Here are some recent decisions regarding the statute of limitations.
Justice Friedman dismissed Ambac’s fraud claim against Countrywide, finding that the suit was time-barred. In particular, she held that Ambac was on inquiry notice of its claims more than two years before it entered into a tolling agreement with Countrywide. Putting to one side whether this holding is right (it seems off to me, given what Ambac had to allege), does this mean that in an action against a trustee, when there has been an event of default, the trustee is on notice of (and thus should investigate) defective loans as a matter of law based on the same sorts of facts, which were the widespread evidence of misconduct in the industry, not trust-specific information other than ratings downgrades?
In Homeward v. Sand Canyon, the SDNY held that the statute of limitations for a putback action to be brought by a Master Servicer on behalf of the trust was based on the statute of limitations of the state where the Master Service was located. This seems very wrong to me. The test is where the injury occurred, and the Master Servicer suffered no injury. It merely was an agent suing on behalf of the trust.