The ongoing saga whether a debt collector attempting to reach the debtor by telephone may leave a message has taken a new twist.  The decision in a recent case may be rather harsh, but it at least provides a bright line for debt collectors to follow, at least in the Eastern District of New York.  In Halberstam v. Global Credit and Collection Corp., 2016 WL 154090 (U.S.D.C. E.D.

One of the most important hurdles facing a lender or servicer contemplating filing a claim against a policy for title insurance is whether or not the time frame for filing the claim under the applicable statute of limitations has expired.  South Carolina Code section 15-3-530(1) provides for a three-year statute of limitations for actions based upon a contract. As such, the general consensus in South Carolina has been that this three-year time frame is the applicable statute of limitations for claims on policies of title insurance.

Lenders Do Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in South Carolina by Preparing and Mailing Loan Modifications to Borrowers Without the Participation of a Licensed Attorney.

The increase in foreclosures after the 2008 financial crisis led to an increased response from lenders to assist borrowers. The most common form of aid provided to borrowers since that time has been the use of a loan modification. A large number of loan modifications have been entered into between lenders and borrowers in states across the county and South Carolina is no different.

Borrowers Face Twin Hurdles Challenging Post-Foreclosure Property Preservation Activities:  Security Instruments Permit Entry and Noteholder Not Vicariously Liable for Contractors’ Actions