The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently held that the statute of frauds bars an oral modification to an asset sale agreement when the parties dispute the terms of the oral modification, even if they both acknowledge an oral modification occurred. See Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Constr., Inc., 159 N.Y.S.3d 829 (Sup. Ct. 2022).
The Illinois Court of Appeals recently found that Fannie Mae’s COVID-related instruction for servicers to suspend foreclosure-related activities beginning in March 2020 was not grounds to vacate a February 2020 foreclosure judgment or a November 2020 foreclosure sale. See Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Starks, 2022 IL App (2d) 210056, ¶ 3 (Ill. App. Ct. May 5, 2022).
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed the finding of a lower court, which had denied a lender and property owner’s motion to vacate a final judgment in a tax sale foreclosure. See Pc8reo v. Block 3031, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 670 (App. Div. Apr. 22, 2022).
Co-Managing Partner Michael R. O’Donnell and Partner Bethany A. Abele provided expert guidance for the ROI-NJ article, “Real estate . . . and fake emails: Riker Danzig lawyers say cyberattacks increasingly targeting sector, disguised as part of legitimate transactions” on May 4, 2022.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently held that a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) could only use its general-amendment-power provision to amend restrictions for which the HOA’s original declaration had provided sufficient notice. See Kalway v. Calabria Ranch Hoa, Ltd. Liab. Co., 2022 Ariz. LEXIS 108 (Mar. 22, 2022).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky recently held that a lender might have a professional negligence claim against a law firm when the law firm conducted a title search for the incorrect property, the resulting mortgage encumbered the incorrect property and, as a result, the lender was forced to repurchase the mortgage. See Crescent Mortg. Co. v. Freeman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59727 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2022).
The Washington Supreme Court recently remanded a declaratory action stemming from a racially restrictive covenant in a deed to comply with RCW 49.60.227, as amended by the Washington legislature during the 2021 legislative session, which permits a court to strike a racially restrictive, legally unenforceable covenant from the public records and eliminate the covenant from the title. See May v. Spokane County, 2022 Wash. LEXIS 199 (Wash. Mar. 31, 2022).
In a split decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s dismissal in a suit in which a customer of a bank challenged the bank’s overdraft charge practices and claimed they constituted usurious loans. See Walker v. BOKF, Nat’l Ass’n, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9708 (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022). The plaintiff in the action holds a checking account with BOKF, National Association (the “Bank”).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently overturned a lower court and found that an attorney’s acknowledgement of a deed was not enough to remedy the fact that it lacked the requisite two attestations under Georgia law. See Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC v. Scarver (In re Lindstrom), 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9423 (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently denied plaintiff James Stewart’s (“Stewart”) motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his breach of contract and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”) claims against the defendant title insurance company. See Stewart v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17810 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2022).