Seventh Circuit Holds That Letter Stating That Debt Collector “May File a 1099C Form” if It Discharges Debt May Have Violated FDCPA

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a dunning letter that stated that the debt collector “may file a 1099C form” if the debtor paid a discounted amount could constitute a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) if the debt collector was discharging less than $600 in principal.  See Heredia v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., 2019 WL 5849901 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019). 

Ohio Federal Court Holds Title Insurance Company Did Not Have to Defend Insured for Claim Regarding Bridge Encroaching onto Neighbor’s Property

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently held that a title insurance company had no duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit brought by the insured’s neighbor relating to a bridge that spanned from one property to the other.  See Pandora Distribution, LLC v. Ottawa OH, LLC, 2019 WL 5729932 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2019). 

New York Appellate Court Holds Borrower’s Participation in Class Action Settlement Barred Its Claims Against Lender in Foreclosure

New York’s Second Department Appellate Division recently affirmed that a borrower who was part of a class action settlement with a lender relating to the lender’s marketing of its loans was barred from raising those same claims against the lender in opposition to the lender’s foreclosure action.  See Wachovia Mortg. FSB v. Macwhinnie, 175 A.D.3d 1587 (2d Dept. 2019).

New York Federal Court Holds Banks Were Not Liable for Ponzi Scheme Using Banks’ Accounts

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.  

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Predatory Lending Counterclaim in Foreclosure Action

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). 

New York Federal Court Holds Borrowers’ Action Against Lender Is Barred by Res Judicata

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). 

Fourth Circuit Finds Debt Collector Did Not Violate the FDCPA by Seeking Post-Judgment Costs or Filing Continuing Lien

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).  

Connecticut Court Strikes Homeowners’ Special Defenses in Title Insurance Company’s Unjust Enrichment Action

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. 

California Federal Court Holds Bank May Have Violated Contract by Charging Multiple Out-of-Network ATM Fees

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.