The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a bank, holding that the bank had the right to refuse prepayment on two of its loans based on non-monetary defaults on a third loan when the loan documents contained cross-default provisions. See Bank of China v. L.V.P. Assocs., et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3184 (App. Div. Dec. 30, 2021).
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs who sought to enforce deed restrictions to prevent a neighbor from subdividing their property, despite the fact that the restrictions were not included in the deed to defendants. See Cherry v. Ziad Hadaya, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2571 (App. Div. Oct. 29, 2021).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recently dismissed all claims made against debt collector Capital Link Management (“Capital Link”) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (“GFBPA”) arising from calls made to the debtor’s mother. See Joe v. Capital Link Management, LLC, 2021 WL 4438081 (N.D. Ga. 2021).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) action because the plaintiff could not demonstrate a concrete injury. See Bush v. Optio Sols., LLC, 2021 WL 3201359 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). In this case, the plaintiff claimed that an “alleged debt” was transferred to defendant for collection while the alleged debt was in default.
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed summary judgment for a plaintiff and remanded the case to determine whether plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser without knowledge of an easement modification. See RRR Newgen, LLC v. RESOL53 LLC, 2021 WL 4143325 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted summary judgment for Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”), finding that the insured failed to bring the claim within two years of its discovery. See Hayward Prop., LLC v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4503457 (N.D. Cal. 2021). In the case, CNF Properties (“CNF”) owned the property at issue. The property was originally four parcels before CNF converted it into two parcels (“Parcel One” and “Parcel Two”) in 1997.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently overturned a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, holding that an ordinance (the “Ordinance”) enacted in Walton County (the “County”) terminated an easement that the County held over a strip of land. See A Flock of Seagirls LLC v. Walton County Florida, 7 F.4th 1072 (2021).
In a split decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently determined that the Bank of New York Mellon (the “Bank”), as first deed of trust lienholder, could challenge a homeowner’s association’s (“HOA”) sale of a property as a violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay, giving the Bank superior title. See Bank of New York Mellon as Tr. for Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Tr. 2005-54CB, Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-54CB v. Enchantment at Sunset Bay Condo. Ass’n, 2 F.4th 1229 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Colorado Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court’s holding that a condominium association that regularly used a parcel of land that abutted the association’s property had acquired a prescriptive easement on the parcel. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 489 P.3d 735 (Colo. 2021). In 1975 L.R. Foy Construction (“Foy Construction”), owned by Lyle Foy (“Foy”), built condominiums on and conveyed a large parcel of land to the Woodbridge Condominium Association (“Woodbridge”), but did not convey a smaller parcel of land (“the disputed parcel”) that sat between the conveyed parcel and a gravel road.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently vacated and remanded a decision by a lower court that found that a defendant bank’s de-acceleration of a mortgage was invalid because it was motivated solely by a desire to avoid the expiration of a statute of limitations. See 53rd St., LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 8 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2021).
