CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on May 21 partially granted a bank’s motion to dismiss claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Illinois law but held that borrowers can pursue their RESPA cause of action for the bank’s alleged failure to properly respond to a notice of error regarding moving forward with a foreclosure sale while a complete loss mitigation application was pending (Todd Smith, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 18-7979, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84875).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on May 21 granted a loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claims for violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and the Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) and negligence related to a reverse mortgage, holding that the HBOR sections did not apply to the servicer and that the complaint lacked the reasonable particularity of facts to support a UCL claim (David Coltrin v. James B. Nutter & Company, No. 2:19-cv-00483, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85631).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Fifth Third Mortgage Co. on May 16 waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, which seeks review of a district court’s decision that a borrower was prohibited from asserting that a mortgage company violated an automatic bankruptcy stay because he failed to adequately disclose his assets in bankruptcy court (Mark Anthony Fornesa, et al. v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co., No. 18-1339, U.S. Sup.).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on May 10 granted summary judgment for a loan servicer on borrowers’ claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that they failed to show that the servicer did not properly respond to their qualified written requests (QWRs) and that TILA does not apply once a borrower files for bankruptcy (Arthur A. Loewy, et al. v. CMG Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 17cv341, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80620).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on May 13 denied a borrower’s petition for writ of certiorari in which she argued that the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “failed to address” whether the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is a federal instrumentality under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit against them and others (Dorothy A. Smulley v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., No. 18-1183, U.S. Sup.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — After holding that a bank failed to establish that it was the holder or assignee of a note when it filed foreclosure proceedings, a New York appeals court on May 8 reversed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against a borrower (U.S. Bank National Association, etc. v. Luis Laino, No. 2016-01264, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 2nd Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3610).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A bank on May 3 waived its right to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court petition for certiorari filed by borrowers who challenge an appeals court’s decision that the bank met the requirements to foreclose under Texas law and that a magistrate judge’s decision in the borrowers’ favor was based on an incorrect premise that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as beneficiary, did not have the authority to assign the deed (Joanna Burke, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. No. 18-1370, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1613).
ATLANTA — After holding that the city of Miami adequately pleaded that banks’ alleged discriminatory lending practices directly related to its tax-base injuries, a panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 3 reversed a district court’s dismissal of the city’s claims for violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) (City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., Nos. 14-14544, 14-14543, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13343).
SEATTLE — After finding that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether a loan servicer and lender breached a trial period plan by not offering a permanent loan modification to borrowers and whether a notice of error related to servicing, a Washington federal judge on May 2 denied the servicer’s motion for summary judgment on claims for breach of contract and violations of Washington law and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (Kulwinder Mutti, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, et al., No. 18-884, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74482).
SAN FRANCISCO — After holding that a lender could not condition the reinstatement of a loan on the immediate payment of deferred amounts pursuant to a loan modification, a California panel on April 30 reversed a trial court’s dismissal of claims for violations of California law asserted by borrowers (Charles Taniguchi, et al. v. Restoration Homes, LLC, No. A152827, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 2, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 396).
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 26 reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss five class action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs allege that various lenders and others engaged in “kickback schemes” in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), holding that the borrowers were entitled to relief from a limitations period under the fraudulent concealment tolling doctrine (Mary E. Edmonson v. Eagle National Bank, et al., Nos. 18-1216, 18-1229, 18-1230, 18-1260, 18-1262, 4th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12573).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 29 declined to review a borrower’s petition for writ of certiorari, seeking review of a court’s decision dismissing her claims for violations of Washington law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against a beneficiary and loan servicer, which held that nonjudicial foreclosures toll the statute of limitations (Kim Kerrigan v. Qualstar Credit Union, et al., No. 17-35174, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 29 denied a petition for writ of certiorari in which an investment pool sought review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in which the court held that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) prevents homeowners associations (HOAs) and others from foreclosing on a property that was purchased and securitized by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) or the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Fannie Mae) even where a foreclosing party’s lien was senior to the loan (SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al., No. 18-670, U.S. Sup.).
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal judge on April 24 partially denied a motion to dismiss claims asserted by borrowers against a bank and loan servicer, holding that part of their claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) could proceed, but that they must amend their claim under a Pennsylvania loan interest law to show that they actually paid the bank excessive fees (Thomas E. Owens, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et al., No. 18-1421, W.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69663).
DAYTON, Ohio — After finding that a lender did not fail to provide borrowers with an accurate payoff balance within seven days of receiving their written request, an Ohio federal judge on April 22 granted summary judgment for the lender on a claim for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and denied summary judgment for the borrowers as to liability (Robert J. Larkins, et al. v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company, No. 3:17-cv-169, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67571).
LOS ANGELES — After holding that a borrower’s fourth lawsuit related to a property foreclosure was barred as a result of judgments entered in a previous lawsuit against the same parties, a California federal judge on April 19 granted a motion to dismiss her complaint without leave to amend (Faithie Parker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No. 19-1017, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67332).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — An Alabama federal magistrate judge on April 15 dismissed various state law and federal claims asserted by a borrower but allowed other claims related to the handling of her mortgage, including a claim for breach of contract against a lender and loan servicer, to proceed (Annie P. Perry v. Matrix Financial Services Corp., et al., No. 2:18-cv-01845, D. Ala., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64281).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 denied a petition for rehearing in which borrowers asked the court to reconsider its refusal to review a district court decision that their lawsuit filed against a lender was barred by res judicata because it was directly related to an underlying foreclosure case (Lazina King, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans Inc., No. 18-686, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 denied a borrower’s petition for rehearing of a court’s dismissal of his claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against a bank (John M. Barone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a.k.a., et al., No. 18-783, U.S. Sup.).
NEW ORLEANS — After holding that a mortgage servicer had the authority to foreclose on a property, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 12 affirmed the dismissal of a fourth amended complaint filed by borrowers and a decision granting summary judgment on a loan servicer’s judicial foreclosure counterclaim (Bruce W. Bowman, III, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Incorporated, No. 18-10867, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10910).