In a matter of first impression, New York’s Second Department recently held that a waiver of the right to declarative relief in a commercial lease was enforceable and not violative of public policy. See 159 MP Corp., et al. v. Redbridge Bedford, LLC, 2018 WL 635946 (2d Dept. Jan. 31, 2018). In the case, the plaintiffs were two related entities that had entered into nearly identical leases for units in the subject building.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision and held that a debt-collection letter that made a settlement offer on a time-barred debt may have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Tatis v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 2018 WL 818004 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2018).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted the plaintiff-insured’s motion for leave to amend its complaint and to add its affiliate as a new co-plaintiff over the title insurance companies’ objections. See Morris Builders, L.P. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. et. al., 2017 WL 5032996 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). In 1989, the defendant title insurance companies issued title insurance policies to plaintiff to cover plaintiff’s long-term development lease of a property.
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed that a defendant in a foreclosure action was barred from pursuing a separate action against the lender for fraud by foreclosure under New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine as well as the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. See Adelman v. BSI Fin. Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 636756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 31, 2018).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the Ninth Circuit and affirmed a district court’s holding that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) does not apply to a non-judicial foreclosure. See Obduskey v. Wells Fargo, 2018 WL 477257 (10th Cir. Jan. 19, 2018). In the case, plaintiff defaulted on his loan, and defendant law firm sent a letter to plaintiff stating that it “MAY BE CONSIDERED A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT” and that it was “instructed to commence foreclosure against” plaintiff’s property.
On his last day in office, Governor Christie enacted new legislation that will change the way foreign-country judgments are recognized in New Jersey. The Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act of 2015 (the “FCMJRA”) amends the statutory basis for enforcing judgments of other nations in New Jersey. Under the prior version of the FCMJRA, a copy of any authenticated foreign judgment could be filed in the office of the clerk along with an affidavit from the judgment creditor, and the clerk would be required to “treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the Superior Court of this State.”
The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma recently held that use restrictions on a property did not render the property unmarketable, but nonetheless may be encumbrances that the title insurance policy at issue insured against. See Chesapeake Land Dev. Co. LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 5930295 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 30, 2017).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision and held that the amount in controversy in a borrowers’ action to temporarily stay a foreclosure during the pendency of the borrowers’ loan modification application did not exceed $75,000 and accordingly, that diversity jurisdiction did not exist.
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, recently reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that a title insurance policy insured against the judgments of the plaintiff’s co-owner that attached to the property when plaintiff and the co-owner purchased the property.
The United States District Court for the District of Utah recently granted a title insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in part, holding it was not required to tender a payment within 30 days of accepting its insured’s claim, and denied the motion in part because there were issues of fact as to the proper date of loss under an owner’s policy.