The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against multiple defendants, including the title agent and title insurance company, alleging fraudulent transfer of title to realty, holding that “one, who knows a deed transferring her ownership in property has been filed, but declines to repudiate that conduct and also acts to later approve the conduct and benefits from same, has ratified the conduct and loses the right to challenge the forgery.”
In a significant decision for banks and the lending industry as a whole, the United States Supreme Court recently clarified that purchasing and collecting defaulted debt does not make an entity a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 2017 WL 2507342 (U.S. June 12, 2017). In the case, plaintiffs received and later defaulted on auto loans from CitiFinancial Auto. Santander bought the defaulted debt on these loans from CitiFinancial and attempted to collect for itself.
The United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, recently granted defendant loan servicer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. (“RESPA”), on the ground that plaintiff failed to allege any concrete injury. Chadee v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 1050386 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
In a noteworthy decision for New Jersey lenders approved for publication, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that a lender who simply winterizes and secures an abandoned property in foreclosure is not deemed a mortgagee in possession subject to condominium association fees. See Woodlands Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Mitchell, 2017 WL 2437036 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 6, 2017). In Mitchell, the borrower defaulted on his loan with the lender and abandoned his condominium. The lender commenced a foreclosure action and then winterized the property and changed the locks.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently dismissed plaintiff debtor’s complaint seeking to have the foreclosure and sheriff’s sale set aside, on the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a wrongful foreclosure claim based on only allegations of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(g) (“Regulation X”) violations, and holding that “to find that Plaintiff has made out a state-law wrongful foreclosure case using only allegations of Regulation X violations would amount to the creation of a hybrid remedy where neither state law nor federal law has provided for one.”
In an action filed by plaintiff mortgagee in federal court purportedly under diversity jurisdiction, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and, instead, sua sponte dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that a creditor who files a bankruptcy claim on a time-barred debt does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 137 S. Ct. 1407 (2017). In the case, the debtor filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the creditor filed a proof of claim asserting that it was owed credit card debt. However, the credit card had not been used in over ten years, outside Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a borrower’s Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) complaint, holding that a loan servicer was not required to respond to the borrower’s repeated modification requests.
The United States District Court, Northern District of New York, recently denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and for judgment of foreclosure and sale of certain property, finding plaintiff’s notice of pendency to be ineffective and, therefore, void. See Ditech Financial LLC v. Frantz, 2017 WL 1184206 (N.D.N.Y. March 29, 2017).
The Supreme Court of New York, Tompkins County, recently granted the “drastic remedy” of dismissing plaintiff bank’s residential foreclosure action against defendant debtors, cancelling the notice of pendency filed in the action and discharging and cancelling the mortgage which plaintiff sought to foreclose, all because of plaintiff’s “pattern of conduct which gave rise to an inference of willfulness.”