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.
To schedule a consultation, please call:
Md. holds that even a “passive” owner of a consumer debt may be required to hold a collection agency license, but a judgment in favor of an unlicensed collection agency is not void based merely on lack of licensure. However, aggrieved consumers could proceed with a private cause of action against the unlicensed collection agency.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that “those who engage in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are not debt collectors within the meaning of the [FDCPA],” save for § 1692f(6), which prohibits certain conduct in “effect[ing] dispossession or disablement of property.” On the other hand, the bulk of the FDPCA’s prohibitions, including § 1692g(b)’s verification requirement, did not apply to such foreclosure firm.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland determined that, after a foreclosure sale, commercial real estate brokers could not enforce a covenant to pay renewal leasing commissions against the new owner, because the right to renewal commissions were personal obligations of the Original Owner/Landlord, which did not run with the land.
Supreme Court of Virginia holds that Borrower stated a claim against foreclosure trustee for breach of duty of impartiality , where property was sold at a grossly inadequate price, at a disproportionate expense to the Borrower, given that the lender’s loan was paid in full.
The Supreme Court of Virginia held that a deed’s legal description referring to a boundary road, includes title to the center line of the road, unless a contrary intent is shown. A description of the square footage of the property that excluded the area of the road did not show a contrary intent, because square footage is the least certain mode of describing land, which must yield to a description by boundaries and distances.
D.C. Court of Appeals holds that under pre-2017 law, a condominium association could not foreclose its lien subject to a first-position deed of trust, where part of the lien enjoyed super-priority, and the remainder being inferior to the deed of trust.