CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on Feb. 5 allowed the majority of a widow’s cross-claims to proceed against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), finding that she alleged an injury in fact and had standing to assert various challenges to a reverse mortgage insured by HUD (Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. United States of America-Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al., No. 18-2149, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18097).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on Feb. 4 granted a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s complaint, holding that she failed to comply with the notice and cure provision in her mortgage contract before filing her lawsuit (Patricia Rodriguez v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, No. 18-cv-1015, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17202).
CINCINNATI — After holding that a bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest to a lawsuit in which a borrower asserted that a bank engaged in discriminatory lending practices, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 1 dismissed his appeal of an order dismissing the case for lack of standing (Jesse Strickland v. Mercantile Bank Mortgage Company, LLC, No. 16-2653, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2955).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Missouri federal judge on Feb. 1 dismissed a borrower’s claims for negligent misrepresentation and violation of Missouri law against a mortgage company and ordered that she must seek leave from the court before filing any more frivolous cases (Gwendolyn Gill Caranchini v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00775, W.D. Mo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16048).
NEW YORK — A panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 31 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a borrower who was attempting to enjoin the foreclosure of his property, holding that he had abandoned any of his challenges to the underlying decision (Linval Cooke v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 17-2558, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3131).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California appeals court panel on Jan. 29 reversed a trial court’s dismissal of claims for negligence and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), holding that borrowers’ allegations that a bank unreasonably delayed and subjected them to a fraudulent loan modification process are sufficient to support the claims (Flag Billings, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. C084369, Cal. App., 3rd Dist., 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 684).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on Jan. 17 refused to reconsider a decision that vacated a jury’s award of damages for property owners and a holding that certain owners waived their claims by entering into a loan modification agreement, finding that enforcement of the waiver would be against public policy (Jean Robert Saint-Jean, et al. v. Emigrant Mortgage Company, et al., No. 11-CV-2122, E.D. N.Y.).
NEW ORLEANS — A panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 28 affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s claims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Texas law, holding that a loan servicer abandoned its notice of acceleration of a loan and, therefore, reset the statute of limitations on foreclosure under Texas law (Nathalie D. Sims v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp., No. 18-40332, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2803).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel on Jan. 29 affirmed a lower court’s decisions in favor of the purchaser of a property at a trustee’s sale and banks, holding that a borrower failed to submit the required allegations of tender in support of his claim for violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) and his cause of action for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) failed as derivative to that claim (Jorge Rojas v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., No. E068405, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 2, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 680).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 24 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims asserted by a borrower, holding that he failed to show that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applied to the servicer of loan or a mortgage entity (Shahnewaz Qurashi v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., No. 18-1045, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2283).
NEW ORLEANS — After converting a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion, a Louisiana federal judge on Jan. 24 ordered the parties to submit additional evidence relevant to a summary judgment motion and denied the borrowers’ motion to strike various documents because the attachments are relevant to the case (John Baxa, et al. v. Seterus, Inc., No. 17-5434, E.D. La., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11230).
PORTLAND, Ore. — After holding that borrowers failed to properly serve a lender and loan servicer and that wrongful foreclosure is not recognized as a tort under Oregon law, an Oregon federal judge on Jan. 22 granted motions to dismiss the case (Elena Pidasheff, et al. v. Quality Loan Service Corporation Washington, et al., No. 3:18-cv-1986, D. Ore., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9996).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 14 affirmed a summary judgment ruling for lenders and a loan servicer, holding that no valid contract for a loan modification existed with borrowers and that a bank did not commit common-law fraud (Harold W. Criswell, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al., No. 18-40428, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1221).
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A borrower of a reverse mortgage on Dec. 21 filed a proposed class action in a New York federal court against lenders and a loan servicer, asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of New York law and other claims in relation to their alleged improper prepayment of taxes on reverse mortgages (Margaret Shakespeare v. Live Well Financial, Inc., et al., No. 2:18cv7299, E.D. N.Y.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Jan. 11 granted a motion filed by lenders to dismiss a lawsuit filed by borrowers in relation to nonjudicial foreclosure of their property, holding that their claims were conclusory (Glenn W. Bever, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-1561, E.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. — The purchaser of a property at a trustee’s sale on Jan. 10 sued a title company and beneficiary of the deed in a California state court asserting claims for negligence, violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action, alleging that they knew or should have known that the property was subject to a bankruptcy automatic stay (Gary Toor vs. Ajit Gill, No. 19CECG00132, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 11 affirmed a court’s dismissal of a borrower’s constitutional claims against the United States in relation to the foreclosure of her property, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case (Flordeliza A. Hawkins v. United States, No. 2018-2210, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 996).
SAN FRANCISCO — A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 9 held that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is not a consumer reporting agency that is subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), reversing a ruling for borrowers who alleged that Fannie Mae violated the FCRA by falsely communicated with lenders about their mortgages through its Desktop Underwriter (DU) platform (Richard Zabriskie, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 17-15807, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 642).
FORT WORTH, Texas — After finding that a borrower failed to state a plausible claim for violations of Texas law and breach of contract, a Texas federal judge on Jan. 8 granted a lender’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (Deborah Prather v. CitiMortgage Inc., No. 4:18-CV-668, N.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3121).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Supreme Court of Florida on Jan. 4 quashed an appeals court’s ruling that Florida law precluded an award of fees for a borrower, holding that a reverse mortgage agreement existed between the parties, even if the bank failed to show that it was the successor in interest of the disputed loan (Marie Ann Glass v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al., No. SC17-1387, Fla. Sup., 2019 Fla. LEXIS 30).