The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Lender in its judicial foreclosure action, which sought to enforce and relied on a prior federal court adjudication of its right, under the common law doctrine of equitable subrogation, “to stand in the shoes of a prior lender” (“Prior Lender”), whose lien had been paid off by Lender.  The Court rejected challenges to equitable subrogation or enforcement of the lien under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Thus, the Court held that Lender could enforce the prior loan, including interest, by way of foreclosure under the Prior Lender’s deed of trust.

The Supreme Court of Maryland provides a historical and legal overview of the law of burial grounds in the United States to determined that compliance with a state quiet title statute for such sale was not mandatory. The Court held that equitable considerations remain and identified five key common law principles affecting the sale of burial grounds.

The Appellate Court of Maryland determined that an assignee of the Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) was subject to the licensing requirements under Maryland's Credit Grantor Revolving Credit Provisions, Md. Code, Comm. Law § 12-901, et seq.

However, the Court rejected challenges to the enforceability of HELOC as having merged with a prior judgment on the debt, was barred by a statute of limitations, or that Assignee lacked standing because the HELOC was non-negotiable.  According to the Court, a recorded assignment of the HELOC conclusively established ownership in the Assignee.

The Maryland federal district court held that vague "recoverable corporate advances" on mortgage statements may violate the FDCPA. The Court noted that while "debt collectors may not have an affirmative, specific legal duty to itemize, they are nevertheless obligated to avoid practices that would mislead an unsophisticated consumer, which may necessitate proper and sufficient itemization."

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.

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. 

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. 

The Supreme Court of Virginia holds that Virginia law does not permit a court to modify a confessed judgment over the objection of the creditor, absent a trial. 

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a foreign statutory trust, which merely served as a special purpose vehicle to own a mortgage loan, was not required to obtain a collection agency license prior to pursing foreclosure through its substitute trustees.

Supreme Court of Virginia clarifies the jurisdiction and power of the Commissioner of Accounts, explaining that “[a] commissioner’s authority to assist the circuit court with the settlement of estates is simply an extension of the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction to administer estates.”

Recording of Declaration in land records providing for utility assessments does not create a lien, but merely authorizes the creation of lien upon compliance with Maryland Contract Lien Act.

Real Estate Broker subject to discipline for failing to disclose to a Buyer potential well-water contamination in the neighborhood due to a well-known gas leak, and that the Property was subject to periodic well-testing for possible contamination. 

The Supreme Court of Virginia determined that an easement by necessity could be modified as “reasonably necessary” to benefit a landlocked parcel, so long as it did not unreasonably burden the underlying property, i.e., the servient estate.  The Court held that as a matter of law, the trial court had the authority to grant the owner of the landlocked parcel the right to widen the established easement without the servient owner's consent.

D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of negligence and conversion claims by litigation financier’s against attorneys who released the settlement proceeds directly to the client, refusing a demand to honor client’s separate assignment of such proceeds.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that a foreclosure proceeding was subject to state law collection agency requirements, and therefore that a statutory trust that owned a consumer mortgage loan was required to hold a collection agency license prior to proceeding with foreclosure.