The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. See Johnson v. BOKF Nat’l Ass’n, 15 F.4th 356 (5th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff Sharonda Johnson, who holds a checking account with BOKF, National Association (the “Bank”), filed a putative class action challenging “Extended Overdraft Charges” assessed by the Bank, which were charged to her after she overdrew on her checking account in 2016.
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed that a purchaser of a property in a tax sale foreclosure can move to intervene and redeem the property so long as the trial court has not entered an order setting the last date for redemption, and that a previously rejected attempt to redeem the property before intervening does not bar the right to move to intervene. See Green Knight Capital, LLC, v. Calederon, et al., 2021 WL 4823495 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 18, 2021).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently granted a title insurance company’s motion to dismiss claims for aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence, finding that the plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to sustain any of their claims. See Amran Prop. Invs., LLC v. Fid. Nat’l Title Grp., Inc., 2021 WL 3883087 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2021).
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, recently granted summary judgment in favor of a title insurer, finding that the insured was not entitled to defense costs where the underlying lawsuits did not concern matters on which the title insurer had a duty to defend. See Stewart v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3832354 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 10, 2021).
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County, recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a title agency, finding that although a contract had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the title agency, the plaintiffs did not suffer any damages as a result of the title agency’s failure to include a lien on the closing settlement statement. Rassi v. Buckeye Title Agency, Inc., 2021 WL 2624660 (Ohio Ct. App. June 25, 2021).
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County recently granted a title insurance company’s motion to dismiss its policy-issuing agent’s counterclaim, finding that the title insurer had no obligation to inform the agent of a title claim arising from a policy the agent issued, nor did the insurer have to seek the agent’s consent before settling. See Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. v. Rockwell Abstract, et al., 652588-2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 1, 2021).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed and remanded a plaintiff’s successful summary judgment motion for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”). See Wadsworth v. Kross, Lieberman & Stone, Inc., 2021 WL 3877930 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2021). In the case, plaintiff Audrey Wadsworth had been hired by Pharmaceutical Research Associates, Inc. (“PRA”). The job offer included a signing bonus - $3,750 payable after 30 days of employment, followed by another $3,750 payable after 180 days of employment.
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).