MIAMI — A federal judge in Florida on Oct. 19 awarded summary judgment to a loan servicer, holding that it did not violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when denying a man’s loan modification because he did not make full payments under the trial payment plan (Robert A. Feinschreiber v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, NO. 18-cv-22381-JLK, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179245).
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on Nov. 4 granted in part Wells Fargo Bank N.A.’s motion for summary judgment in a couple’s lawsuit accusing it of violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), finding that communications the lender had with the plaintiffs in 2013 about a loan modification application did not violate the statute because the borrowers were still in default on their mortgage loan (Walter H. Hackett III, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 17-CV-07354, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193296).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 4 refused to take up a couple’s request to review a ruling that awarded summary judgment to their mortgage lender and loan servicer on the ground that their request for rescission was “patently frivolous” (Andrez Madura, et al. v. Bank of America N.A., et al., No. 19-346, U.S. Sup.).
RENO, Nev. — A federal judge in Nevada on Nov. 5 remanded a man’s lawsuit against his mortgage loan servicer and others after finding that the defendants’ removal of the suit was untimely because the initial complaint established that the value of his home, which exceeds $75,000, is the amount in controversy (Joel Beck v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., No. 19-cv-00545-MMD-WGC, D. Nev., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193561).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 24 affirmed a ruling dismissing a man’s lawsuit accusing his lender of violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), agreeing with a federal judge in California that the plaintiff’s request for rescission under the act was untimely and that any amendment to the complaint to contend that equitable tolling was applicable would be futile (Peter Zeppeiro v. Ditech Financial LLC, et al., No. 18-56241, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31851).
LOS ANGELES — Reverse mortgage lender American Advisors Group (AAG) “is scamming the nation’s senior citizens and their heirs out of millions of dollars” by conducting and charging for numerous property inspections and force-placing property insurance on properties that are insured, the co-executors of a woman’s estate claim in a putative class action filed Nov. 4 in California federal court (Nancy Palombi, et al. v. American Advisors Group, et al., No.19-cv-2120, C.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 29 reversed a federal judge in Florida’s ruling denying certification of a proposed class that claims that a loan servicer violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), holding that the matter of whether the class members’ claims are preempted under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code is common to all class members (Randolph Sellers, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, No. 18-11420, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32395).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Oct. 25 denied as premature a man’s motion to compel communications between a loan servicer and an appraiser that occurred after he defaulted on his mortgage, finding that the loan servicer said it was still looking for the requested records (Guirguis El-Shawary v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. C18-1456-JCC, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185381).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30 said it will consider a woman’s request to rehear arguments regarding her petition for a writ of certiorari in a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) suit at its Nov. 15 conference (Kimberly Cox v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-1536, U.S. Sup.).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — A federal judge in Alabama on Oct. 11 denied a motion to stay an order remanding a couple’s wrongful foreclosure suit against two loan servicers, finding that he lacked power over the case after the loan servicers filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Lisa Bowman, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-00831, N.D. Ala.).
SEATTLE — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 28 denied a man’s petition for rehearing of an earlier decision in which it found that the plaintiff could not rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) because it was a residential mortgage transaction that was not subject to rescission (Timothy Barnes v. Chase Home Finance LLC, et al., No. 18-35616, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32295).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Oct. 15 dismissed with prejudice a man’s claims brought under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) against JP Morgan Chase Bank and a loan servicing company, holding that the plaintiff is not a successor-in-interest under the statute because he acquired the property after his uncle died (Robert Branzuela v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et al., No. 19-cv-02498-VC, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179277).
SPOKANE, Wash. — A federal judge in Washington on Oct. 18 denied Wells Fargo N.A.’s motion to strike a couple’s class action allegations for a proposed class of Washington consumers who were wrongfully denied a loan modification as a result of a glitch in the lender’s software, finding that the bank’s request was premature at this stage of the litigation (Monty Coordes, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 19-cv-0052-TOR, E.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180919).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Oct. 7 dismissed a woman’s class action lawsuit accusing Wells Fargo N.A. of violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when attempting to purchase her home through a short sale after finding that the allegations in the suit did not sufficiently allege how the loan servicer violated the statute (Faigie Ehrenfeld v. Wells Fargo N.A., No. 19-cv-2314, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174000).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 8 voted 2-1 in favor of denying a couple’s request for rehearing of their argument that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is a credit reporting agency that is subject to liability under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after issuing a ruling in January that reversed a federal judge in Arizona’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs (Richard Zabriskie, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Nos. 17-15807, 17-16000, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30147).
RICHMOND, Va. — Freedom Mortgage Corp. on Oct. 10 told the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a ruling dismissing a borrower’s lawsuit accusing it of violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for failing to pay his property tax should be affirmed because his previous loan servicer was still required to make the necessary payment at the time it was due (Rodney Harrell, et al. v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 19-1379, 4th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7 denied a woman’s petition for review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed dismissal of her Truth in Lending Act (TILA) lawsuit seeking rescission of her mortgage loan (Kimberly Cox v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-1536, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 7 denied a man’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ panel’s ruling affirming summary judgment in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) and others in a suit they brought to vacate a state court default judgment entered in his favor on a quiet title claim (Timothy Johnston v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., No. 18-1532, U.S. Sup.).
ATLANTA — A woman’s third lawsuit against her mortgage lenders and loan servicers over the reassignment of the loan was barred by collateral estoppel, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Sept. 30 in affirming a federal judge in Georgia’s ruling adopting a recommendation to dismiss the suit, finding that the dispute was addressed in the woman’s first lawsuit (Kimelyn A. Minnifield v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., et al., No. 18-13662, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 29373).
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 24 upheld the dismissal of a woman’s lawsuit accusing her mortgage lender of violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) when providing her with an adjustable-rate loan in 2006, finding that she knew when the lender made allegedly misleading statements during the four-year statute of limitations (Kathleen Angel Eisenberg v. Citibank N.A., No. 17-56233, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28851).