Real Estate Transactions

Mortgagor cannot challenge foreclosure because of lack of evidence of valid mortgage assignments

/ Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions

The Nebraska Supreme Court has joined other courts that have held that a bank that holds the mortgage note may foreclose on the property even if there is no evidence of a valid chain of mortgage assignments and some doubt about whether the foreclosing party has the right to foreclose. Marcuzzo v. Bank of the West, 862 N.W.2d 281 (Neb. 2015). The theory is that the holder of the note generally is a person entitled to enforce the note and that, assuming the mortgage note is a negotiable instrument under the Uniform Commercial Code, the holder of the note has the power to enforce it through foreclosure. If the wrong party is foreclosing, the correct party can sue the foreclosing party to recover its money. The homeowner is arguably not harmed because it defaulted on the mortgage and thus lost the right to keep the home. If the only issue is who …

Mortgagor cannot challenge foreclosure because of lack of evidence of valid mortgage assignments Read More »

Third Circuit supports MERS, holds that Pa. law does not require mortgage transfers to be recorded to be valid

/ Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions, Statute of Frauds, Title Issues

Pennsylvania statutes have language that might have been interpreted to require transfers of interests in land (through deeds or mortgages) to be recorded to be valid. If true, that would have undermined the MERS system of mortgage registration. But the Third Circuit gave MERS a win and interpreted Pennsylvania law to recognize mortgage transfers at the moment they are signed; recording is not required for the transfer of the property interest to be valid but is simply for the convenience of the parties and subsequent conveyees. The case, Montgomery Cty. v. MERSCORP, Inc, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13482 (3d Cir. 2015), is another win for MERS among the federal Circuit Courts in a series of cases that challenged its business model. The result of the case, as with other MERS-registered mortgages, is that there is no longer a public record of mortgage transfers since those records appear, if at all, on the …

Third Circuit supports MERS, holds that Pa. law does not require mortgage transfers to be recorded to be valid Read More »

Massachusetts state law prohibits covenants that could last forever

/ Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

Case description here was previously posted but this is an update/correction. Massachusetts statutes limit covenants to 30 years if they contain no time limitation.  Mass Gen. Laws ch. 184, §23. There is an exception for covenants in transfers for public, charitable or religious purposes. Restrictions may be extended beyond thirty years only if, prior to the thirty year time has passed, a majority of the owners agrees to allow extensions for twenty years at a time and the extension is recorded. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 184, §27(b). The statute allows further extensions on the same conditions, i.e, that a majority of the owners votes to extend the restrictions for another 20 years and that they record their agreement before the end of the 30 year period since the last extension. In Berger v. 2 Wyndcliff, LLC, 2015 WL 1775527 (Mass. Land Ct. 2015), the Massachusetts Land Court read these two statutes together to …

Massachusetts state law prohibits covenants that could last forever Read More »

Supreme Courts affirms disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act (with a caveat)

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Consumer Protection, Fair Housing Act, Real Estate Transactions

The United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 2015 WL 2473449, — U.S. — (2015), upholding disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. The case involved a challenge to criteria used by a state agency on where to give tax credits that subsidize construction of low-income housing. Plaintiff is a nonprofit organization that promotes housing for low-income families. It claimed that the agency’s formula steered housing to poorer areas and thus perpetuated or aggravated racial segregation in housing. The specific question taken by the Supreme Court was whether disparate impact claims are at all available under the Fair Housing Act. The Court decided that they are but limited them because of constitutional principles. The Court noted that earlier cases had upheld disparate impact claims in employment discrimination when the statutes focused on consequences of …

Supreme Courts affirms disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act (with a caveat) Read More »

California Supreme Court Upholds San Jose Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Against a Takings Challenge

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Eminent Domain, Real Estate Transactions, Takings, Zoning

The California Supreme Court has upheld the inclusionary zoning ordinance of the City of San Jose against a challenge that it constitutes an illegal exaction and violates the state constitution’s takings clause or the federal constitution’s takings clause. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. City of San Jose, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 3905 (Cal. 2015). The ordinance required all new development projects containing 20 housing units or more to reserve 15 percent for sale at affordable prices to low- or moderate-income families. San Jose Mun. Code, §§ 5.08.010 to 5.08.730. The Court held that the municipal government had the power to enact reasonable land use regulations designed to increase the amount and dispersion of affordable housing and that this ordinance served those ends. Because it regulated land use, it did not constitute an “exaction” or forced donation of land to public use. The Court held that so long as a land use regulation does …

California Supreme Court Upholds San Jose Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Against a Takings Challenge Read More »

Postforeclosure judicial process satisfies due process clause

/ Consumer Protection, Due Process, Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions, Title Issues

The Sixth Circuit has ruled that nonjudicial foreclosure satisfies constitutional due process requirements because the homeowner/borrower was given notice of the foreclosure and notice of who to cure the default or seek a loan modification and how to redeem the property (get it back) after the foreclosure sale during a six-month redemption period. Garcia v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n,  782 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2015). These statutory procedures satisfied the constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of a property right.

Foreclosure complaint can subject law firm & bank to a claim for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

/ Consumer Protection, Mortgages, Real Estate Transactions

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., regulates the processes by which debts are collected. The Third Circuit has agreed with other courts in holding that the filing of a foreclosure complaint can subject both the plaintiff bank and the lawyers filing the complaint to liability under the FDCPA. In the case of Kaymark v. Bank of America, N.A., 783 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2015), the allegation was that the complaint sought payments that were not yet due — a demand that violated the FDCPA. The Court applied the holding of the Supreme Court case of Heinz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) that had established that lawyers are “engage[d] in consumer-debt-collection activity” when they file lawsuits.

District of Columbia prohibits noncompetition clause in sale of grocery store

/ Real Estate Transactions, Restraints on Alienation, Servitudes

The District of Columbia  passed legislation designed to prevent a grocery store owner from selling the property with a covenant that would have prevented the property from being used for grocery store purposes because this would deny residents in the neighborhood easy access to a grocery store. read article  The legislation is similar to the ruling of the New Jersey court in Davidson Bros, Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc., 643 A.2d 642 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994).

Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Claims at Issue

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Fair Housing Act, Real Estate Transactions

The Supreme Court has taken certiorari in a Fifth Circuit case to address the question of whether disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq. Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Comty. Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 46 (2014), on appeal from The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Comty. Affairs, 747 F.3d 275 (5th Cir. 2014). All federal Circuit Courts to address the issue have found such claims to be available and the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs has fairly recently promulgated a regulation defining the test for disparate impact claims under the FHA. 24 Code Fed. Reg. Part 100, §§100.5 to 100.500.

Easement by necessity implied over government land

/ Easements, Real Estate Transactions

A Hawai`i court has recognized an easement by necessity over government land when the landlocked parcel was separated from land belonging to the state. Malulani Group, Ltd. v. Kaupo Ranch, Ltd. 329 P.3d 330 (Haw. 2014). The court held that the intent of the parties determines whether an easement exists over remaining land of the grantor to ensure access to a public road from an otherwise landlocked parcel. The court also held that no statute of limitations bars assertion of an easement by necessity.

Scroll to Top