Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

Skip to Content

Financial Services & Title Insurance Update: Week Ending March 22, 2019

Financial Services Update

  • FDCPA / definition of "debt collector": law firm carrying out a nonjudicial foreclosure action not a debt collector because the primary definition of a "debt collector" under sec. 1692a does not include parties who do no more than enforce security interests - Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307 (Mar. 20, 2019) (affirming dismissal)
  • FDCPA / Concurrent State Court Action: allegedly unlawful collection of late fees after the plaintiff's mortgage was accelerated stated FDC stated FDCPA violations notwithstanding foreclosure action was still pending - Muhammad v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 18-22052-CIV (S.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2019) (denying dismissal motion)
  • FDCPA / Technical Violation Insufficient: although demand letter named merchant and not creditor to whom the debt was technically owed, violating section 1692g(a), the least sophisticated consumer would believe the merchant, not the creditor, was providing credit - Howe v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC, No. 2:17-cv-14167 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2019) (granting creditor's summary judgment motion)
  • TCPA / Standing: plaintiff suffered concrete injury-in-fact sufficient under Article III to proceed with TCPA claim after receiving unsolicited fax advertisement - Yaakov v. Educ. Testing Serv., No. 13-CV-4577 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019)

Title Insurance Update

  • Statute of Limitations: under Maine law, claim against title agent and insurer for mistake in encumbering unimproved parcel governed by six-year statute of limitations for civil actions and began to run when mortgagors filed adversary complaint in bankruptcy to limit mortgage; Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act claim accrued when insurer denied claim following bankruptcy court decision - US Bank, N.A. v. HLC Escrow, Inc., No. 17-1121 (1st Cir. Mar. 18, 2019) (affirmed in part and vacated in part)
  • Standing: real-estate developer had no standing to bring claim against Secretary of Treasury for violating the Administrative Procedure Act by refusing to declare that title insurance is not actually insurance under federal law - Klein v. Mnuchin, No. 18-769 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2019) (granting motion to dismiss)
  • Statute of Limitations: negligence claim against title agent under Delaware law subject to three-year statute of limitation and did not relate back to initial complaint - Fansler v. N. Am. Title Ins. Co., No. N17C-09-015 EMD (Super. Ct. Del. Mar. 19, 2019) (denying in part and granting in part motion to dismiss)
  • Professional Negligence: insured cannot claim professional negligence against title agent because agent does not have fiduciary duty to insured; however, insured may have claim for negligent procurement of insurance coverage against title agent - Fansler v. N. Am. Title Ins. Co., No. N17C-09-015 EMD (Super. Ct. Del. Mar. 19, 2019) (denying in part and granting in part motion to dismiss)
  • Reconveyance: title insurer's reconveyance of property based on electronically transmitted document was effective as parties agreed to conduct business electronically - VT Holdings LLC v. First Am. Title Ins., No. 20170647-CA (Ct. App. Utah Mar. 14, 2019) (affirming order granting motion to dismiss)
Related Practices
Title Insurance Consumer Finance
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.