CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 13 reversed a district court’s ruling that the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 did not authorize a private right of action for an estate and entering judgment for a loan servicer and property owner, holding that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction and that the case should be remanded (Audrey D. Bantom, et al. v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 18-1245, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32096).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — The U.S. Department of Justice sued UBS AG and certain of its affiliates in New York federal court on Nov. 9, alleging that the defendants misrepresented the investment quality of more than $41 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) it sold to investors (United States v. UBS Securities LLC, et al., No. 18-6369, E.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A borrower on Oct. 17 opposed a bank’s petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in which it seeks review of an appeals court’s ruling that the National Bank Act (NBA) does not preempt California’s escrow interest law, arguing that the issue is unripe for review and that the analysis requested by the bank would be based on a nonexistent factual record (Bank of America, N.A. v. Donald M. Lusnak, No. 18-212, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A law firm on Nov. 7 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm an appeals court’s decision that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not apply to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, arguing that the FDCPA relates to practices that demand debt and is not related to foreclosure activities (Dennis Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, U.S. Sup.).
CHICAGO — After finding that borrowers failed to show that they suffered any actual harm in violation of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and that a claim for violation of Wisconsin law was precluded by a foreclosure ruling, a panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 7 affirmed a summary judgment decision in favor of a bank (Terrence Moore, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 18-1564, 7th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31534).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Nov. 5 dismissed a borrower’s claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), fraud, wrongful foreclosure and other claims related to a property foreclosure, holding that her allegations were conclusory (Shirley Brown v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. 18-3418, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189232).
BOSTON — After holding that a state court foreclosure case involved the same parties and claims as a second lawsuit, a Massachusetts federal judge on Nov. 2 abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the prior-pending-action and Colorado River abstention doctrines (David C. Bradeen, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, et al., No. 18-cv-11753, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188586).
TUCSON, Ariz. — An Arizona federal judge on Oct. 29 granted a bank’s motion to intervene in a discovery dispute related to a purportedly defaulted U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guaranteed loan for the purpose of protecting documents it claimed were privileged, with the judge also agreeing about the documents’ privileged status (Sun Sky Hospitality LLC v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 4:18-cv-00094, D. Ariz., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184742).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A borrower on Oct. 31 sued a loan servicer and others in a California court, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, asserting that they improperly handled her loan modification (Eusebia Santiago v. Cooper, et al., No. 2018-00243508, Calif. Super., Sacramento Co.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After finding that borrowers failed to show that a bank violated California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR), a California federal judge on Oct. 31 dismissed the claims and causes of action for declaratory relief and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), as predicated on the HBOR cause of action (Bruno J. Bicocca v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-cv-01158, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186722).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — After finding that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to the status of a borrower’s loan, a California federal judge on Oct. 30 granted summary judgment on claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims against a loan servicer and lender in relation to a property foreclosure (Rani Yadav-Ranjan v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, No. 17-cv-03939, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186744).
SHERMAN, Texas — A Texas federal judge on Oct. 30 denied a bank’s request to strike allegations against it asserted by a group of relators, holding that the bank failed to show that its alleged conduct before a $25 billion settlement reached with the U.S. government and others did not relate to current allegations for violations of Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) guidelines (Michael J. Fisher, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 4:16-CV-00395, E.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185384).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal on Oct. 25 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a borrower’s claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against lenders for failure to state a claim, warning that it would issue sanctions against him if he files any future frivolous claims (Jerry Mason v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al., No. 17-10941, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30140).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 26 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims, holding that borrowers failed to show that lenders engaged in business acts that were unlawful, unfair or fraudulent or that they submitted evidence to show that the lenders did not sufficiently respond to their qualified written requests (Jim Ross Meskimen, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al., No. 18-55394, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30320).
DETROIT — A Michigan federal judge on Oct. 25 granted a holding company’s emergency motion for retention of a court-appointed receiver, holding that an entity that purchased a property at foreclosure had no authority to file a state court lawsuit in an attempt to extinguish the holding company’s redemption interest in the property (The Sawyers and Lerner Building LLC v. Auto Club Lampost LLC, et al., No. 2:16-cv-11003, E.D. Mich., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183051).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on Oct. 23 granted a bank’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a borrower, holding that claims for breach of contract and other causes of action were barred by a foreclosure judgment (Navin Desai v. Hanmi Bank, No. 18-3621, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181467).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Oct. 19 said that a mortgage company has agreed to pay $13.2 million to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, by falsely stating that it complied with Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance requirements.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A borrower on Oct. 4 sued a loan servicer in a California court, asserting that it violated the California Homeowners Bill of Rights Act (HBOR) and unfair competition law (UCL) when it initiated the foreclosure process while his loan modification application was under review (Dennis Gonzales v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., No. 2018-01022512, Calif. Super., Orange Co.).
TAMPA, Fla. — After finding that a fraud claim asserted by borrowers was an attempt to challenge a foreclosure judgment, a Florida federal judge on Oct. 17 affirmed a decision that their claims against a bank were barred by a previous foreclosure (Abelardo Alonso, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 8:17-cv-2547, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178123).
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A West Virginia federal judge on Oct. 15 allowed parts of claims for violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) asserted by property owners in relation to the servicing of their loan to proceed, including a claim that the servicer continued to contact them to collect payment even though it knew they were represented by counsel (Jeffrey L. Moore, et al. v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp., No. 2:18-cv-01222, S.D. W.Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176730).