A Florida appellate court recently granted a motion for rehearing and reversed its prior decision, now holding that municipal liens placed on a property after a final judgment of foreclosure but before the judicial sale were discharged by the sale.
The Third Department of New York’s Appellate Division recently held that the lower court erred: (1) in granting summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, because factual questions existed whether defendant timber company adversely possessed the disputed parcel for the requisite period, and (2) in declining to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, which is distinct from his claim for treble damages pursuant to the RPAPL.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted a motion for summary judgment to a mortgage lender and servicer, among others, on the plaintiffs’ claims that arose from their allegation that the lender unilaterally had increased their interest rate at the closing.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a claim that a lender’s captive reinsurance arrangement violated the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) was not time-barred because the alleged kickbacks were a continuing violation.
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas recently granted a debtor summary judgment on its claims that a letter that sought to collect a time-barred debt violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), holding that the letter should have stated that any payment would revive the statute of limitations.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a summary order affirming a lower court’s decision to dismiss a bank customer’s complaint as untimely because the bank’s terms and conditions governing the account imposed a one-year limitations period on any claims.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment on a debtor’s claim that a debt collection notice violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because the debtor believed the letter to be a scam when he received it and therefore lacked the standing to bring the claim.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently held that the title insurance company’s duty to mitigate damages was limited to retaining counsel for its insured, and that the attorney’s failure to file a timely proof of claim with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was not imputed.
The Second Department of New York’s Appellate Division recently affirmed a lower court’s decision to deny an insured lender’s motion for summary judgment and to grant a title insurance company’s summary judgment motion because the insured had created the defect at issue.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that the trustee of a California deed of trust is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because the trustee only was enforcing a security interest.