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.
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”).