MOBILE, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on Sept. 14 refused to dismiss the Department of Veterans Affairs from a lawsuit accusing it of failing to turn over the surplus proceeds of a foreclosure sale to the personal representative of a borrower, finding that the department was unable to show that it was protected by sovereign immunity (Frank H. Eaton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 20-354, S.D. Ala., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168149).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Insurers and a mortgage lender argue in a Sept. 1 reply brief that a homeowner does not meaningfully address their request for a stay of discovery but rather rehashes arguments over the filed-rate doctrine in their pending motions to dismiss the homeowner's Connecticut federal court lawsuit alleging a kickback scheme over force-placed insurance (FPI) (Robert R. Lewis v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., No. 20-552, D. Conn.).
MOBILE, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on Sept. 14 dismissed without prejudice a man's claim for void foreclosure and causes of action over Wells Fargo Bank N.A.'s alleged collection of surplus proceeds from the sale of a home it deeded to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, finding that while the claims were timely, they should be amended to explain how the bank allegedly worked in concert with the department to keep the surplus (Frank H. Eaton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 20-354, S.D. Ala., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168151).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 11 affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a homeowner's wrongful foreclosure lawsuit against a trustee, finding that the homeowner failed to show that the trustee engaged in an unlawful business practice by violating California's Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) (Gavin Grant v. Clear Recon Corp., No. G057851, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5863).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 11 found that the proper measure of restitution is the time value of fees for the period when the class members paid loan modification fees and when the defendant could lawfully collect the fees, affirming a lower court's ruling in an unfair competition law (UCL) class action (Rene Marentes, et al. v. Impac Funding Corporation, No. G057616, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5865).
TAMPA, Fla. — A woman filed a notice of appeal in federal court in Florida on Sept. 1, stating that she will ask the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to review a ruling dismissing with prejudice her class action accusing her loan servicer of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) when charging her convenience fees when making her monthly mortgage payments over the phone or online (Lisa Bardak v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 19-1111, M.D. Fla.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 4 affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure lawsuit, finding that the plaintiff failed to assert that the foreclosure was caused by the defendants' wrongful actions in violation of California's unfair competition law (Victoria O'Ferral v. SRP 2012-4, LLC, et al., No. E071762, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5786).
TULSA, Okla. — A federal judge in Oklahoma on Sept. 3 dismissed a couple's claim accusing their loan servicer of violating the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) when charging them for inspection fees that were allegedly not allowed under the terms of the mortgage, finding that Oklahoma law applies to the plaintiffs' allegations because the injury and allegedly illegal conduct occurred in Oklahoma (DeWayne Mathews, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corp., No. 20-200, N.D. Okla., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161408).
BALTIMORE — Experian information Solutions LLC and Trans Union LLC on Aug. 19 were dismissed with prejudice from a lawsuit brought by a woman who accused them of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after a federal judge in Maryland found that the woman's dispute stems from a settlement agreement she entered into with her loan servicer and does not implicate the credit reporting agencies' duties under the act (Ruth Wilcox v. Servis One Inc., No. 19-2535, D. Md., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150543).
BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland on Aug. 28 certified a nationwide class for borrowers who claim that Bank of America N.A. (BANA) and a settlement services provider were involved in a kickback scheme that violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) after finding that the lead plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims, that a class action was a superior method to litigate the claims and that the class's common issues predominated over individual issues (Tracie Parker Dobbins v. Bank of America N.A., No. 17-540, D. Md., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156315).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A homeowner argues in an Aug. 26 opposition brief that a Connecticut federal court should reject a stay of discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss allegations of a kickback scheme between insurers and a mortgage lender over force-placed insurance (FPI) for borrowers and, instead, the court should revisit application of the filed-rate doctrine (Robert R. Lewis v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., No. 20-552, D. Conn.).
MOBILE, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on Aug. 26 denied a motion filed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeking dismissal of a man's lawsuit over the foreclosure of his home, the department's subsequent sale of the property for more than it was worth and its refusal to disburse the profit, finding that additional briefing is needed on the waiver of sovereign immunity and that the plaintiff still has time to properly serve the department with a copy of the complaint (Frank H. Eaton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 20-354, S.D. Ala., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154874).
CHICAGO — A Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 26 affirmed a ruling awarding summary judgment to a loan servicer and law firm, holding that a federal judge in Illinois did not err when finding that the law firm is not a debt collector for the purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that she sustained damages as a result of the defendants' alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) (Melcina Blanton v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp., et al., No. 19-2781, 7th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 27209).
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on Aug. 26 ruled that "the unfortunate events besetting" the representatives of a woman's estate seeking to recover insurance proceeds from a fire that damaged their now-deceased mother's home before a foreclosure sale "must continue" because their failure to show identifiable, convertible funds could not support a claim for conversion against the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and because CIT Bank N.A. and its parent company should be awarded summary judgment because the defendants claim no interest in the insurance proceeds (Jeanette Bennett, et al. v. CIT Bank N.A., et al., No. 18-852, N.D. Ala., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155464).
BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland on Aug. 17 remanded a woman's class action lawsuit accusing her loan servicer and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) of violating Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act (MDCA) and Maryland's Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) when charging convenience fees for monthly mortgage payments made online or over the phone after declining to exercise diversity jurisdiction over the plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim and refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims (Marceline White v. NewRez LLC, et al., No. 20-1259, D. Md., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147932).
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — A federal judge in West Virginia on Aug. 7 remanded a man's lawsuit against his loan servicer over its handling of his request for loss mitigation, holding that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement is not satisfied because the value of the loan is not at issue (Eric J. Godfrey v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 19-64, N.D. W.Va., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141431).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on Aug. 7 dismissed with prejudice two causes of action in a man's amended lawsuit against his mortgage lenders, finding that his Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim was untimely and that he failed to state a claim under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) (Trenson L. Byrd v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al., No. 19-651, D. Colo., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141586).
MIAMI — A federal magistrate judge in Florida on Aug. 7 recommended dismissing without prejudice a man's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims from a lawsuit accusing his mortgage loan servicer of charging illegal payment-processing fees because they are insufficiently pleaded and found that he adequately stated a claim under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) (Pedro Garay v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 19-23323, S.D. Fla., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142892).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Aug. 19 dismissed a woman's claims accusing her servicer of violating the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California unfair competition law (UCL) when charging payment processing fees for mortgage payments made over the phone and struck her class allegations after finding that the class requirements in the complaint could not be met (Amye Elbert v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp., No. 20-250, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150341).
FORT WORTH, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Aug. 19 denied a woman's motion to remand her debt collection suit against her mortgage lender and loan trustee, holding that removal of the suit was proper because the loan trustee is a real party to the controversy and that its citizenship determines diversity jurisdiction (Dianne Dorman v. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al., No. 19-592, N.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150263).