CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on July 22 granted in part a loan servicer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that while a woman could not establish that the defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when offering her a loan modification, she could pursue a claim under Illinois’ Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) (Rosalynn Walker v. Seterus Inc., No. 17 C 7194, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121068).
BOSTON — A putative class action suit against Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (SPS) over phone calls it made to borrowers who were behind on their mortgage payments should stay in federal court, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled July 19, finding that the damages sought by the class exceed $5 million and that jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (Allen Alper, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 19-cv-10436-DJC, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120411).
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 18 affirmed a federal judge in Tennessee’s ruling dismissing a woman’s cause of action accusing her loan servicer of violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), finding that because she is not a borrower, she cannot bring a claim under the statute (Tara L. Keen v. Robert C. Helson, et al., No. 18-6035, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21262).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on July 18 dismissed only a tort of outrage claim from a lawsuit brought by a woman and her son over a loan servicer’s refusal to offer them a home loan modification after they satisfied the terms of a trial period plan (TPP), after finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims for breach of contract and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) (Mary Lou Grande v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., No. C19-333, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120150).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on July 9 refused to dismiss a woman’s lawsuit accusing a law firm of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCA) and Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), after finding that she sufficiently alleged that the firm’s filing of a foreclosure action that was barred by the statute of limitations could have violated both statutes (Karen D. Smith, et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al., No. C19-0538-JCC, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113688).
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge in New Jersey on July 16 denied a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a woman’s lawsuit accusing of it violating Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), finding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the servicer violated the act when responding to two of her loan modification applications (Susan Grembowiec v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 18-16885, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118031).
DENVER — A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 16 upheld the dismissal of a couple’s lawsuit seeking a declaration that the mortgage and promissory note was unenforceable, ruling that a state court foreclosure action filed by the company that was assigned to their loan was timely because it was subject to a six-year statute of limitations (Amy Monroe v. Bank of America N.A., et al., No. 18-5089, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20964).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on July 10 dismissed all claims, including claims for violations of California's Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) and unfair competition law (UCL) against a financial services company in a class action brought by borrowers alleging that the company’s primary operating subsidiary failed to provide them with loan modifications, finding that the company is not indirectly liable for its subsidiary’s actions (Alicia Hernandez, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., No. 18-07354, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114817).
WASHINGTON, D.C.— Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) says in a July 11 filing with the U.S. Supreme Court that it will not file a response brief to a woman’s petition asking the high court to review a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that upheld the dismissal of her Truth in Lending Act (TILA) lawsuit (Kimberly Cox v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-1536, U.S. Sup.).
MIAMI — A federal judge in Florida on June 19 dismissed a man’s lawsuit accusing a loan servicer of violating Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by failing to identify the “master servicer” of his loan, holding that such information does not relate to the servicing of the loan (William Salter v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 19-60304, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103458).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel on June 25 affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a loan servicer and the beneficiary under the deed of trust on the plaintiff’s residence, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) because the undisputed facts show that they cannot be held liable for violating the Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) (Alfred Awani v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al., No. B282732, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 3, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4288).
SAN DIEGO — A California appeals panel on June 18 affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of lenders and/or mortgage servicers in a lawsuit alleging that they wrongfully foreclosed on a property, finding that the defendants did not violate the Homeowners' Bill of Rights (HBOR) because there was no pending completed loan application when the notice of trustee's sale was recorded (Jason Cartaya v. M&T BANK, et al., No. D075105, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4069).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A woman is appealing to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals a June 10 ruling by a federal judge in California awarding summary judgment to a lender she accuses of violating the unfair prong of California’s unfair competition law and denying her request for class certification (Lori Solarski v. Stearns Lending LLC, No. 17-1741, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A borrower seeking review of a federal judge’s ruling allowing a lender to foreclose on a property during bankruptcy proceedings asked the U.S. Supreme Court on July 3 to rehear his petition for review, arguing that the obstruction of justice by the lender’s employees and the trial court’s misapplication of the law warrant a rehearing (Mark Anthony Fornesa, et al. v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co., No. 18-1339, U.S. Sup.).
HOUSTON — A Texas appeals panel on July 9 affirmed Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s summary judgment award in a foreclosure action, holding that the lender proved that it had the right to foreclose on a woman’s home after she defaulted on her home equity loan and that she waived her argument that the lender failed to pursue counterclaims against her ex-husband (Linda Allan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 14-18-00246-CV, Texas App., 14th Dist., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 5686).
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts on July 3 granted motions to dismiss filed by a law firm and a mortgage trustee and loan servicer after finding that a man failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants acted wrongfully when foreclosing on his home (William L. Hutchinson v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 18-12443-LTS, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111090).
CINCINNATI — A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 2 upheld a ruling awarding summary judgment to a lender and loan servicer after holding that a federal judge in Tennessee did not err when finding that a letter from the loan servicer did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and that the plaintiffs failed to offer any newly discovered evidence to warrant amending or altering the decision (Yvette Woody, et al. v. Aurora Commercial Corp., et al., No. 18-5707, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19764).
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal judge in Virginia on June 11 refused to remand a man’s lawsuit against his mortgage lender and a substitute trustee, finding that the substitute trustee was fraudulently joined as a defendant because it had not yet initiated foreclosure proceedings against the plaintiff (Joseph O’Carroll III v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., et al., No. 19-cv-115, E.D. Va., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98437).
OPELIKA, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on June 20 denied a woman’s motion to remand her fraud and breach of contract lawsuit against Bank of America N.A. and Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, finding that she is seeking damages in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold because her home has an appraised value of $88,501 (Lavelle Parmer v. Bank of America N.A., et al., No. 19-CV-265-WKW, M.D. Ala., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102973).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 5 upheld a federal judge in California’s ruling barring an expert from proffering testimony in support of the criminal lender defense, holding that any error in the decision was harmless (United States v. Vera Kuzmenko, et al., Nos. 16-10129, 16-10419, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16938).