Maryland | Virginia | Washington, D.C.
A boutique law firm handling complex litigation involving real estate, title insurance, mortgage servicing, regulated industries and professions, construction, commercial collections, business and employment matters.
The Appellate Court of Maryland determined that a foreclosure of a reverse mortgage did not extinguish the Lender’s right to insurance proceeds for a casualty loss that had occurred presale, up to the amount of the remaining unpaid balance. In doing so, the Court applied the “loss before foreclosure rule” to the reverse mortgage, notwithstanding the reverse mortgage’s prohibitions against collection of a deficiency judgment.
The filing of a lis pendens is entitled to absolute privilege as to defamation tort claims, explained the Supreme Court of Virginia. Elaborating on the scope of the privilege, the Court expressly declined to extend the doctrine to non-defamation claims. “Absolute privilege does not apply to non-defamation torts in Virginia, specifically including malicious abuse of process, tortious interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy.”
Maryland intermediate appellate court reaffirms that there is no statute of limitations applicable to the foreclosures of mortgages. 2014 Amendments to statute of limitations confirmed that foreclosure proceedings were not subject to the 12-year limitations period, and was part of a statutory scheme to reduce the limitations period for post-foreclosure deficiency proceedings to three years.
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland clarified that the ratification of a foreclosure sale constitutes a final judgment as to the parties’ rights to the property. The Court further clarified that subsequent proceedings including an audit, and challenges to the auditor’s report represent a second judgment, which does not concern the sale or disposition of the property.
Buyer in a real estate transaction who is duped by fraudulent wiring instructions is not owed a duty by the transferee/recipient bank of the wire transfer: No duty to the sender/buyer to properly verify the identity of the person who opened the recipient bank account, nor a duty to take “preventable steps” before permitting the withdrawal of a large amount of funds from the newly opened bank account.
The Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the dismissal of a post-foreclosure-sale challenge by a Borrower who asserted that the Lender failed to provide her reinstatement figures, holding that the Borrower failed to articulate an injury, since she failed to claim that she had the ability to cure the default.