PHILADELPHIA — Noting that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) has the authority to remove a case in which it is named as a party to federal court, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 15 found that a district court had jurisdiction over a borrower’s claims against lenders and affirmed the dismissal of the case (Kenneth J. Taggart v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Nos. 17-1836 & 17-2416, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12558).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A borrower who alleged that a bank violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws when it refused to accept his untimely mortgage payment as part of a trial period plan on May 16 filed a notice of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals of a judge’s decision granting summary judgment for the bank (Paul Schrupp v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:16-636, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82835).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on May 14 found no facts to support causes of action asserted by a first-time homebuyer who alleged that Wells Fargo & Co. violated the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) when it improperly charged borrowers mortgage interest rate-lock fees, dismissing his claims with partial leave to amend (Victor Muniz v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 3:17-cv-04995, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81040).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 8 affirmed a district court’s decision in favor of a loan servicer, finding that a borrower’s claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) were untimely (Ariel Barel v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, a/k/a Ditech Financial, LLC, et al., No. 17-2817, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 11991).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal magistrate judge on May 7 entered a final order dismissing a borrower’s claims against a bank and a trustee after she failed to file a timely complaint asserting an amended cause of action for violation of California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) (So Young Kang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-04309, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56078).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on May 7 denied an application filed by a borrower who asserts causes of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the homeowner bill of rights for a temporary restraining order preventing a foreclosure, finding that he failed to allege that the loan servicer and trust lacked the legal authority to foreclose (Keyhan Mohanna v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-02563, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76992).
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal judge on May 7 found that a homeowners association’s notice of its intent to foreclose to the interested parties was sufficient to cure a constitutional defect in Nevada housing law and that a bank’s interest in the property was extinguished (U.S. Bank National Association v. Braewood Heritage Association, et al., No. 2:16-CV-1727, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76396).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California federal judge on May 3 granted a motion filed by two lenders to dismiss claims for violation of California housing law and unfair competition law (UCL), finding that a borrower failed to request an alternative to foreclosure and to allege that a notice of sale was recorded (Terrence Taylor v. CitiMortgage Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01231, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75231).
CHICAGO — After finding that borrowers sufficiently pleaded that they were allegedly misled into believing they were eligible for a deed in lieu of foreclosure, an Illinois federal judge on May 1 denied a request by lenders to dismiss their claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act (FDCPA) (Cedric Ivey, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al., No. 17-cv-2986, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73475).
PHILADELPHIA — The city of Philadelphia and a bank on May 1 jointly moved a Pennsylvania federal court for entry of a confidentiality order in relation to discovery in a lawsuit in which the city alleges that the bank engaged in discriminatory lending practices in minority communities (Philadelphia v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 17-2203, E.D. Pa.).
WARREN, Ohio — After finding that a loan servicer held a note and mortgage at the time it commenced foreclosure proceedings against former property owners, an Ohio appeals court on April 30 affirmed a summary judgment ruling and foreclosure decree entered in favor of the servicer (GMAC Mortgage LLC, ex rel. v. Richard M. Giuliano, et al., No. 2011-T-0086, Ohio App., 11th Dist., Trumbull Co., 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1810).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — After finding that a borrower could plausibly allege that a bank’s violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) caused her severe emotional distress, an Ohio federal judge on April 23 denied the bank’s motion to dismiss and granted her leave to file an amended complaint (Christine Marais v. Reimer Law Co., et al., No. 2:17-cv-922, S.D. Ohio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67908).
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).