On March 27, 2019, in a case handled by PIB, New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed a trial court decision denying the defendant’s eleventh-hour motion to vacate a sheriff’s sale and restrain delivery of the deed to a third-party purchaser predicated on a novel – but incorrect – theory that a reinstatement quote constituted a binding contract. The decision is significant because, had Defendant’s argument been successful, it could have created the threat of potential litigation based solely upon routine communications between servicers and borrowers.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Rotkiske v. Klemm, 890 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2018), in which the Third Circuit ruled, unanimously en banc, that the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act’s (“FDCPA”) one-year statute of limitations is not subject to an enlargement of time based on the “discovery rule,” but runs from the date of the occurrence. The Third Circuit’s decision is in contrast with the findings of the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, which have determined that the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of the violation’s discovery.
On January 24, 2019, in U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, on behalf of the Holders of the Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series RFC 2007-HE1 v. Eric Hayden and Miesha Hardison-Hayden (Docket No. A-1610-17T4), New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision that granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and struck Defendants’ answer and also affirmed two other trial court orders.