The California Court of Appeals recently held that a title insurance company and title agent had no duty to inform their insured purchaser that the individual selling the property, and who was going to act as the insured’s property manager, was involved in multiple other lawsuits. See Ukoha v. Provident Title Co., 2020 WL 3467817 (Cal. Ct. App. June 25, 2020), reh’g denied (July 15, 2020).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently found that an insured’s claim regarding a prior mortgage was barred by the title insurance policy’s Exclusion 3(a) and the fact that the insured could not prove any damages. See In re: Lamey, 2020 WL 4045254 (Bankr. D.N.M. July 17, 2020). Plaintiff is an LLC and the insured owner of a property, and defendant issued a title insurance policy on the property.
The New York Supreme Court, Kings County, recently dismissed a complaint against a title insurance company, finding that the encroachments at issue were disclosed in a survey and barred by the policy’s Exclusion 3(a). See 1267 Rogers Ave., LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 67 Misc. 3d 1241(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020).
The Court of Appeals of Michigan recently affirmed a decision finding that a title insurance company and title agent were not liable to an insured for negligent misrepresentation or breach of contract for an issue with a disputed portion of property that fell outside the policy’s legal description. See Shower Curtain Sols. Ltd., LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 3393467 (Mich. Ct. App. June 18, 2020).
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed a trial court decision vacating a final judgment and dismissing a complaint despite the fact that the defendant waited eight years to bring the motion, finding that the plaintiff brought the action outside the limitations period and violated the FDCPA. See LVNV Funding, LLC v. Deangelo, 2020 WL 3163668 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 15, 2020).
New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department, recently dismissed an action brought by an insured property owner against its title insurer, finding that the title insurer was not obligated to bring an action against the insured’s neighbor over a disputed portion of property, and therefore that the insurer was not obligated to pay the insured’s attorneys’ fees when the insured brought the action against the neighbor.
The New York Supreme Court, Kings County, recently dismissed a foreclosure action and the lender’s motion to amend to add a claim of fraudulent conveyance, finding they were untimely. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Point Holding Alpha, LLC, Index No. 511835/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 22, 2020).
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina recently held that a homeowner was not entitled to coverage from its title insurer for a neighbor’s claims regarding a prior litigation and regarding an easement on the insured property. See Dudek v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 3130232 (D.S.C. June 12, 2020).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed an action against a loan servicer and denied plaintiff’s motion to amend to add FDCPA, RESPA, and TILA claims, holding that plaintiff’s initial allegations were mooted by defendant’s refund of the allegedly improper charges, and that plaintiff did not sufficiently set forth the elements of these other causes of action. See Izmirligil v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2020 WL 1941192 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020).
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently held that New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine did not prohibit a lender from bringing a foreclosure complaint after the homeowners’ federal lawsuit against its insurance companies and the lender was dismissed. See Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC v. Moore, 2020 WL 3067503 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 10, 2020).
