The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. or, alternatively, their request for certification to file an interlocutory appeal. See Toohey v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2017 WL 2271548 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
New York’s First Department Appellate Division recently reversed a lower court’s granting of a motion to dismiss and held that the beneficiaries of a real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) trust may bring a breach of contract claim against the trustee when the trustee purchased the assets for a below-market price and then resold them to a third party for profit. See Cece & Co. v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 2017 WL 3253370 (1st Dept. Aug. 1, 2017).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision granting 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 defendant’s alleged misconduct did not violate RESPA. See Mejia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 3396563 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2017). In the case, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated RESPA and its implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R. 1024 et seq. (“Regulation X”), because defendant failed to properly respond to plaintiff’s written Request for Information (“RFI”).
In a case stemming from defendant debt collector’s pursuit of $25 in unpaid medical bills, where plaintiff debtor won summary judgment on his Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim but lost at trial on his Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a precedential decision affirming the TCPA claim but reversing and remanding the FDCPA claim. Daubert v. NRA Group, LLC, 861 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2017).
The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to a title insurance company after the insured voluntarily conveyed the property to a third party. See Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, 2017 WL 2774337 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2017), reh’g denied (July 21, 2017). In the case, plaintiffs purchased a parcel of property in 1980 and obtained a title insurance policy from defendant title insurance company. Among other conditions, the policy stated that “[t]he coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy, in favor of an insured so long as such insured retains an estate or interest in the land.”
The New Jersey Legislature recently amended New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act to require loan servicers on residential mortgages to engage in consultations on short sales with prospective buyers, and to respond to short sale offers from buyers within certain periods. See A2060. Under the bill, which will take effect on September 19, 2017, a mortgage loan servicer is required to respond to a good faith offer from a seller, seller’s agent, or authorized third party to purchase the property through a short sale within 60 days of the date of the offer.
The Court of Appeals of Texas recently affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to a title insurance company, among others, holding that the insured lender’s deed of trust had been equitably subrogated to a first lien position and, accordingly, the insured had not suffered any damages as a result of an intervening lien. See First Bank Texas, SSB v. W. D. Welch, P.C., 2017 WL 2443132 (Tex. App. June 5, 2017).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted defendant debt collector’s motion to dismiss a class action complaint alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. Judah v. Total Card, Inc., 2017 WL 2345636 (D.N.J. 2017). At issue in the case was a certain letter sent by defendant to plaintiff attempting to collect a debt (the “Collection Letter”). The Collection Letter offered to settle plaintiff’s debt through a single payment or through six monthly payments but also stated, “[t]he law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, [the owner of the debt] will not sue you for it, and [the owner of the debt] will not report it to any credit agency.”
In a case brought by plaintiffs under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) to rescind their mortgage loan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant lender and servicer (collectively as “defendants”), finding that plaintiffs’ conclusory affidavits could not rebut the presumption that they received the required notices under the TILA and that the disclosure statements received by plaintiffs were within TILA’s allowable margin of error.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed that an insured who received only a title commitment and title insurance policy did not have a cause of action against the policy-issuing agent for negligence or breach of contract if the agent omitted a prior mortgage.