On July 29, 2021 Riker Danzig released Episode 2 of “Title Nerds,” the Firm’s title insurance podcast. Title Nerds hosts Mike O’Donnell and Bethany Abele welcome fellow Riker Danzig attorneys Ron Ahrens and Mike Crowley to the podcast.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted a debt collector’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that so long as a debt collector either accurately informs the consumer that the amount of the debt stated in the letter will increase over time, or clearly states that the holder of the debt will accept payment of the amount set forth in full satisfaction of the debt if payment is made by a specified date, the debt collector will not be liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692e.
On July 22, 2021, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law A-4250/S-2508, which permanently authorizes remote online notarizations and requires education courses for notary publics. The law takes effect on October 20, 2021.
A New Jersey trial court recently granted summary judgment in favor of a national bank, finding that the New Jersey Uniform Fiduciaries Law (“UFL”) does not permit an affirmative cause of action against a bank and that the bank had no legal obligation to investigate alleged improper transfers made pursuant to a Power of Attorney. See Estate of Ralph Sandor v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, et al., Docket No. BER-C-54-21.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a mortgage loan servicer, finding that the communications from the mortgage loan servicer were not communications “in connection with the collection of a debt,” as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Heinz v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, 2021 WL 2878322 (8th Cir. July 9, 2021).
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court and held that dismissal of an underlying bankruptcy case did not divest the Bankruptcy Court of jurisdiction in related quiet title action. In re Lindsey, 2021 WL 1140661 (11th Cir. 2021). In 2015, the plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. In his schedule of assets, the plaintiff listed a fee simple interest in a commercial multi-tenant building and an adjacent vacant lot. To avoid losing the properties in a foreclosure proceeding commenced by a mortgage-holder, the plaintiff decided to sell the properties to Duckworth Development (“Duckworth”).
The Montana Supreme Court recently held that there is no duty to conduct a reasonable search when a title insurer prepares a preliminary title commitment. Phipps v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2021 MT 152 (Mont. 2021). In the case, a couple (“Plaintiff”) acquired parcels of real property, used for ranching, through multiple transactions. The property was physically accessible using certain roads, but the legal accessibility was uncertain, as the public records of the county in which the property was located lacked records establishing these two roads as public roadways.
The Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court’s order, finding that a bank's properly perfected security interest in a debtor’s assets had priority over oil producers’ unfiled, unperfected security interests in oil proceeds, but did not have priority over a statutory lien granted to certain producers under the Oklahoma Lien Act. See Matter of First River Energy, L.L.C., 986 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 2021).
Following guidance from the New York Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed that a lender complied with the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) when it deviated from its usual mailing procedures, but where that deviation was not material to the proper mailing of the notice, as well as when its filing with the Superintendent of Financial Services only listed information as to one borrower when the loan in question had multiple borrowers. See CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman, 2021 WL 2172177 (2d Cir. May 28, 2021).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reversed a District Court and held that a debt collector did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692e, when it sent a letter that offered settlement amounts if the debtor paid by a date certain, but did not include language stating that the debt would continue accruing interest and/or fees if the specified amounts were not paid by that date. See Cortez v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, 2021 WL 2274290 (2d Cir. June 4, 2021).