Source: http://riker.com/blog/banking-title-insurance-real-estate-litigation/p4
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 13:56:20+00:00

Document:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a borrower’s claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) were properly dismissed because he did not suffer any actual damages. See Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 908 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 2018).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the attorneys representing a successful plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) litigation were not entitled to any fees due to their “outrageous” fee request and other actions in the matter. See Davis v. Credit Bureau of the South, 2018 WL 6009258 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018).
The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a title insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and held that a declaration recorded by a prior property owner limiting the number of houses that could be built on the insured property was a “government regulation” excluded from coverage under the policy. See JBGR LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6055884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 13, 2018).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that a bank was not liable to its customers for losses caused by the bank’s tips to the government that the customers’ safe deposit boxes may contain evidence of counterfeiting or drug trafficking, even after no evidence is found. See Tarazi v. Valley National Bank, et al., 11-cv-4464 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2018).
The Superior Court of Connecticut recently held that a lender’s loss under its title insurance policy is limited to the amount of a prior undisclosed lien on the property that the lender had to discharge. See RCN Capital, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4655965 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2018). In 2012, plaintiff issued a $600,000 loan to a borrower that was secured by a mortgage on the borrower’s property. Defendant issued a lender’s title insurance policy to plaintiff.
In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently made clear for all that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56.1 runs from the stated maturity date in a residential mortgage and not upon the acceleration of the loan after the borrowers’ default. See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas as Tr. for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. v. Weiner, 2018 WL 5831060 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 8, 2018).
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently held that a foreclosure action commenced more than six years after the underlying loan’s maturity date was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations because that statute was not enacted until the year after the maturity date and could not be applied retroactively. See Pfeifer v. McLaughlin, 2018 WL 4167334 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 31, 2018).
The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that the assignee of a deed of trust was not entitled to bring a claim against the title insurance company arising out of the closing protection letter. See PennyMac Holdings, LLC v. Fid. Nat’l Ins. Co., 423 P.3d 608 (Nev. 2018). In the case, a title agent issued a title insurance policy and closing protection letter (“CPL”) to a lender as part of a 2007 refinance. One week prior to the lender’s deed of trust being recorded, however, the homeowners association (the “HOA”) for the subject property recorded a lien for unpaid fees.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision dismissing a complaint and held that a plaintiff may have a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) even if he denies owing the debt at issue. See Loja v. Main St. Acquisition Corp., 2018 WL 5077679 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.