New Jersey Appellate Court Holds Lender Was Required to Serve a Notice of Intent to Foreclose for a Residential Reverse Mortgage

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently reversed a lower court and held that a lender erred by not serving a notice of intent to foreclose (“NOI”) before commencing a foreclosure action on a residential reverse mortgage.  See Nationstar Mortg., LLC d/b/a Champion Mortg. Co. v. Armstrong, 2018 WL 1386247 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 20, 2018).

Nevada Supreme Court Holds Federal Preemption Bars HOA Lien From Extinguishing Fannie Mae Mortgage

The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that a foreclosure under a Nevada statute giving “super priority” to homeowners’ association liens was preempted by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) in a foreclosure in which the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) held a mortgage.  See Satico Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc., 2018 WL 1448731 (Nev. Mar. 21, 2018).

Colorado Federal Court Holds That Federal Deposit Insurance Act Does Not Completely Preempt Claims Against Non-Bank Lender

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently remanded an action to state court and held that a defendant-lender’s defenses under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) do not completely preempt plaintiff’s claims because the FDIA defenses do not apply to non-bank entities and, accordingly, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Affirms Trial Court’s Granting Summary Judgment in Action to Quiet Title Where Subsurface Rights Were Extinguished After Tax Sale

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a 1902 tax sale extinguished a party’s subsurface gas, oil, and mineral rights.  See Woodhouse Hunting Club, Inc., v. William Hoyt, et. al., J-A26044-17 (Sup. Ct. Pa. Feb. 2, 2018).  This case involved an action to quiet title of the subsurface oil and gas rights to a tract of land (the “Property”).  In 1891, the Hoyt family acquired title to the Property and subsequently conveyed it to Union Tanning Company, but reserved ownership of the gas, oil, and mineral rights and created a subsurface estate in favor of the Hoyts, their heirs, and assigns. 

Washington D.C. Appellate Court Holds Foreclosure of Condominium Lien Extinguished First Mortgage Despite Condominium Association’s Representations to the Contrary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently held that a condominium association’s foreclosure of a “super-priority” condominium lien extinguished an otherwise first-priority mortgage on the property, despite the fact that the association’s notice of sale and deed to the third-party purchaser stated that the sale was “subject to” the mortgage.  See Liu v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2018 WL 1095503 (D.C. Mar. 1, 2018).

Eighth Circuit Holds Borrowers’ Acknowledgment of Receipt of TILA Disclosure Defeated Their TILA Claim

In a decision approved for publication, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s decision granting a lender’s motion for summary judgment and holding that the borrowers’ signed acknowledgment that they had received the requisite number of Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) disclosures created a rebuttable presumption that the borrowers could not overcome.

Second Circuit Holds Garnishees’ Settlement Agreement Violated Restraining Notices Despite Being Approved by State Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that third-party garnishees violated restraining notices by disbursing monies pursuant to a settlement agreement approved by the state court.  See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Island Rail  Terminal, Inc., 879 F.3d 462 (2d Cir. 2018).  The underlying breach of contract suit arose out of Island Rail Terminal, Inc.’s (“Island Rail”) 2012 purchase of substantially all of the assets of Emjay Environmental Recycling, Ltd. (“Emjay”). 

United States District Court for the District of Maryland Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss For Class Action Kickback Scheme Based On Statute Of Limitations

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently held that Plaintiffs’ purported class action claim alleging a kickback scheme against Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) was barred by the statute of limitations because Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling.  See Dobbins v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2018 WL 620456 (D.Md. Jan. 30, 2018).