The disaster created by Hurricane Sandy has caused destruction at mass level by making numerous people homeless. Lots of people hit hard by this disaster are living without any access to water, heat or power. The victims of this hurricane are living in great misery without any way out. The destruction caused by Sandy is not restricted to East Coast, but it also impacted New York City, New Jersey and numerous other coastal areas.

The damage done by Sandy is so massive that it would require millions of dollars to undo it. To help overcome it, the teams can be seen doing inspections and helping people receive food, gas and water for various purposes. As the damage done by Sandy consisted of power outage, structural harm, flooding and more, it would require increased amount of time and money to compensate for it. Many insurance policies of homeowners do not seem to help and these costs resulted from flooding cannot be covered by it. So, special sort of flood claims need to be acquired for a consumer to make us of a policy pertaining to flood caused by Hurricane Sandy. Some of the victims also need to sue the companies in order to get their share in the insurance for damages concerning weather disasters. However, in such a worsening situation, it is difficult for Americans to take services by an experienced lawyer due to bad financial condition.

This situation can be dealt with by getting free legal advice via available online legal services. The good thing about these legal services is their number of famous lawyers who are ever ready to help you in your flood claims. It is hoped that US will be able to help those in need through law regarding this disaster of Sandy to assist the victims.

I have not posted for some time. It has not been for lack of interesting stuff happening in the industry. It is because that stuff has been so widely reported in the mainstream media. I have had little to add that would be of interest or which would make the widely distributed news more useful.

But the Maryland Court of Appeals has reported Anderson v Burson 

( http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2010/434s09.pdf ) on December 22, 2010. This is an opinion worth reading if you are involved in title insurance, foreclosure or bankruptcy work. It clarifies how a lender or servicer may demonstrate its standing to sue for lien priority where the chain of endorsements and assignments is unclear or incomplete.

The case presents a very common fact pattern: The "XYZ Trust" alleges standing to appoint a substitute trustee for purposes of foreclosing a deed of trust naming a prior lender and trustee. The title chain is missing a clear endorsement of the note over to the "XYZ Trust." The borrowers thus moved to enjoin the foreclosure.

The core of this opinion is the Specials' review of the commercial law defining "holders," and the transfer of instruments. In sum, where "XYZ Trust" is not linked into the chain of title by an express endorsement or allonge, it will have standing to sue or appoint substitute trustees if it meets the definition of "a non-holder in possession" as the term presents in the Commercial Code.

For outside counsel, this means some adjustment to our pleading of the issue. It also lessens our burden of proof, since absence of that exact endoresment is no longer fatal to the standing issue. Now, please excuse me as I must amend a few complaints!

The Wall Street Journal reports that the largest title insurers have made an agreement with Bank of America and other large lenders that will allow the lenders to obtain title insurance even when there is a Maryland foreclosure in the chain of title. Fear of "bad affidavits" runs deep within the industry, now.

But those of us who litigate in this area know that other ripples are crossing the pond. In lawsuits over bad settlements (whether brought by buyer, seller, or lender) the settlement officer's standard of care is always made an issue. Because of the many hats worn by a settlement officer (title agent, seller's escrow officer, buyer's escrow officer, etc.) the claim is always made that the settlement company breached its standard of care. Perhaps the settlement company is alleged to have closed over bad documents, affidavits, or it improperly disbursed, missed a lien or encumbrance, ignored closing instructions, or violated title underwriting guidelines (by the way, who would want to be in that business?).

Expect claims of "you should have known" wherever a Maryland foreclosure appears in the title chain. The agreement to insure over this stuff may make title "insurable," but it certainly doesn't mean it will always be deemed "marketable." And that claim will be made against the title agent/settlement company, in addition to the seller. And don't forget the underwriter, ready to pounce for breach of underwriting guidelines, seeking indemnity under that agency agreement!

The standard of care for a reasonable settlement company (and its non-delegable duty to search title and disclose) has been raised because of the recent "bad affidavit" issues created by our friends in the foreclosure bar. With the actual knowledge imparted by the sheer volume of reports in the popular media about the issues, the lender's remedial actions, and the Court's recent emergency rule changes, how can a settlement officer/abstractor ignore reference to a foreclosure action in the title chain? He must review that file! That is what the reasonable settlement agent in Maryland now must do...period.

So, the rules committee starts meeting, today, to discuss adjustments to foreclosure rules relating to affidavits. It appears PG County, alone, is reviewing over 14,000 open cases.

The article suggests a rule whereby the filing of a corrective affidavit would trigger a hearing where the offending lawyer would appear in court to testify to the facts and circumstances of the affidavit. Others could examine and cross-examine the lawyer.

Considering 400+ corrective affidavits by two lawyers, that is a lot of "testifying" by two men!

This wave has been moving toward shore for a long time. For those of us who move in and out of foreclosure cases, as title counsel, as counsel for intervenors, as counsel for homeowners and interested parties, this swell was visible in the distance. I have always wondered how these firms can handle such a high volume of foreclosure cases with so few lawyers. As hard as the lawyers work, far too much appears delegated and automated.

Quality is the paramount issue. A lawyer's signature is, or at least should be, the certification of an item's quality, on top of the usual presumptions about truth and veracity imposed by rule. A pleading, letter, affidavit or any other item bearing counsel's signature must be correct, appropriate, and worthy of framing. Frankly, I paid far to much money to earn the privilege of signing my name to court documents to entrust it to others who may affix it to a deficient writing.

With Bank of America's announced freeze on foreclosures, nationwide, I wonder about the foreclosure mills, and the hundreds of lawyers that fan out throughout the state each day to conduct their sales. And there are the hundreds of processors (they rarely answer the phones, but they are there, trust me) who manage the pre-sale and post-sale processes. What is to become of them? Can they be bailed out?

I'm guessing they will have more time to focus on title, and generating new and more interesting title claims. C'mon folks, I'm waiting!

A New York state court has ordered that a plaintiff give over to the defendant specific authorization to access her Facebook and Myspace accounts. The court has ordered that she disclose both current content, archived content, and deleted content.

The defendant's motion requesting the disclosure was based on deposition testimony that was at odds with the public portions of the plaintiff's Facebook page. She alleged injuries that limited her to staying indoors. But her publicly posted pictures showed her smiling and out-and-about, and not in her home. Imagine that!

I love this decision, as a parent and a lawyer! I've been telling kids I know and coach, for years, that nothing is private, and every disclosure creates impressions and attitudes. At the office, my law clerks and paralegals search all social media for background on every lawyer and witness we deal with in a case. We've caught more than one witness sleeping at the wheel!