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.
Maryland intermediate appellate court reaffirms that there is no statute of limitations applicable to the foreclosures of mortgages. 2014 Amendments to statute of limitations confirmed that foreclosure proceedings were not subject to the 12-year limitations period, and was part of a statutory scheme to reduce the limitations period for post-foreclosure deficiency proceedings to three years.
Buyer in a real estate transaction who is duped by fraudulent wiring instructions is not owed a duty by the transferee/recipient bank of the wire transfer: No duty to the sender/buyer to properly verify the identity of the person who opened the recipient bank account, nor a duty to take “preventable steps” before permitting the withdrawal of a large amount of funds from the newly opened bank account.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that “those who engage in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not debt collectors within the meaning of the [FDCPA],” save for § 1692f(6), which prohibits certain conduct in “effect[ing] dispossession or disablement of property.” On the other hand, the bulk of the FDPCA’s prohibitions, including § 1692g(b)’s verification requirement, did not apply to such foreclosure firm.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland determined that, after a foreclosure sale, commercial real estate brokers could not enforce a covenant to pay renewal leasing commissions against the new owner, because the right to renewal commissions were personal obligations of the Original Owner/Landlord, which did not run with the land.
The Supreme Court of Virginia determined that an easement by necessity could be modified as “reasonably necessary” to benefit a landlocked parcel, so long as it did not unreasonably burden the underlying property, i.e., the servient estate. The Court held that as a matter of law, the trial court had the authority to grant the owner of the landlocked parcel the right to widen the established easement without the servient owner's consent.
