COLUMBIA, Tenn. — A federal judge in Tennessee on March 7 ruled that a mortgage lender and loan servicer are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings regarding claims for breach of contract and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) brought by borrowers who alleged that the defendants failed to make a decision on their loan modification application within the statutorily required timeframe before foreclosing on their home because a “factual determination” is required to determine the actual date their application was completed.
NEW YORK — A federal district court did not err in denying a mortgage loan servicer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a class action lawsuit brought by borrowers who alleged that the loan servicer violated New York’s mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes when it waited nearly a year to record the satisfaction of mortgage documents with the county clerk’s office as required because the borrowers had the necessary standing to bring their claims, a divided Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled May 10 in affirming and remanding.
TAMPA, Fla. — After twice finding that borrowers failed to sufficiently allege that they suffered any damages as a result of their loan modification provider’s actions as required to state a valid claim for violations for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), a federal judge in Florida on May 6 ruled that the borrowers have now properly pleaded their RESPA damages requirement in their second amended complaint.
PRESCOTT, Ariz. — A federal judge in Arizona on May 3 granted a mortgage loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claims stemming from the loan servicer’s alleged placement of the borrower’s mortgage loan into an “undisclosed forbearance” pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) in violation of state and common law, ruling that the borrower failed to sufficiently state a claim for relief.
HARTFORD, Conn. — A Connecticut trial court properly considered the reasoning of the state Supreme Court in its holding in U.S. Bank National Association v. Blowers when it granted summary judgment in favor of a mortgage loan servicer in a strict foreclosure action, a Connecticut appeals panel ruled May 4 in affirming.
ATLANTA — A federal district court err in determining that a borrower’s claims that credit reporting agency (CRA) Experian Information Solutions Inc. violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to undertake all reasonable procedures in investigating the accuracy of the borrower’s claim that his former mortgage debt was improperly appearing on his credit report and to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the borrower’s dispute, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 28 in partially reversing the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the CRA.
PHILADELPHIA — A federal district court did not clearly err in determining the guidelines loss attributable to a man charged with orchestrating a nearly $2 million mortgage loan fraud scheme, a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 28, rejecting each of the man’s arguments to the contrary.
PHOENIX — An originator and provider of residential mortgage loans acted with negligence in failing to properly secure the personal identifying information (PII) of its customers, which allowed an unknown third party to electronically access the PII, exposing the customers to damages and the risk of identity theft and cybercrimes, a borrower alleges in a class action complaint filed April 26 in Arizona federal court.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 26 declined review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling that Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) and M&T Bank had standing to bring a quiet title action against a company that purchased property in a foreclosure sale because Freddie Mac was standing in the shoes of its conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
BALTIMORE — Two Maryland counties on April 2 asked a federal judge in Maryland to reject a motion filed by Wells Fargo & Co. and two of its related entities to amend his ruling substantially denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss to allow them to certify for immediate appeal the question of whether the counties sufficiently alleged a direct relationship between their alleged injuries stemming from the defendants’ alleged discriminatory lending practices as required to meet the proximate cause requirement of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 20 ruled that it will rehear an appeal in a Federal Housing Act (FHA) lawsuit brought by the city of Oakland, Calif., against Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank over the lenders’ alleged discriminatory lending practices.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A Florida trial court did not err in ruling that a borrower’s cited portions of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs regulations in his answer to a lender’s complaint seeking foreclosure on real property did not create a conditions precedent to foreclosure because the borrower failed to meet his burden of showing that the VA regulations created such conditions precedent, a Florida appellate panel ruled April 16 in affirming in part, reversing in part and remanding.
FRANKFORT, Ky. — A state trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a promissory note holder in a foreclosure action because although the note holder was not in possession of a lost promissory note, it was still entitled to enforce the note under Kentucky law, a Kentucky Court of Appeals panel ruled April 16 in affirming.
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts on April 14 granted summary judgment in favor of a mortgage lender and loan servicer on claims that they breached the terms of a bankruptcy reorganization plan and violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and state law, ruling that no genuine questions of material fact exist because the plaintiff was not named as a borrower in the mortgage.
PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon on April 12 declined to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuit, ruling that defendants failed meet their burden of showing that no questions of fact remains as to whether they held a mortgage note when they initiated foreclosure proceedings on a borrower’s home after defaulting on the note.
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal judge in Virginia on April 12 denied a loan servicer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a lawsuit alleging that a loan servicer and three credit reporting agencies (CRAs) violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to investigate a borrower’s dispute showing a negative report on his credit report, ruling that although the borrower’s allegations in support of his claims are scant, they are sufficient to survive dismissal at this stage of the litigation.
HOUSTON — A federal judge in Texas on March 26 ruled that a mortgage loan servicer and its assignee are entitled to summary judgment on a borrower’s claims seeking to bar foreclosure on her property after she defaulted on her mortgage loan because the foreclosure is not barred by the statute of limitations.
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on April 9 issued an order dismissing a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) rescission lawsuit brought by borrowers against their lenders and others after the parties notified the judge that they had reached the terms of a settlement agreement.
ST. LOUIS — An Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 9 affirmed a federal district court’s dismissal of a borrower’s lawsuit against his mortgage lender that sought to halt a foreclosure sale on the borrower’s property, ruling that the lower court had jurisdiction over the lawsuit after it dissolved a temporary restraining order (TRO) the borrower sought to halt the foreclosure sale.
NEW YORK — A federal district court did not err in dismissing a borrower’s claims for fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against his mortgage loan servicer and others because the borrower waived or failed to sufficiently plead the elements of those claims, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled April 9 in affirming.