We welcomed Nate Baker, CEO and Co-Founder of Qualia, a real estate closing platform, to the podcast. Co-hosts Mike O’Donnell and Bethany Abele explored with Nate how Qualia is transforming the real estate industry by converting manual workflows into intelligent, data-driven systems. Nate shared insights on how the platform makes property transfers both simpler and more secure, including a discussion of Qualia’s latest product, Qualia Clear, which employs artificial intelligence (“AI”) that Nate hopes and believes will revolutionize the real estate closing process.

Next, Bethany interviewed Riker Danzig associate Keshav Agiwal about a case decided in August by the Chancery Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Atlantic County Sheriffs & Joseph O’Donoghue v. State of New Jersey, Docket No. MER-C-94-25 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Aug. 28, 2025). In this case, the court considered whether certain sections of New Jersey’s Community Wealth Preservation Act, specifically N.J.S.A. 2A:50-64(d) and (g), violated the Takings Clause of both the New Jersey Constitution and United States Constitution. Ultimately, the court refused to rule on the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. Section 2A:50-64(d) because none of the cases in the consolidated action implicated the right of first refusal. However, the court found that N.J.S.A. Section 2A:50-64(g) does violate the Takings Clause of both the New Jersey and U.S. Constitutions by depriving property owners of surplus equity and preventing junior lienholders from recovering surplus funds.

Key Takeaways from this episode:

1. AI integration, enhanced digital payment solutions, and strong cybersecurity measures help companies protect their operations.
2. The New Jersey Superior Court held that N.J.S.A. Section 2A:50-64(g), which allows nonprofit community development corporations a right of second refusal in foreclosure actions, was unconstitutional as applied to property owners and junior lienholders in the case at hand, finding that Section (g) violates the Takings Clause of both the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions in light of the impact on a property owner’s right to surplus equity and that it prevents junior lienholders from recovering surplus funds.

Note: Riker Danzig is not endorsing the services of Qualia.

Riker Danzig’s Title Insurance Group also produces a “Banking, Title Insurance and Real Estate Litigation Blog,” available here.

Co-Hosts Mike O’Donnell and Bethany Abele welcomed special guests from Balcony, a blockchain technology company that secures title and real estate data for governmental entities. Daniel Silverman, the Co-CEO, Co-Founder and Chief Visionary Officer, and Alexander McGee, the CRO, Co-Founder and Head of Government Affairs, engaged with Mike and Bethany in a fascinating discussion about how their company, founded in 2021, converts legacy property records into unalterable tokenized documents. They explained how their focus on creating digital registries from deed and property records for local governments creates trust, transparency and efficiency for municipalities and other public agencies.

In the wide-ranging conversation, Dan and Alex explained how securing real estate documents on their blockchain platform protects against fraud, and provides one centralized registry for all residential properties.

Next, Mike interviewed Riker Danzig associate Shelley Wu, who is leaving Riker to serve as a clerk to Judge Lara Eshkenazi of the Eastern District of New York. Shelley discussed Kovachevich v. Nat’l Mortg. Ins. Corp., 140 F.4th 548 (4th Cir. 2025), a case involving the scope of a homebuyer’s right to receive a refund of unearned premiums from private mortgage insurance under the federal Homeowners Protection Act. Shelley explained the specific statutory requirements that came into play in the judge’s opinion, as well as the two-step refund requirements.

Key Takeaways From This Episode:

1. Understanding blockchain’s future in property records .
2. PMI refunds only apply to statutory cancellations.
3. Initial qualification is required for the PMI refund process.
4. State law claims such as unjust enrichment or breach of contract for voluntary PMI cancellations are still viable even when a federal HPA claim is dismissed.

Note: Riker Danzig is not endorsing the services of Balcony.

This episode of Title Nerds featured three of Riker Danzig’s summer associates and one of our title insurance associates, who expounded on principles of law in cases they had researched and reported on.

First up, Co-Host Mike O’Donnell interviewed Noah Wilk of University of Maryland Law School, who discussed Oclar Prop. LLC v. Atl. View Cemetery Assn., Inc., No. A-0834-23, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 746 (App. Div. May 6, 2025), which concerned a deal to purchase property for single family residences in which municipal Planning Board approval was required. The Seller ultimately terminated the contract while awaiting Planning Board approval by the Buyer. The Buyer alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case ultimately was decided by the New Jersey Appellate Division.

Next, Co-Host Bethany Abele engaged Meghna Gohil of Wake Forest Law School in a conversation about Keily v. Iler, Mon-C-8-19, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 621 (App. Div. Apr. 17, 2025), a recent decision from the New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, Chancery Division. The case involved a contentious dispute between members of a limited liability company and, among other things, interpretation of the LLC’s operating agreement and actions taken by two of the LLC members without the knowledge of the third member.

Carla Ko of Seton Hall University School of Law then discussed with Mike the Murray v. Newrez LLC case, 24-cv-6160, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75676 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2025), heard in federal court in New York. This case involved the question of damages for servicing of a mortgage under RESPA without actual, quantifiable harm.

Finally, Riker Danzig associate Matthews Florez joined the podcast to provide insight on Grabowski-Shaikh v. Conn. Atts. Title Ins. Co., 2025 WL 35522 (Vt. Dist. Ct. Jan. 6, 2025), a case out of federal court in Vermont. As discussed with Mike, the case decided a title insurer’s duty to provide coverage to an insured when the insured claimed title to a disputed parcel of property based on adverse possession.

Riker Danzig’s Title Insurance Group also produces a “Banking, Title Insurance and Real Estate Litigation Blog,” available here.