The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a bank was not liable to its customers for losses caused by the bank’s tips to the government that the customers’ safe deposit boxes may contain evidence of counterfeiting or drug trafficking, even after no evidence is found. See Tarazi v. Valley National Bank, et al., 11-cv-4464 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2018).
The Superior Court of Connecticut recently held that a lender’s loss under its title insurance policy is limited to the amount of a prior undisclosed lien on the property that the lender had to discharge. See RCN Capital, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4655965 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2018). In 2012, plaintiff issued a $600,000 loan to a borrower that was secured by a mortgage on the borrower’s property. Defendant issued a lender’s title insurance policy to plaintiff.
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently made clear for all that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1 runs from the stated maturity date in a residential mortgage and not upon the acceleration of the loan after the borrowers’ default. See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas as Tr. for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. v. Weiner, 2018 WL 5831060 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2018).
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently held that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the underlying loan’s maturity date was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations because that statute was not enacted until the year after the maturity date and could not be applied retroactively. See Pfeifer v. McLaughlin, 2018 WL 4167334 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 31, 2018).
The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that the assignee of a deed of trust was not entitled to bring a claim against the title insurance company arising out of the closing protection letter. See PennyMac Holdings, LLC v. Fid. Nat’l Ins. Co., 423 P.3d 608 (Nev. 2018). In the case, a title agent issued a title insurance policy and closing protection letter (“CPL”) to a lender as part of a 2007 refinance. One week prior to the lender’s deed of trust being recorded, however, the homeowners association (the “HOA”) for the subject property recorded a lien for unpaid fees.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision dismissing a complaint and held that a plaintiff may have a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) even if he denies owing the debt at issue. See Loja v. Main St. Acquisition Corp., 2018 WL 5077679 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018).
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently vacated and remanded a trial court’s order dismissing a borrower’s complaint and held that a lender’s violation of the Fair Foreclosure Act (the “FFA”) might constitute a violation of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”). See Wright v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2018 WL 4779028 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 4, 2018).
The Court of Appeals of Missouri recently affirmed that a title insurance company was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claims against it when the insured failed to notify the insurer of a litigation until years after it settled. See Lurie v. Commonwealth Land Title Co., LLC, 2018 WL 4087384 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2018). In the case, the insured filed a lawsuit against his neighbor in 2008 based on the claim that the neighbor’s fence encroached onto the insured’s property.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed a trial court’s order granting a lender summary judgment on its foreclosure action and holding that the lender was not required to resend a notice of intention to foreclose (“NOI”) after being assigned the mortgage. See U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Thomas, 2018 WL 4924377 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 11, 2018).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed an action brought by a borrower against a loan servicer in which she alleged that the servicer had violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) by denying her loan modification application and continuing a foreclosure action against her property.