The Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, recently dismissed a fraud claim brought by the principal of a title agent against a title insurance company, finding that any claim that the insurer misrepresented the terms of the guaranty—and there was no evidence supporting this claim—was irrelevant because the principal reviewed the guaranty before signing. See Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Brookwood Title Agency LLC, 2020 WL 5369206 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sep. 04, 2020).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a prior property owner’s defamation suit brought against a title insurance company after the company sent a letter regarding a mortgage the seller failed to disclose or discharge. See Ezeiruaku v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2020 WL 5587438 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2020).
A New Jersey trial court recently held that the surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale should be used to pay the judgment lien recorded against only one of the spouses when the other spouse failed to contest the judgment creditor’s pre-sale motion, and only objected after the sale. See Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee of Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust v. Schneeweiss, et al., F-13586-17, (N.J. Ch. Div., Aug. 25, 2020).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a FDCPA claim as untimely, holding that a Georgia statute that allows a party to voluntarily dismiss a timely action and then refile it within six months could not overcome the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period. See Edwards v. Solomon & Solomon, P.C., 2020 WL 5816754 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2020).
The Court of Appeals of Washington recently held that homeowners who owned property bordering a former railroad corridor now owned by the county could not adversely possess some of the corridor. See Neighbors v. King Cty., No. 2020 WL 5629699 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2020).
In a split decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found that the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 (“HOLA”) and its regulations preempted a California state law that required banks to pay borrowers interest on escrow accounts, even after the original savings association assigned the mortgage to a national bank. See McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, 2020 WL 5639700 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020).
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas recently found that a lender did not violate a state usury law or the FDCPA, RESPA or TILA in its handling of plaintiffs’ mortgage, but may have violated the contract by not immediately applying plaintiffs’ partial payments. See Schneider v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2020 WL 4673159 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2020). In 2010, plaintiffs obtained a mortgage loan from defendant. At the time of the loan, the interest rate exceeded the maximum interest rate in Kansas.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently discharged a creditor’s judgment lien on the debtor’s property after the debtor declared bankruptcy and had the underlying debt discharged. See Cooper Electric Supply Co., v. J & Jay Electric, Inc., 2020 WL 5496490 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 11, 2020). In 2008, plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendant and docketed the judgment.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision and held that a debt collection letter that did not state that a debtor had the right to challenge a portion of the debt within 30 days did not violate the FDCPA. See Chaperon v. Sontag & Hyman, PC, 2020 WL 5240609 (2d Cir. Sept. 3, 2020).
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky recently held that claims against a closing attorney who performed a title search were untimely, and that insureds did not have a claim against their title insurance company when the company initially found that the claim was “potentially covered” before later denying the claim based on one policy provision, and then later prevailing on summary judgment on another provision. See Pasha v. Eisele, 2020 WL 4555812 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2020).
