DALLAS — A Texas federal judge on Oct. 3 granted a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss claims for damages under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures (RESPA) and fees, holding that a borrower failed to show that the servicer engaged in a pattern or practice in violation of RESPA (German Ruiz v. PennyMac Loan Services LLC, No. No. 3:18-CV-1544, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170460).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on Oct. 1 refused to dismiss a borrower’s causes of action for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practice Act, holding that the FDCPA applied to an allegedly settled debt with her lender (Melinda Rudio v. Credit Control, LLC, No. 16-cv-03003, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169522).
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal judge on Sept. 24 held that a bank failed to submit any arguments that would warrant setting aside a homeowners association foreclosure sale, holding that the sale was not conducted under an unconstitutional statute (U.S. Bank National Association v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC, et al., No. 2:17-CV-1424, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162657).
NEW ORLEANS— A woman’s attempt to revive her lawsuit against the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, was rejected Sept. 4 by a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel that found that she did not sufficiently state a claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) because she did not allege a violation in her initial complaint and because the information in her petition did not put Fannie Mae on notice of a potential claim (Angela B. Putty v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 17-11404, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25076).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 25 upheld a district court’s decision that a bank was not liable to a borrower because it did not hold the loan at the time the action was filed, affirming dismissal of her claims asserted in a bankruptcy adversary case for violation of the Truth in Lending Act and other New York law claims (In re: Washington Mutual Inc., et al. v. Washington Mutual Inc., No. 17-2360, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27330).
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 20 modified a district court’s decision that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) did not apply to mortgage-related entities and a law firm, holding that a borrower’s claims lacked specific allegations but that he should be granted leave to amend (Kevin Richardson v. Shapiro & Brown, LLP, et al., No. 17-2064, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26898).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California appeals court on Sept. 20 affirmed a ruling granting judgment for a lender on claims for alleged wrongful conduct and an order awarding it sanctions, holding that the fourth lawsuit filed by borrowers in relation to their mortgage was meritless (Jose R. Carnero, et al. v. National Default Servicing Corporation, No. H041745, Calif. App., 6th Dist., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6457).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Sept. 18 affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a borrower’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims failed because a modification agreement entered into with the sellers was exempt under usury laws (Jefferson G. Smith v. Mov Hok Tang, et al., No. C076532, Calif. App., 3rd Cir., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6355).
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — A Texas federal judge on Sept. 17 granted motions filed by two lenders to dismiss claims for wrongful foreclosure, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas law, holding that borrowers failed to respond to the motions and did not submit any sufficient factual allegations in support of their claims (Artist Thornton, et al. v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al., No. 2:18-CV-156, S.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157581).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Bank of America N.A. (BANA) on Aug. 15 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it review a decision in which a federal appeals court held that the National Bank Act (NBA) did not preempt California escrow interest law (Bank of America, N.A. v. Donald M. Lusnak, No. 18-212, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A borrower who argues that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on Sept. 10 filed his opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that an appeals court ruling holding otherwise and dismissing his claims against Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and a law firm should be reversed (Dennis Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, U.S. Sup.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal judge on Sept. 11 refused to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent a foreclosure, holding that borrowers failed to give proper notice of the request to lenders and a loan servicer and that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provided no basis for restraint (Roger Havranek, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 18-5734, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154762).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After finding that a borrower failed to allege that a foreclosure proceeding had been commenced or that she had suffered an actual harm, a California federal judge on Sept. 7 dismissed her claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims against lenders and a trustee with leave to amend (Debra Lynn Medford v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 2:17-cv-01783, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153183).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 6 affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s second lawsuit filed to prevent the foreclosure of his property, holding that the case was barred by the dismissal of the first proceeding (Alessandro F. Cervantes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., et al., No. 16-41569, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25350).
MISSOULA, Mont. — After finding no clear error in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant summary judgment for a bank in relation to a borrower’ allegation that a foreclosure sale was void, a Montana federal judge on Aug. 22 adopted the report and ordered that the case be dismissed (William F. Trebas, Jr. v. Guild Mortgage Company, et al., No. 17-113, D. Mont.).
TACOMA, Wash. — After finding that a six-year statute of limitations was not triggered when a borrower received a notice of intent to accelerate a loan, a Washington federal judge on Aug. 28 granted summary judgment for a lender and dismissed a borrower’s quiet title and injunctive relief claims (James P. Creagan Jr. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 17-5138, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146574).
ATLANTA — A panel for the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 23 affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s claims for violation of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and other causes of action, holding that she failed to allege actual and statutory damages or that a law firm improperly tried to collect debt (Beth Ann Van Hoose v. Athens First Bank and Trust, et al., No. 17-12171, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24060).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 23 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of numerous claims asserted by borrowers in relation to the handling of their loan application, holding that the majority of the claims were untimely (Thomas Harry, Jr., et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., Nos. 16-2380, 17-1101, 1st Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23847).
CHICAGO — After finding that a borrower did agree to settle claims related to his mortgage and that he was aware that his loan was held by a trust and trustee, an Illinois federal judge on Aug. 20 granted a motion filed by a loan servicer to enforce the agreement (Terrance S. Chancellor v. Bank of America N.A., et al., No. 14-cv-7712, et al., N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140546).
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 20 granted a bank’s motion to compel discovery to identify each specific loan the city alleges was discriminatory and denied the city’s request for discovery related to mortgages originated by other lenders (City of Philadelphia v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 17-2203, E.D. Pa.).