The New York Supreme Court, Warren County, recently granted a motion for summary judgment and held that an articulating dock did not violate a lakefront community’s restrictive covenant. See Tedeschi v Lake George Park Com’n, 56 Misc. 3d 1215(A) (Sup. Ct. 2017).
A Massachusetts appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a lender’s equitable subrogation claim, holding that there was no equitable reason to grant the lender a lien on one spouse’s interest in a property after her husband, the mortgagor, passed away. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Comeau, 87 N.E.3d 577 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017).
In a decision approved for publication, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently held that a debtor’s spouse did not waive her right to dispute a bank levy on a joint account when her attorney executed a consent agreement and represented to the creditor that she agreed to the same. See Banc of Am. Leasing & Capital, LLC v. Fletcher-Thompson Inc., 2018 WL 259383 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 2, 2018).
The Surrogate’s Court of New York, Queens County recently denied respondents’ motion for summary judgment and held there were issues of fact as to whether a deed conveying a property from a man in a nursing home may be void ab initio. See In re Rosenblatt, 57 Misc. 3d 1209(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017). In the case, the seller entered a nursing home in 2004 after suffering a stroke.
In a class action filed by plaintiff against defendant title insurance company alleging that she was overcharged for title insurance when she refinanced her home, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho recently granted defendant’s motion to decertify the class, holding, among other things, that proof of liability as to each class member is too highly individualized. See Lewis v. First Am. Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3269381 (D. Idaho 2017).
The First Department of New York’s Appellate Division recently held that a trial court should have granted a lender summary judgment in an action. See Bank of Am., Nat. Ass’n v. Brannon, 63 N.Y.S.3d 352 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). In the case, the defendant-borrower defaulted on her loan in 2007, and plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action. In 2008, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and in 2009, plaintiff assigned the mortgage to IFS Properties, LLC (“IFS”).
The First Department of New York’s Appellate Division recently held that a mortgagee’s interest in a property was not rendered null and void where the mortgagors had acquired the property by fraudulent means. See Weiss v Phillips, 2017 WL 5575033 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 21, 2017). In the case, defendant purchased two distressed properties and transferred one of the properties to a relative. Defendant later sent a paralegal to obtain the relative’s signature on a blank deed to transfer the property back to the defendant; instead, the paralegal inserted his mother’s name as the grantee.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently held that a creditor did not perfect its security interest in the debtor’s property because the creditor inadvertently included a space in the debtor’s name in its UCC financing statement. See United States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. ISC, Inc., 2017 WL 3736796 (W.D. Wis. 2017). In the case, the creditor filed a UCC financing statement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) regarding an interest it had in certain assets of the debtor, ISC, Inc. However, the creditor accidentally included a space between “Inc” and the period, naming the debtor as “ISC, Inc .”
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed that a lender who records a mortgage with knowledge of another unrecorded mortgage is not entitled to priority over the subsequently-filed mortgage, even if the lender was not aware of the identity of the other mortgagee. See Morgan Stanley Private Bank v. Earle, 2017 WL 5988070 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 4, 2017). In the case, the defendant lender obtained a $5,000,000 mortgage on the borrower’s property in 2008.
A Texas appellate court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment and holding that a title agent and its individual employee were not liable to a nonparty to the escrow agreement for their disbursement of escrow funds, regardless of whether the nonparty contributed said funds. See Muller v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 525 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App. 2017).