DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 27 affirmed a trial court’s ruling that a trust’s claims related to a foreclosure were precluded and untimely, affirming the decision in favor of two banks and a loan servicer (John J. Pembroke Living Trust v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 17-1244, 10th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10754).
OAKLAND, Calif. — After finding that a bank may have failed to properly review loan modification applications, a California federal judge on April 25 refused to dismiss borrowers’ claims for wrongful foreclosure and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) (Michael Peterson, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-cv-05137, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70137).
LOS ANGELES — Even though the damages sought by a borrower in relation to a loan modification from lenders and a loan servicer were significantly reduced in an amended complaint, a California federal judge on April 24 said the court had to rely on the amount sought in the original state court pleading, which satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirements for federal jurisdiction (Yakov Litinetsky v. Caliber Homes Inc., et al., No. 18-1586, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69014).
GREENBELT, Md. — After finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over a case filed by borrowers related to a foreclosure, a Maryland federal judge on April 23 dismissed their claims against lenders and a law firm without leave to amend (Kamal Mustafa, et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 17-3516, D. Md., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66672).
ROCKVILLE, Md. — Borrowers on March 22 sued a loan-servicing company and a bank in a Maryland state court, asserting class action claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Maryland law in relation to fees charged by the servicer (Richard Hackett, et al. v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, et al., No. 444494v, Md. Cir., Montgomery Co.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection on April 20 announced that Wells Fargo Bank N.A. has been fined $1 billion in a coordinated action with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeals court on April 16 affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a loan servicer, trustee and successor trustee, finding that borrowers failed to show that a triable issue of fact existed to support a claim that the assignment of their loan was void (Christopher Baker, et al. v. CitiMortgage Inc., et al., No. A148458, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 5, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2546).
DALLAS — After finding that a lender’s abandonment of acceleration of a loan reset the statute of limitations that applies to foreclosures, a Texas federal judge on April 17 found that the foreclosure was not time-barred and granted summary judgment for the lender (James Hargrave, et al. v. PennyMac Corp., No. 3:16-CV-3487, N.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64261).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on April 16 found that rescission and damages claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) asserted by former property owners were barred by applicable statutes of limitations, granting a lender’s motion to dismiss the claims against it (Bevan Walker, et al. v. Flagstar Bancorp Inc., No. 17-CV-4829, E.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63737).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 13 affirmed dismissal of numerous claims asserted by a borrower, including causes of action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), finding that he failed to allege facts to state plausible claims, among other findings (Mitchell Miller v. Bank of America N.A., No. 17-56720, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9340).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia federal judge on April 11 granted a property owner’s request for a preliminary injunction enjoining a foreclosure, finding that the evidence showed that the loan was likely acquired with a fraudulent power of attorney (Konstantin Shvarster v. Evelina Lekser, et al., No. 18-473, D. D.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61277).
LOS ANGELES — After two companies that recorded assignments of a loan failed to respond to a lawsuit in which a bank alleged that the assignments were fraudulent, a California federal judge on April 6 granted a default ruling in favor of the bank and declared the assignments void (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Maria Delordes Robles, a/k/a Maria L. Robles, et al., No. 2:17-cv-08428, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59228).
SEATTLE — Investors have failed to show that online real estate marketplace provider Zillow Group Inc. or certain of its senior officers issued any misrepresentations or omissions concealing the company’s failure to comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) or that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter in making their alleged misstatements, defendants argue in an April 6 motion to dismiss filed in Washington federal court (In re Zillow Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 17-1387, W.D. Wash.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal magistrate judge on April 6 granted a motion to compel a loan servicing company to respond to discovery requests, finding that discovery should continue in the case and that the servicer’s request to stay discovery should be denied (Zarah Kimble, et al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, No. 16cv2519, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59231).
DENVER — Before ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by a bank in relation to a foreclosure-related case, a Colorado federal judge on April 4 granted the bank leave to supplement the record to show how much debt is owed by the borrower (Bank of New York Mellon v. Richard A. Cuevas, et al., No. 17-cv-0653, D. Colo., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57470).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 reversed a decision that awarded a borrower damages for violations by a loan servicer of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), finding that the borrower failed to show that he suffered any actual damages (Steven L. Wirtz v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, No. 16-4069, 8th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8388).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on April 2 dismissed claims for violation of California housing law and unfair competition law (UCL) asserted against a bank and trustee but allowed the borrower to amend her claim for violation against the trustee of a notice provision that provides that written notice must be given to a borrower of a transfer of rights or servicing when the borrower becomes obligated to pay a new entity (So Young Kang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-04309, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56078).
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 30 reversed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of a lender, finding that the lender breached the terms of the mortgage when it failed to notify a borrower of her right to reinstatement and to sue (Nell C. Dysart v. Trustmark National Bank, No. 15-14690, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8158).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Barclays PLC and several of its subsidiaries will pay $2 billion to settle claims with federal prosecutors that the international investment bank violated provisions of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) in its issuance and underwriting of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), according to a settlement agreement reached by the parties and filed in New York federal court on March 29 (United States of America v. Barclays Capital Inc., et al., No. 16-7057, E.D. N.Y.).
HOUSTON — A Texas federal judge on March 28 partially granted a motion filed by lenders for summary judgment on claims related to a property foreclosure but refused to dismiss a borrower’s causes of action related to the chain of title, finding that there were unresolved questions about whether underlying documents were forged and whether a foreclosure was valid (Stanley J. Bryant v. The CIT Group/ Consumer Finance Inc., et al., No. 16-1840, S.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51540).