title insurance policy on the landowner’s property after the property was wrongfully conveyed from the landowner. See Carr v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6521029 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
A Florida court recently applied New York law and held that a purchase & sale agreement of a pharmacy’s future receivables could not be voided as a usurious loan even though the pharmacy’s principals signed personal guarantees securing the agreement. See EBF Partners, LLC v Burklow Pharmacy, Inc., 2018 WL 6620582 (Fla.Cir.Ct. 2018). In the case, plaintiff paid the defendant pharmacy $425,000 to purchase $586,500 of future receivables. In connection with the agreement, the pharmacy’s principals signed personal guarantees.
The New York Supreme Court, Kings County, recently denied a party’s motion to extend a notice of pendency, finding that the party had let a prior notice expire and the party was barred from filing a new notice despite the fact that there had been a substitution of parties in the action. See 25-35 Bridge St. LLC v. Excel Auto. Tech Ctr. Inc., 62 Misc. 3d 1210(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019).