Court Report

In a case of first impression in the Colorado courts, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed whether the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) and the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA) prohibited foreclosure attorneys and title companies from billing mortgage servicer clients foreclosure commitment charges when those full costs were not actually incurred, despite knowing that these fraudulent costs would be assessed against homeowners in foreclosure. A district court ruled against the law firm and title companies, saying they violated the CCPA and the CFDCPA by engaging in the billing practice described above. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed. Read on to learn why the appellate court rejected the defendants’ argument that the filed rate doctrine restricted their payment practices.

In a dispute over land restrictions thought to have been extinguished from a 2007 acquisition, Chicago Title alleged that the use restrictions at issue actually were extinguished by the Oklahoma Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA). An Oklahoma district court looked into the 1956 and 1954 deeds at issue to determine whether MRTA extinguished the restrictions. It found that the 1956 restrictions were voluntarily released, but ruled against Chicago Title’s judgment on the pleadings. Read on to learn why.

A title insurer brought an adversary proceeding to except debt from discharge in a bankruptcy case by the seller of property who the company said lied about competing encumbrances on the property during the sale of property insured by the company. Read on for more details.

A purchase agreement required the seller to complete improvements to property it was selling and put funds into an escrow account. If the seller completed the work, the funds would be returned. But if the seller failed to complete the improvements, the buyer could complete the improvements and get reimbursed from the escrow funds. The seller never completed the improvements and eventually filed for bankruptcy. The buyer filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court to declare that the escrow funds were not part of the bankruptcy estate. Read on for more details.

After a property issue arose as part of a divorce proceeding in which the husband had deeded the property to his sister, who mortgaged the property, and it was ruled that the wife held sole title to the property. The holder of the deed of trust, the sister, filed suit seeking a declaration that the deed of trust was an enforceable, first-priority lien on the property. Read on for more details.

Plaintiffs in a combined case regarding the issuance of an owner’s policy covering property in Dallas seek to remand the case back to state court from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Read on for more details.

The First U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled in a case in which a mortgagee sued its closing agent and title insurer, alleging that the mortgage misidentified the mortgaged property as unimproved property instead of the property that encompassed their home. Read on for more details.

After discovering a sewer easement on his property, an owner in Utah sued his title agent and title insurer, alleging that because he had talked to the agent about a different potential sewer easement, the conversation gave rise to additional duties beyond escrow agent and agent of the title insurer. Read on for more details.

After losing a suit brought against them regarding a boundary line dispute, a couple’s title insurer refused to fund the appeal. The couple then sued the title insurer for bad faith. Read on for more details.

After it won a court case against a couple which was required to deed it the entirety of the 1,300 acres they had mortgaged under a bankruptcy settlement, the mortgage holder sought compensation for the cost of attorneys’ fees, including the fees incurred after the litigation concluded. The title insurer paid the fees incurred during the litigation only and filed suit for declaration that it was not liable for any additional payments. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Read on for more details.