Court Report

Former employees of a title agency that was bought by a title insurer who left to form a competing title agency appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a large jury award based on breaches of the former employees’ contractual and fiduciary duties. Read on for more details.

An insured sued their title insurer for negligence, breach of contract and bad faith, claiming the insurer asserted that it held fee simple title, including abutter’s and access rights but that its sale of the property was terminated after the discovery of a claim against the property by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. Read on for more details.

After a seller sold her house to new owners, the owners discovered a judgment lien on the property she sold to them. After losing litigation against the new owners and their title insurer, the seller sued the title insurer for negligence, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation/nondisclosure. Read on for more details.

An Ohio title agency licensed to do business in Indiana filed suit against the Indiana Department of Insurance and its commissioner, Stephen Robertson, after being charged with violations of Indiana insurance law. The owners of the agency claimed that their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the department. Read on for more details.

A Florida case involving the failure to discover a prior lien on a mortgage that was foreclosed upon led to parties disputing unjust enrichment, and the district court of appeals to certify a question of great public importance to the state supreme court. In reversing a portion of the trial court decision, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, found that the defendants were not unjustly enriched because justifiable reliance was not an essential element of fraudulent misrepresentation. The court certified to the state supreme court a question of whether its most recent ruling in the matter overruled its previous decisions on the matter.

A couple whose building code violations led to a lien against their home sued the county for violations of Florida state code on notification of the violations and hearings. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit court examined whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there is a genuine dispute as to whether the county complied with the statute. Read on for more.

A Maryland couple brought a pro se lawsuit against their servicer and other parties to gain quiet title to their property, saying that parties were unable to produce promissory note that would allow them a lien on the mortgage. The district court in Maryland examined the couple’s claims of violations of three federal statutes and found their allegations not within the statutory requirements of the acts, ruling in favor of the servicer and other defendants. Read on for details of the decision.

A home mortgage consultant with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage who was fired for taking place in a referral scheme with Patriot Title that violated RESPA sued Wells, claiming his termination unlawfully targeted him because of his race and gender. The district court in Pennsylvania sought to determine whether the mortgage consultant could make a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination. The court ruled that the plaintiff could neither make a prima facie showing, nor cast reasonable doubt on the company’s reason for dismissal.

After a homeowner settled with neighbors over allegations that included intentional trespass, negligent trespass, negligence and private nuisance, he filed suit for implied contractual indemnity against his contractor. The contractor claimed that to establish he was also responsible for injuring Jaffe’s neighbors, the homeowner must show they had “a joint legal obligation to” the neighbors. The California district judge looked to determine whether indemnity may exist where the indemnitor commits a wrongful act that causes damage to a third party.

A business trust which was required to place $100,000 in escrow that would allow the transfer of title to a property did not deposit the funds by the date a trial court required. The court entered judgment which extinguished the trust’s right to the property and directed a transfer to another party. The business trust appealed. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division I, in California affirmed the trial court’s judgment.