The United States District Court for the District of Kansas recently granted a loan servicer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). See Boedicker v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 2018 WL 828039 (D. Kan. 2018).
On July 5, 2018, Justice Rakower of the New York County Supreme Court issued a decision annulling the recently-enacted and controversial Insurance Regulation 208. See New York State Land Title Association, Inc. v. New York State Department of Financial Services, 2018 WL 3306755 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 5, 2018). The New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) issued the regulation after purportedly finding that title insurance companies, title agents, and title insurance closers employed practices that resulted in higher premiums and closing costs for consumers.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted in part and denied in part a loan servicer’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a host of claims arising out of a purported loan modification, including claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”), and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). See Dautrich v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 2018 WL 3201786 (D.N.J. June 29, 2018).
In a letter opinion issued on June 21, 2018, the Superior Court of New Jersey, General Equity Part in Hudson County, held that a lender’s actual knowledge of a prior mortgage does not operate as a bar to equitable subrogation. See Citizens Bank, N.A. v. Davis, et al., HUD-F-18941-17 (June 21, 2018). While unpublished, this opinion is significant in that it is a continuation of the departure by New Jersey courts from prior precedent holding that actual knowledge of a lien bars the application of equitable subrogation, as expressed in First Union Nat. Bank v. Nelkin, 354 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2002) (“the new lender is not entitled to subrogation, absent an agreement or formal assignment, if it possesses actual knowledge of the prior encumbrance”).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently denied in part and granted in part a title insurance company’s motion to dismiss an insured’s bad faith claims. See Hall CA-NV, LLC v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 298486 (N.D. Tex. June 14, 2018). In the case, the plaintiff insured loaned money to a non-party to finance a construction project for a resort along the California-Nevada border, and the defendant title insurance company issued title insurance policies with regard to the same.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed a putative class action that alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) for a captive reinsurance arrangement. See Menichino v. Citibank, N.A., 2018 WL 502728 (W.D. Pa. 2018). In the case, plaintiffs obtained residential mortgage loans from the defendant mortgagee, and plaintiffs were required to purchase primary mortgage insurance (“PMI”) because their down payments were less than 20% of the property value.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed a putative class action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”) and held that the two-year limitations period under 47 USC § 415 for “all actions at law by carriers for recovery of their lawful charges” did not preempt New York’s statute of limitations for a lawsuit on a debt arising from an unpaid cell phone contract. See Torres v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2018 WL 2304771 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently held that it had diversity jurisdiction over an action regarding the existence of a title insurance policy because the full policy amount would exceed the $75,000 threshold amount. See Jury v. WFG Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1912713 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recently held that a borrower’s claim that a lender made a misrepresentation in a loan modification agreement did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Thomas v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2018 WL 2356758 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 2018). In the case, plaintiff purchased a home in 2001 and obtained a loan to purchase the property.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that a mortgage servicer was not barred from bringing a second foreclosure action after the first action was dismissed with prejudice. See Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57 (Wis. 2018). In the case, a mortgage servicer brought a foreclosure action against the defendant borrower in November 2010, alleging that the borrower defaulted on his April 2009 loan payment. As part of the lawsuit, the servicer accelerated the debt.