The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently found that a debt collector was permitted to use its name on the envelope of a debt collection letter, despite the possibility that an internet search would disclose that the debt collector was in the debt collection business, but may have violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) by attempting to collect a debt without a license from the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance. See Valentine v. Unifund CCR, Inc., 2021 WL 912854 (D.N.J. Mar. 10, 2021).
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) when it sends a collection letter that, among other things, states that the collector “is not obligated to renew this offer.” See Rajkumar v. FBCS, Inc., 2021 WL 949867 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2021).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to a title insurance company, holding that the insured was not entitled to coverage for loss caused by a mechanic’s lien where the insured agreed to remove Covered Risk 11(a) in the title insurance policy. See Hall CA-NV, L.L.C. v. Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2021 WL 912726 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2021).
In a recently published opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a finding that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., does not preempt New Jersey’s common law doctrine of necessaries that allows a creditor to seek collection of necessary expenses from the debtor’s spouse. See Klotz v. Celentano, Stadtmauer & Walentowicz LLC, 2021 WL 969479 (3d Cir. Mar. 16, 2021).
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to a title insurance company, among others, holding that an insured did not have coverage under a title insurance policy for losses arising after the insured discovered a covenant that prohibited it from selling the property as individual units. See VACC LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., et al., 2021 WL 710793 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2021).
The United States District Court, Western District of Washington recently held that a title insurer had no duty to defend against a third-party complaint alleging claims of trespass and relating to a private road which was excepted from its policy. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. V. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2021 WL 252236 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 26, 2021).
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently dismissed a suit for racial discrimination and retaliation brought by a bank account holder against a national bank, holding that the account holder had not sufficiently pled facts alleging racial discrimination when the bank ceased to honor checks and electronic payments related to the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Re Republic Grp. LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2021 WL 321477 (D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2021).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a District Court’s dismissal of a borrower’s claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and Minnesota Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act ("MOSLA") when the borrower failed to demonstrate that his alleged injuries were caused by the RESPA violation. See Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2021 WL 503306 (8th Cir. Feb. 11, 2021).
The New York Supreme Court, Kings County, recently found that a notice sent by a mortgagee which reinstitutes monthly payments and states that any prior acceleration is revoked is sufficient to constitute a deceleration of the underlying loan. Carter v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 2021 WL 291198 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan 27, 2021).
The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, recently held that a title insurance company has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for an adverse possession action brought against the insured, citing the title policy’s parties in possession exception. See Melamed v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 190 A.D.3d 724 (2d Dept. 2021).