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.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a trial court’s order granting a title insurance company summary judgment based on a defect that a survey of the premises would have shown. SeeKreider v. Correia, 2018 WL 359285 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2018). In the case, the plaintiff insured purchased a property after the lender had obtained it via a foreclosure (the “Property”). Before plaintiff purchased it, the real estate agent informed him that the Property included a two-car garage and some other surrounding land.

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case

With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver

The case

The Supreme Court of Cassation (19 October 2017, No. 24682) discerns the respective scope of application of the criteria for the liquidation of compensation to the lawyer in case there was no specific agreement between the parties

The case

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently held that a creditor did not perfect its security interest in the debtor’s property because the creditor inadvertently included a space in the debtor’s name in its UCC financing statement. SeeUnited States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. ISC, Inc., 2017 WL 3736796 (W.D. Wis. 2017). In the case, the creditor filed a UCC financing statement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) regarding an interest it had in certain assets of the debtor, ISC, Inc.

The case

The receiver of a bankrupt joint-stock company sued its directors before the Court of Rome, in order to ascertain their liability, pursuant to Article 146 of Bankruptcy Law.

More precisely, the bankruptcy was considered the result of a transaction particularly burdensome with respect to the company’s share capital and unjustified in relation to the economic value of the block of shares acquired.