The Court of Appeals of Georgia recently held that a trial court erred in calculating a lender’s loss under a title insurance policy as of the date the lender’s predecessor-in-interest closed on the loan, rather than the date of foreclosure.
In a significant decision for both the title and banking industries, the Arizona Supreme Court recently held that the diminution-in-value loss under a lender’s title insurance policy could be calculated by the date that the policy was issued, rather than the date of foreclosure, if the court determines the title defect caused the borrower to default.
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently dismissed a state law claim against a title agency, among others, based on a claim that the agency was involved in a kickback scheme.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that money lent in exchange for the transfer of tax liens does not constitute an extension of credit covered by the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”).
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for a title insurance company and found that there was no coverage under the policy because the alleged title defect did not affect the insured property.
A Florida appellate court recently held that a profit sharing agreement between a mortgagor and a mortgagee that limited the mortgagee’s advances prevailed over a mortgage that secured future advances, and effectively limited the mortgagor’s liability under the mortgage regardless of the amount loaned.
A New Jersey Chancery Division court recently granted a defendant-lender summary judgment on the doctrine of equitable subrogation despite the defendant’s representative authorizing another lender to reopen a line of credit that was secured by a prior-recorded mortgage on the property.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that a bank did not violate New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) by offering “senior checking accounts” to individuals age sixty years or older with more favorable terms than those available to individuals under the age of sixty.
The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently held that a mortgagor who did not properly file a notice of appeal of a loan servicer’s rejection of a loss mitigation plan due to a typo in the email address was foreclosed from staying the foreclosure sale pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied a loan servicer and a loan investor’s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that their refusal to modify a loan violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”).