The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed a lower court and held that an insured was not entitled to coverage for a litigation involving a portion of the insured’s property that encroached onto a neighbor’s property. See 631 N. Broad St., LP v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3383878 (3rd Cir. July 26, 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s secure emails did not constitute an initial communication under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and, even if they did, that the validation notices linked from the emails were not effectively given to the debtor. See Lavallee v. Med-1 Sols., LLC, 2019 WL 3720875 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a homeowner’s claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), finding that the plaintiff-mortgagor was not obligated under the loan and therefore had no standing to bring the claim. See Keen v. Helson, 930 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2019). In the case, a husband and wife received a loan to purchase a home.
The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed the dismissal of an action against a title insurance company brought by the insured property owner after he discovered that his property was not lakefront, as he had thought when he purchased the property. See Schiller v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 444 P.3d 459 (Nev. 2019). In the case, the plaintiff insured bought a property that the seller had represented as being on Lake Tahoe.
The Superior Court of Connecticut recently dismissed a takings complaint brought by a Native American tribe in which the tribe claimed that it owned certain mortgages on land that the State took from it. See Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. State, 2019 WL 2872304 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 22, 2019). The Native American tribe originally brought a complaint seeking just compensation for the government’s alleged taking of the tribe’s land.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed a trial court’s summary judgment order and found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether plaintiff had a perpetual parking easement on defendant’s property. See Congregation Sons of Israel v. Congregation Meorosnosson, Inc., 2019 WL 2591309 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 25, 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) kickback claim, holding that a 2011 class action in California did not toll the limitations period for this new class action making the same allegations. See Blake v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, 927 F.3d 701 (3d Cir. 2019). In the case, the two plaintiffs took out mortgages from the defendant lender in 2005 and 2006. In 2013, they brought this class action alleging that defendant violated RESPA by referring them to mortgage insurers in exchange for kickbacks.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claim against a servicer, finding that the servicer did not violate RESPA by rescheduling, rather than canceling, a foreclosure sale after the borrower entered into a loan modification plan. See Landau v. RoundPoint Mortg. Servicing Corp., 925 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 2019).
The New York Supreme Court, Queens County recently granted a property purchaser summary judgment on his claim to the property despite the fact that his grantor held title through a forged deed.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently denied a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claim that the servicer violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) by failing to properly respond to the borrower’s loss mitigation applications and Notice of Error. See Grembowiec v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2019 WL 3183588 (D.N.J. July 16, 2019). In May 2018, the plaintiff borrower submitted a loss mitigation application to the defendant servicer. Defendant responded and informed plaintiff that the submitted documents were insufficient. Although plaintiff sent additional documents, defendant later sent another letter saying the application had been terminated because there had been no activity on the file.