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.).
DENVER — A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 15 affirmed the dismissal of a couple’s suit accusing Bank of America Corp. of violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA), finding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that they suffered any damages as a result of the loan servicer’s alleged violations (Albert Fowler, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 16-1346, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22483).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 9 affirmed summary judgment for a loan trustee, holding that a borrower failed to assert a quiet title claim because he did not seek a determination on the validity of his title (Paul Casey Blank v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 18-10054, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22145).
CHICAGO — A company that provides certain services to a mortgage provider is not a debt collector or indirect debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 10, upholding a trial court’s summary judgment ruling for the company, a defendant in a class complaint (Andrew Schlaf, et al. v. Safeguard Property, LLC, No. 17-2811, 7th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22281).
ISLIP, N.Y. — A New York federal magistrate judge on Aug. 8 recommended that a district court should refuse to dismiss a borrower’s claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), holding that his claims were not time-barred and, therefore, a claim for wrongful foreclosure could also proceed (George W. Romaka v. H&R Block Mortgage Corp., No. 17-CV-7411, E.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134793).
PHILADELPHIA — After finding discrepancies in documents relied on by a debt collector about how much borrowers owed on their loan and that the debt collector may have made misrepresentations in a summary judgment motion, a Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 8 allowed certain parts of the borrowers’ claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to proceed, but dismissed a claim under the act sua sponte with leave to amend (James Caddle, et al. v. Manley Deas Klochalski, LLC, No. 17-3687, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133337).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Aug. 6 dismissed a borrower’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR) and other claims with leave to amend, finding that he failed to plead facts showing that a loan servicer and trust did not have the authority to foreclose on the property (Keyhan Mohanna v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-02563, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132053).
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 3 affirmed dismissal of an amended complaint filed by borrowers against lenders and loan servicers in relation to the foreclosure of their property, holding that the complaint lacked specific factual allegations and ordering their attorney to show cause as to why he should not incur additional fees for intentionally delaying the litigation (Karun N. Jackson, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 16-16685, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21517).