PHILADELPHIA — A Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Feb. 26 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of borrowers’ claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, holding that they failed to show any injury in violation of RICO because monthly payments they made and sums paid to bring their loan current were consistent with the terms of their mortgage agreement (Chita Aliperio, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 17-2393, 3rd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5738).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Feb. 27 granted a lender’s motion to certify a question related to whether borrowers’ claims for violations of California law are preempted by the Home Owners Loan Act (HOLA) to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, holding that the question presents a novel and undecided legal issue (McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 18-01873, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207262).
LAKELAND, Fla. —A divided Florida appeals panel on rehearing on Feb. 27 reversed a foreclosure judgment and clarified the scope of remand in residential mortgage foreclosure appeals, holding that a court has the discretion to further adjudicate cases that warrant additional review but that the well-established law prohibiting multiple attempts at trial should serve as the default standard when determining the scope of remand, but opted to certify a question on the issue to the Florida Supreme Court (Marlyn Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2D16-5091, Fla. App., 2nd Dist., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 3018).
PASADENA, Calif. — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 25 partially reversed a summary judgment ruling for a bank on a borrower’s claim for breach of contract related to his application for a loan modification, holding that the bank failed to submit any evidence to show that the borrower’s application was not complete (Jeffrey A. Dickerson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 18-15261, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5483).
LOS ANGELES — After finding that a borrower would likely succeed on the merits of his claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against a loan servicer, a California federal judge on Feb. 25 ordered the servicer to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be entered enjoining it from foreclosing on the borrower’s property (Garrett Anderson v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., No. 2:18-cv-08352, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29707).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 25 denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a borrower who challenged an appeals court’s decision that affirmed dismissal of his claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against a bank (John M. Barone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a.k.a., et al., No. 18-783, U.S. Sup.).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on Feb. 19 adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that a borrower’s sixth lawsuit related to the foreclosure of his property should be dismissed based on res judicata, dismissing the case and ordering that he be sanctioned by having to obtain leave from the court before filing any additional lawsuits related to the property (Brent Mohlman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 18-11085, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25937).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Feb. 15 affirmed a trial court’s grant of demurrer on claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), wrongful foreclosure and other causes of action asserted by a borrower against a bank, holding that he failed to show that the bank was not the beneficiary of the deed on his former property (Jim Malone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. E067966, Calif. App., 4th Cir., Div. 2, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1135).
OMAHA, Neb. — A Nebraska federal judge on Feb. 15 granted a bank’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claims against it as barred by res judicata and denied her request for a temporary restraining order, holding that the borrower failed to show that she would suffer any immediate harm that would entitle her to immediate relief (Lisa A. Rabbe v. Wells Fargo, et al., No. 8:18CV561, D. Neb., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25019).
GALVESTON, Texas — A Texas federal judge on Feb. 12 granted summary judgment for a loan servicer, holding that it met all of the prerequisites for foreclosing on a property (Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Su Thana Nguyen, et al., No. 3:15-cv-00010, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22666).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Feb. 11 granted a motion filed by various mortgage entities to dismiss a borrower’s claim for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that his claim for rescission under TILA was barred by a statute of limitations and that his alternative argument that the loan was never actually consummated failed (Marvin R. Wennekamp v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, et al., No. 1:18-cv-01374, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21963).
PHILADELPHIA — A panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 6 affirmed a trial court’s decision that a 20-year statute of limitations applied to a bank’s foreclosure and that a borrower failed to show that the bank owed him any duty that went beyond the terms of their mortgage agreement (In Re: James Hartman, No. 17-2162, 3rd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3745).
ST. LOUIS — A panel of the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 7 partially reversed a summary judgment ruling on claims asserted by a borrower against a bank, holding that the bank failed to show that the statute of frauds barred claims related to an interest reduction payment plan offered in the borrower’s mortgage agreement (John Calon v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 17-3263, 8th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3778).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on Feb. 5 allowed the majority of a widow’s cross-claims to proceed against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), finding that she alleged an injury in fact and had standing to assert various challenges to a reverse mortgage insured by HUD (Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. United States of America-Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al., No. 18-2149, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18097).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on Feb. 4 granted a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s complaint, holding that she failed to comply with the notice and cure provision in her mortgage contract before filing her lawsuit (Patricia Rodriguez v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, No. 18-cv-1015, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17202).
CINCINNATI — After holding that a bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest to a lawsuit in which a borrower asserted that a bank engaged in discriminatory lending practices, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 1 dismissed his appeal of an order dismissing the case for lack of standing (Jesse Strickland v. Mercantile Bank Mortgage Company, LLC, No. 16-2653, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Missouri federal judge on Feb. 1 dismissed a borrower’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and violation of Missouri law against a mortgage company and ordered that she must seek leave from the court before filing any more frivolous cases (Gwendolyn Gill Caranchini v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00775, W.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16048).
NEW YORK — A panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 31 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a borrower who was attempting to enjoin the foreclosure of his property, holding that he had abandoned any of his challenges to the underlying decision (Linval Cooke v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 17-2558, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3131).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California appeals court panel on Jan. 29 reversed a trial court’s dismissal of claims for negligence and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), holding that borrowers’ allegations that a bank unreasonably delayed and subjected them to a fraudulent loan modification process are sufficient to support the claims (Flag Billings, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. C084369, Cal. App., 3rd Dist., 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 684).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on Jan. 17 refused to reconsider a decision that vacated a jury’s award of damages for property owners and a holding that certain owners waived their claims by entering into a loan modification agreement, finding that enforcement of the waiver would be against public policy (Jean Robert Saint-Jean, et al. v. Emigrant Mortgage Company, et al., No. 11-CV-2122, E.D. N.Y.).