The Northern District of California recently granted defendant bank’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiffs’ complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure on jurisdictional grounds. See Wyman v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 512869 (N.D. Ca. Feb. 8, 2017). In the case, plaintiffs obtained a loan from defendant bank secured by a deed of trust on plaintiffs’ residence.
The Second Department of New York’s Appellate Division recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that a title insurance company was not responsible for its policy-issuing agent’s defalcation of escrow funds. See La Candelaria E. Harlem Cmty. Ctr., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. of N.Y., 146 A.D.3d 473 (2d Dept. 2017).
The Appellate Court of Illinois recently affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant a lender’s motion for summary judgment to foreclose on a property despite an allegedly forged deed, based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Payton, 2016 IL App (1st) 160305-U (Ill. App. 2017).
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a lower court’s denial of a lender’s claim for coverage from a title insurance company after a settlement agent misappropriated the closing funds and failed to pay off the prior mortgages on the insured property. See Northwest Sav. Bank v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 253080 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division-General Equity Part recently held that a condominium association’s attempt to redeem a tax sale certificate on a condominium on which it held a lien was not valid because it was neither a mortgagee nor the owner of the property. See JNH Funding Corp. v. Ayed et al., F-8704-14 (N.J. Ch. Div. March 21, 2017).
The California Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s order and held that an insured property owner was collaterally estopped from suing a title insurance company for coverage regarding a forged deed to the insured property. See Gillard v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2017 WL 345086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017), reh’g denied (Feb. 14, 2017), review filed (Mar. 7, 2017). In the case, the insured purchased the property in 2004.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine recently affirmed a lower court’s judgment in favor of defendant title insurance company and the denial of plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment in an action for coverage and indemnification under a title insurance policy on the ground that plaintiff failed to identify any cloud on its title or any other title defect that would implicate defendant’s duty to defend.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently granted defendant mortgage company’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging, inter alia, violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2605(k) (“RESPA”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692e, 1692f (“FDCPA”), because she failed to provide defendants with notice of the alleged issues and an opportunity to cure, as required under the mortgage.
In a homeowner class action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a lender that modifies a mortgage cannot rely on an updated property value to recalculate the length of the homeowner’s mortgage insurance obligation under the Homeowners Protection Act (the “HPA”) unless same is expressly set forth in the loan modification agreement.