The New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that the six-year breach of contract statute of limitations does not apply to actions to collect debts arising from the use of a retail store’s credit card when the use of the card is restricted to that store and, instead, the Uniform Commercial Code’s four-year sale of goods statute of limitations applies.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a time-barred proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision and found a Nevada statute requiring lenders to “opt in” to receive notice if a homeowners’ association is going to foreclose and extinguish the lender’s lien is unconstitutional.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment to a title insurer and held that a parcel with a 30-year revocable right-of-way is not unmarketable and that the policy does not ensure a permanent right of access.
The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s order dismissing breach of contract and negligence claims against a title insurance company and holding that the issuance of a preliminary title report does not require the insurance company to issue a policy.
The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently granted a title insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the insured’s own actions created the title defect at issue in violation of Exclusion 3(a) of the title policy.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a national bank is only a citizen of the state in which its main office is located per its articles of association.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a decision granting a title insurer summary judgment on the issue of whether it was obligated to defend and indemnify its insured owners in a quite title action.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a complaint filed against a lender alleging that the lender violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) by splitting a fee, holding that RESPA only proscribes the splitting of fees “between two or more persons” but does not provide a remedy for unearned fees that are not split.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment to a title insurer denying the insured owners’ claim for coverage under a title insurance policy, finding that the insureds suffered no loss because the insurer reached a settlement with the lender and the insureds no longer owed any money on their loan.