SEATTLE — A couple can pursue their quiet title claim against a mortgage lender, a federal judge in Washington ruled Sept. 26 in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the lender took no action against the couple for their failure to make monthly installment payments on a home equity line of credit loan (HELOC loan) within six years after their bankruptcy was discharged (Rhett E. Taylor, et al. v. PNC Bank N.A., No. C19-1142-JC, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165678).
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 23 upheld a man’s conviction and 150-month sentence for his role in a scheme that involved lying on loan applications by falsely inflating the price of a property and then selling the properties to other financial institutions, holding that the evidence presented at trial supported the jury’s finding and that he received effective assistance of counsel (United States v. Aaron Wider, No. 17-997, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28605).
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on Sept. 25 remanded a foreclosure action brought by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. after finding that the fact that the defendant’s loan was provided by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) does not raise federal question jurisdiction (Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Gregory R. Wilson, No. 19-cv-1877-T-02AAS, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163821).
SPARTANBURG, S.C. — A federal judge in South Carolina on Sept. 26 ruled that a jury should determine whether a mortgage lender breached its fiduciary duty by failing to guide a couple through the process of closing on a loan and whether they sustained damages as a result but that the plaintiffs did not have enough evidence to support their claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) (Kevin Cantrell, et al. v. New Penn Financial LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-01078-DCC, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164999).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 19 upheld a federal judge in Georgia’s decision to not impose Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against a man’s loan originator, finding that its removal of lawsuit challenging its assignment of the loan to Wells Fargo after the plaintiff moved to vacate a default judgment was not frivolous (Pedro J. Burgos v. Option One Mortgage Corp., No. 19-10932, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28338).
WORCESTER, Mass. — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Sept. 24 dismissed a man’s lawsuit seeking rescission from a National Housing Act (NHA) loan from a mortgage lender after the property he purchased was condemned, holding that the loan was not entered into as a result of mutual mistake and that man failed to adequately allege that the lender improperly influenced the appraiser (Samuel Ahsan v. HomeBridge Financial Services Inc., No. 18-cv-40213, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162791).
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Sept. 11 denied Guild Mortgage Co.’s motion to dismiss the government’s first amended intervenor complaint filed in support of a former employee’s False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit accusing the lender of falsely certifying that loans were qualified for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance, ruling that the government’s allegations were sufficient and not time-barred (United States ex rel. Kevin G. Dougherty v. Guild Mortgage Co., No. 16cv2909, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155233).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Sept. 13 dismissed with prejudice a couple’s lawsuit accusing their lender and loan servicer of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Unfair Competition Law (UTPCPL), ruling that their allegations attack the findings against them in a previous state court foreclosure action (Mike Meyers, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, et al., No. 19-cv-596, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156585).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Sept. 18 denied a couple’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin a foreclosure sale on their home that was filed three days before the scheduled sale, finding that there is no evidence showing that they were not given proper notice of the date of the sale (Joseph Cunningham Jr., et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 19-cv-01096-TLN-DB, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160055).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 17 affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of mortgage lenders and their officers in the borrowers’ lawsuit alleging that the defendants conducted a deceptive marketing campaign to promote “teaser” interest rates for residential loans for unsophisticated borrowers and charged unreasonable fees in connection with the loans (Salma Merritt, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al., No. H041560, Calif. App., 6th Dist., 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6204).
SHERMAN, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Sept. 9 denied JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s motion for summary judgment in a False Claims Act (FCA) suit accusing the lender of submitting false information about loan modifications it provided to borrowers under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), holding that the relators are original sources of information and that their allegations are not based solely on public information (United States, ex rel. Michael J. Fisher, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 16-CV-00395, E.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152655).
ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in Missouri on Sept. 6 denied in part a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a man’s class action suit accusing it of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), ruling that he had standing to bring his action because he sufficiently alleged that he suffered anxiety as a result of a default letter that stated that the maturity date on his mortgage would be accelerated if he did not fully pay the amount he was behind on the loan by a certain date (Michael Spehr, et al. v. Seterus Inc., No. 18CV1922, E.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152021).
GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland on Sept. 9 granted in part a motion to certify a nationwide and statewide class for borrowers claiming that Nationstar Mortgage LLC violated Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when failing to acknowledge receipt of a borrower’s loan modification application within five days and limited the claims brought by the class based on his ruling on the loan servicer’s motion for summary judgment (Demetrius Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 14-cv-3667, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153526).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 10 reversed a lower court’s order that sustained a demurrer without leave to amend a borrower’s claim alleging violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) but affirmed the court’s order sustaining the demurrer as to the unfair competition law (UCL) claim and seven other causes of action (Ronell D. Elwin v. Bank Of America, N.A. et al., No. H044007, Calif. App., 6th Dist., 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6031).
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on Sept. 4 denied the majority of Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC’s motion for summary judgment in a couple’s suit accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), finding only in favor of the loan servicer on its argument that its system for making calls to borrowers is not an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the TCPA (Bonnie Brown, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 18-cv-136-T-60AEP, M.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151236).
SAN DIEGO — A majority of a California appeals panel on Sept. 5 found that a lower court properly sustained without leave to amend a mortgage servicer and loan beneficiary’s demurrer to a plaintiff’s third amended complaint alleging that the defendants conducted a "massive scheme" of wrongful and fraudulent business practices in connection with foreclosure proceedings on a residential property (Angelica Perales v. Select Portfolio Servicing, N.A., et al., No. D075087, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 59190).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal magistrate judge in California on Aug. 30 dismissed without leave to amend borrowers’ third amended complaint alleging that Wells Fargo Bank violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), California's unfair competition law (UCL) and California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), finding that the borrower has failed to cure the second amended complaint's deficiencies (Ronnie L. Townsend, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 18-07382, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148821).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Aug. 27 denied a loan servicer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on a couple’s claim for negligent misrepresentation, finding that the couple sufficiently alleged that they were confused by statements made by the servicer debt validation notices about who held their loan (Larry Pifer, et al. v. Bank of America N.A., et al., No. 18-CV-606-RSL, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145730).
RICHMOND, Va. — The Virginia Supreme Court on Aug. 22 overturned a trial court judge’s decision dismissing a woman’s lawsuit against the servicer of her mortgage loan, a substitute trustee and a man who bought her home during a foreclosure sale based on the doctrine of res judicata, holding that an earlier lawsuit she filed against a law firm that handled the foreclosure did not involve the same issues (Gloria B. Lane v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, et al., No. 180979, Va. Sup., 2019 Va. 94).
TACOMA, Wash. — A federal judge in Washington on Aug. 16 dismissed an estate’s claim that a credit union violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when allegedly reneging on a loan modification agreement offered by a sub-servicer to a mortgage loan, holding that the estate did not sufficiently show how the violations caused it to suffer damages (Estate of Carrie Andrea Coineandubh v. Boeing Employees Credit Union, No. 19-cv-05527-RBL, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139154).