The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that a mortgage servicer was not barred from bringing a second foreclosure action after the first action was dismissed with prejudice. SeeFederal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Thompson, 2018 WI 57 (Wis. 2018). In the case, a mortgage servicer brought a foreclosure action against the defendant borrower in November 2010, alleging that the borrower defaulted on his April 2009 loan payment. As part of the lawsuit, the servicer accelerated the debt.

Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as affiliated partnerships conducting the practice in Hong Kong and Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, recently granted a foreclosing plaintiff summary judgment and held that plaintiff did not need to send a 90-day notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304 because plaintiff was not a lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer. SeeNIC Holding Corp. v. Eisenegger, 59 Misc. 3d 1221(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018). In the case, one of plaintiff’s employees was relocating and defendant wanted to purchase the employee’s home.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to a condominium association and held that the association’s foreclosure of a “super-priority” condominium lien may not have extinguished an otherwise first-priority mortgage on the property. SeeU.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Green Parks, LLC, No. 16-cv-842 (D.C. Mar. 13, 2018). In the case, the borrower obtained a loan to purchase a condominium.

The California Court of Appeals recently held that a mortgage (the “Mortgage”) recorded simultaneously with a home equity line of credit (the “HELOC”) had priority and was not entitled to any surplus proceedings from the foreclosure of the HELOC, despite the fact that the HELOC’s instrument number was prior to that of the Mortgage. SeeMTC Fin., Inc. v. Nationstar Mortg., 19 Cal. App. 5th 811 (Ct. App. 2018).

Possible application of Section 101(22)(A) to safe harbor’s covered entity requirement raises important questions for future transferee defendants.

Key Points:

• Merit Management raises the possibility that customers of “financial institutions” may qualify for protection under Section 546(e) safe harbor even if they would not otherwise meet Section 546(e)’s covered entity requirement.

• Treating customers of “financial institutions” as covered entities could broaden the scope of safe harbor.

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently reversed a lower court and held that a lender erred by not serving a notice of intent to foreclose (“NOI”) before commencing a foreclosure action on a residential reverse mortgage. SeeNationstar Mortg., LLC d/b/a Champion Mortg. Co. v. Armstrong, 2018 WL 1386247 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 20, 2018). In the case, defendant, as his mother’s attorney-in-fact, obtained a reverse mortgage on her home. The mother died shortly thereafter and, pursuant to 24 C.F.R.

The Nevada Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that a foreclosure under a Nevada statute giving “super priority” to homeowners’ association liens was preempted by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) in a foreclosure in which the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) held a mortgage. SeeSatico Bay LLC Series 9641 Christine View v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc., 2018 WL 1448731 (Nev. Mar. 21, 2018). In 2004, the borrowers purchased a property with a home loan that was secured by a deed of trust on the property.

The United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that an insured’s claim was barred under the title insurance policy’s exclusion for title risks “created, allowed, or agreed to by” the insured. SeeMoser v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1413346 (E.D. Tex Mar. 21, 2018). Kernel and Stanley Thaw (the “Thaws”) were a married couple, and in 2008 a creditor brought an action against Stanley seeking repayment of a debt.

In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently remanded an action to the Chancery Division in order to determine whether a lender improperly collected more than one-hundred percent of the debts owed to it. SeeBrunswick Bank & Tr. v. Heln Mgmt. LLC, 2018 WL 987809 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 21, 2018). In the case, the lender made five construction loans to two entities, which were guaranteed by the entities’ principal and his daughter.