The United States District Court for Nevada recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s decision and held that a title insurance company’s bankruptcy claim was not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because, among other reasons, it was not a party to the underlying state court action. See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Creditor Grp., 2017 WL 4683968 (D. Nev. Oct. 17, 2017). In the case, two individuals (the “Owners”) formed two companies (the “Companies”) to purchase and develop property.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted a defendant loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim, holding that plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not proximately caused by defendant. See Galli v. Astoria Bank, 2017 WL 4325824 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2017). In the case, plaintiff defaulted on his loan with defendant and defendant foreclosed on the property and scheduled a foreclosure sale.
New York’s Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) recently issued two regulations regarding title insurance “marketing costs” and affiliated entities that will affect the way title insurance underwriters and agents generate referrals and do business.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a defendant loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim, holding that plaintiff borrowers had adequately pled that defendant had failed to respond to their qualified written request (“QWR”) under RESPA. See Herrera v. Cent. Loan Admin. & Reporting, 2017 WL 4548268 (D.N.J. Oct. 12, 2017).
The United State District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recently dismissed some of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) claims against debt collectors because of the CFPB’s willful violations of the Court’s discovery orders. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Universal Debt Sols., LLC, 2017 WL 3887187 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2017). The CFPB brought an action against a number of debt collectors for a “massive debt-collection scheme” through which the defendants “allegedly used the telephone broadcast services of [one defendant] to broadcast millions of threatening and false statements to consumers in telephone calls and messages.”
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a mortgagee’s pre-foreclosure notice to a homeowner did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because it was not an attempt to collect a debt. See Carbone v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 2017 WL 4157265 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2017). In the case, plaintiff and her husband fell behind on their mortgage payments and defendant mortgagee sent them a pre-foreclosure notice as required under New York law.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) recently entered into a consent order with Meridian Title Corporation (“Meridian”) for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) based on Meridian’s alleged failure to disclose an affiliated business arrangement with a title insurance underwriter. See In the Matter of Meridian Title Corp., 2017-CFPB-0019 (Sept. 27, 2017). According to the consent order, Meridian is a settlement agent and title insurance agency that issues title insurance policies and conducts loan closings.
In an action brought by plaintiff, a beneficiary under a subsequent deed of trust, seeking a declaration that it had first priority to property over that of the beneficiaries under a prior deed of trust that originally lacked a named beneficiary, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi recently affirmed the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, holding that while the prior deed of trust was not void for initially lacking a named beneficiary, plaintiff’s affidavit in support of its motion precluded a fact issue as to whether its predecessor-in-interest had actual notice of defendants’ prior deed of trust.
In an action brought by foreclosure sale purchasers against the foreclosing bank’s title insurer based on the title insurer’s refusal to defend and indemnify the bank in an underlying action, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District, recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of the title insurer finding, among other things, that coverage under the policy had terminated upon the conveyance of the property at the foreclosure sale. See Hovannisian v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 14 Cal. App. 5th 420 (Ca. Ct. App. 2017).
The Supreme Court of New York, Richmond County recently granted a permanent injunction prohibiting a residential homeowner from construction of an “extended chimney” because it would violate a neighbor’s restrictive covenant. See Fiore v. Fabozzi, 56 Misc. 3d 1220(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017). In the case, the petitioners owned two neighboring properties.