The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently held that a lender whose mortgage was executed after an allegedly forged deed was nonetheless entitled to an equitable lien on the property. See Otero v Montenegro, 2019 WL 6334917 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 14, 2019). Plaintiff and the individual defendant lived together in the subject property as joint tenants.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a breach of contract and a legal malpractice claim against a title insurance company after the insured owner sold the property. See Westcor Land Title Ins. Co. v. Alicea, 2019 WL 6724311 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2019). In 2004, a prior owner of the property at issue executed a mortgage on the property.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that the one-year statute of limitations for an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) begins to run on the date of the alleged violation, not the date of discovery. See Rotkiske v. Klemm, 2019 WL 6703563 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2019). In 2008, defendant sued plaintiff over unpaid credit card debt. Defendant attempted service at plaintiff’s former address, and the resident there accepted service.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim and a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim against a lender, finding that the particular RESPA provision cited by plaintiff did not provide a private right of action, and that the TILA claim was time-barred.
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently dismissed an action brought by an insured lender against a title insurance company because the lender’s loss arising from an HOA lien was a post-policy defect excluded under Exclusion 3(d). See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Tr. for Option One Mortg. Loan Tr. 2007-5 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-5 v. Fid. Nat’l Ins. Co., 2019 WL 5578487 (D. Nev. Oct. 29, 2019).
The Court of Appeals of Arizona recently affirmed a lower court and held that a lender’s title insurance policy should be reformed due to a mutual mistake after two senior liens on the property were unintentionally omitted from the policy. See BAPCO LLC v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2019 WL 5576863 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019). In 2006, the original lender provided a $250,000 loan to a borrower that was secured by a deed of trust on the borrower’s home.
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).
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’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).
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.