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).
MISSOULA, Mont. — A Montana federal magistrate judge on July 31 recommended that a court grant summary judgment in favor of a bank related to a borrower’s allegations that a foreclosure sale was void, holding that the bank had the authority to sell the property as the holder of the promissory note and deed of trust (William F. Trebas, Jr. v. Guild Mortgage Company, et. al., No. 17-113, D. Mont., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128044).
LAS VEGAS — After finding that a loan servicer and a law firm have no beneficial interest in a property, a Nevada federal judge on July 31 dismissed a property owner’s claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and other causes of action for failure to state a claim (Richey Garrison Guidi v. Quality Loan Service Corp., et al., No. 2:17-cv-02946, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127800).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Wells Fargo Bank NA will pay $2.09 billion to settle claims by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the financial institution issued false and misleading statements to shareholders about the investment quality of the subprime loans that were packaged in its residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), according to a settlement agreement reached between the parties on Aug. 1.
SEATTLE — After holding that a loan servicer held a note and had the legal authority to appoint a trustee to foreclose on the property, a Washington appeals court on July 30 affirmed a trial court’s ruling dismissing a borrower’s Washington law and other claims against the servicer (Darla J. Pardo v. Northwest Trustee Services, et al., No. 76622-8-I, Wash. App., Div. 1, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 1753).
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 30 affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s claims against numerous lenders, loan servicers and attorneys in relation to his mortgage, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the untimely appeal (Timothy Burns v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al., No. 18-1490, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21133).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 27 held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that a borrower’s claims were barred by judicial estoppel because he failed to amend his bankruptcy schedules to disclose a quit claim deed for his mortgage or a change in his financial status (Mark Anthony Fornesa, et al. v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company, No. 17-20324, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20920).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Borrowers on July 23 sued two loan-servicing companies in a California court in relation to the foreclosure of their property, asserting claims for violation of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights (HBOR) and negligence (Lloyd M. Cotton, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 2018-01007321, Calif. Super, Orange Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on July 23 refused to grant a borrower’s application for a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure of his property, holding that his claims related to the assignment of his loan lacked merit (John B. Freitas v. Clear Recon Corporation, et al., No. 18-03993, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122943).
PHILADELPHIA — The City of Philadelphia on July 20 moved to compel a bank to produce documents and data on correspondent loans, arguing that information is relevant to its disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) (Philadelphia v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 17-2203, E.D. Pa.).
SAN DIEGO — After finding that an issue of fact exists as to whether a notice of right to rescission from a bank under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) was timely, a California federal judge on July 17 refused to dismiss the majority of a borrower’s claims but held that he failed show that the bank was a debt collector pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (Rodney L. Hinrichsen v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 17-cv-0219, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119367).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on July 13 granted a motion filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to intervene in a lawsuit filed by a borrower who alleges that the improper identification of a property short sale as a foreclosure affected his ability to obtain a loan, so that the FHFA can appeal a previous order in which the court refused to dismiss the case and held that the borrower’s requests for statutory damages and injunctive relief were not precluded (James Banneck v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 3:17-cv-04657, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117385).