A boutique law firm dedicated to delivering practical solutions for complex litigation. Our practice focuses on real estate title, mortgage servicing, and construction disputes, leveraging advocacy, technology, and creative problem-solving to achieve optimal outcomes for our clients.
To schedule a consultation, please call:
(301) 547-3805
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Lender in its judicial foreclosure action, which sought to enforce and relied on a prior federal court adjudication of its right, under the common law doctrine of equitable subrogation, “to stand in the shoes of a prior lender” (“Prior Lender”), whose lien had been paid off by Lender. The Court rejected challenges to equitable subrogation or enforcement of the lien under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Thus, the Court held that Lender could enforce the prior loan, including interest, by way of foreclosure under the Prior Lender’s deed of trust.
The Supreme Court of Maryland provides a historical and legal overview of the law of burial grounds in the United States to determined that compliance with a state quiet title statute for such sale was not mandatory. The Court held that equitable considerations remain and identified five key common law principles affecting the sale of burial grounds.
The Appellate Court of Maryland determined that an assignee of the Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) was subject to the licensing requirements under Maryland's Credit Grantor Revolving Credit Provisions, Md. Code, Comm. Law § 12-901, et seq.
However, the Court rejected challenges to the enforceability of HELOC as having merged with a prior judgment on the debt, was barred by a statute of limitations, or that Assignee lacked standing because the HELOC was non-negotiable. According to the Court, a recorded assignment of the HELOC conclusively established ownership in the Assignee.
The Maryland federal district court held that vague "recoverable corporate advances" on mortgage statements may violate the FDCPA. The Court noted that while "debt collectors may not have an affirmative, specific legal duty to itemize, they are nevertheless obligated to avoid practices that would mislead an unsophisticated consumer, which may necessitate proper and sufficient itemization."
The Appellate Court of Maryland determined that a foreclosure of a reverse mortgage did not extinguish the Lender’s right to insurance proceeds for a casualty loss that had occurred presale, up to the amount of the remaining unpaid balance. In doing so, the Court applied the “loss before foreclosure rule” to the reverse mortgage, notwithstanding the reverse mortgage’s prohibitions against collection of a deficiency judgment.
The filing of a lis pendens is entitled to absolute privilege as to defamation tort claims, explained the Supreme Court of Virginia. Elaborating on the scope of the privilege, the Court expressly declined to extend the doctrine to non-defamation claims. “Absolute privilege does not apply to non-defamation torts in Virginia, specifically including malicious abuse of process, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy.”
