The Appellate Court of Illinois recently affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant a lender’s motion for summary judgment to foreclose on a property despite an allegedly forged deed, based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Payton, 2016 IL App (1st) 160305-U (Ill. App. 2017).
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a lower court’s denial of a lender’s claim for coverage from a title insurance company after a settlement agent misappropriated the closing funds and failed to pay off the prior mortgages on the insured property. See Northwest Sav. Bank v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 253080 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York recently denied plaintiff bank’s motion for default judgment in a foreclosure action and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege the existence of diversity of citizenship to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division-General Equity Part recently held that a condominium association’s attempt to redeem a tax sale certificate on a condominium on which it held a lien was not valid because it was neither a mortgagee nor the owner of the property. See JNH Funding Corp. v. Ayed et al., F-8704-14 (N.J. Ch. Div. March 21, 2017).
The California Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s order and held that an insured property owner was collaterally estopped from suing a title insurance company for coverage regarding a forged deed to the insured property. See Gillard v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 345086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017), reh’g denied (Feb. 14, 2017), review filed (Mar. 7, 2017). In the case, the insured purchased the property in 2004.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine recently affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of defendant title insurance company and the denial of plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment in an action for coverage and indemnification under a title insurance policy on the ground that plaintiff failed to identify any cloud on its title or any other title defect that would implicate defendant’s duty to defend.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently granted defendant mortgage company’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging, inter alia, violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2605(k) (“RESPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692f (“FDCPA”), because she failed to provide defendants with notice of the alleged issues and an opportunity to cure, as required under the mortgage.
In a homeowner class action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a lender that modifies a mortgage cannot rely on an updated property value to recalculate the length of the homeowner’s mortgage insurance obligation under the Homeowners Protection Act (the “HPA”) unless same is expressly set forth in the loan modification agreement.
The Appellate Division of New York, Second Department, recently affirmed the Supreme Court’s determination that a foreclosing bank’s successor in interest can recommence an otherwise time-barred foreclosure action within six months of the initial action being dismissed as abandoned.