The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a property owner’s motion for summary judgment and held that a purported restrictive covenant on the property was void. See U & Me Homes, LLC v. Cty. of Suffolk, 148 N.Y.S.3d 682 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 16, 2021).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted the defendant title insurance companies’ motion for summary judgment and found that the insured was not entitled to coverage when the action giving rise to the alleged title defect occurred in 1982 and the statute of limitations for a challenge to title had run. See Morris Builders, L.P. et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., 2021 WL 4066725 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021).
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two, recently affirmed the dismissal of a homeowner’s prescriptive easement and nuisance claims, finding instead that there was an implied easement that allowed both the homeowner and an adjoining property owner to share use of a septic drainfield system. See Conklin v Bentz, 2021 WL 2229818 (Wash. Ct. App. June 2, 2021).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently rejected an individual guarantor’s (“Lockwood”) fraudulent inducement and duress claims and held that the guaranty he entered was enforceable and that he waived any defenses to the same in subsequent forbearance agreements. See Lockwood Int’l, Inc. v. Wells Fargo, Nat’l Ass’n,, 2021 WL 3624748 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).
The Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial court’s decision striking claims for quiet title and declaratory relief under California's anti-SLAPP statute, finding that recording a judgment constitutes a protected activity which is privileged under Civil Code § 47(b)(2). See Reynolds v. Palmbaum, 2021 WL 3184943 (Cal. Ct. App. July 28, 2021).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently granted a title insurance company’s motion to dismiss claims for breach of contract and consumer fraud, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege any loss and that his claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act was barred by the statute of limitations. See Steward v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et. al., 2021 WL 3142042 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2021).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed a consumer’s claim under § 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), finding that the notation of a loan suspension on the consumer’s credit report and the resulting diminution in his credit score were insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate a concrete reputational or financial injury. See Grauman v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2021 WL 3239865 (E.D.N.Y. July 16, 2021).
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii recently dismissed claims brought by a homeowner under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), finding that they were outside the relevant limitations periods. See Mathias v. HomeStreet Bank, Inc., 2021 WL 2534557 (D. Haw. June 21, 2021).
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.