Source: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/05/05/jacobson-v-bayview-loan-servicing-violated-the-fdcpa-15-u-s-c-%C2%A7-1692a-p-and-the-mcpa-title-30-chapter-14-part-1-mca-awarded-nearly-400k/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:16:19+00:00

Document:
$31,020.00 in attorney fees. We affirm.
3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding damages to the Jacobsons.
4. Whether this Court should award costs and fees to the Jacobsons on appeal.
CitiMortgage transferred the loan servicing duties to Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC.
a notice of acceleration and provide a “certain date” for cure.
Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 MT 117, ¶ 11, 375 Mont. 38, 324 P.3d 1167.
writing. As a result, no agreement was finalized between the parties.
subsequent to the default letter.
Indenture to “CBO-6 Corp.” and that the “REO” was a typographical error.
alleged “typographical error” assignment on March 9.
negligent misrepresentation, and intentional violations of the FDCPA and the MCPA.
court awarded the Jacobsons their costs and attorney fees in the case of $109,108.50.
contempt by strict future compliance with the Court’s orders.
¶17 Two more Orders were entered in the case in regard to the attorney fees and costs.
not appeal the attorney fees awarded pursuant to the Orders.
findings, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.
Mont. 277, 321 P.3d 38.
default procedure in the Trust Indenture.
contact with a represented party, and the false assignments of the loan.
or a party’s change in legal theory” from that argued at the district court. Vader v.
the arguments as they were made to the District Court.
(6th Cir. 2009) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)).
1314, 1318-19 (2nd Cir. 1993).
statement must also be materially false or misleading to violate FDCPA 15 U.S.C.
false representations and unfair and deceptive practices to collect against the Jacobsons.
modification, Bayview commenced foreclosure proceedings against the Jacobsons.
not to make mortgage payments.
of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) and § 30-14-103, MCA.
15 U.S.C. § 1692f and § 30-14-103, MCA.
these are exactly the type of violations the FDCPA intends to prevent.
collect any debt” are violations of the law. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) (emphasis added).
violations also constitute violations of § 30-14-103, MCA.
interest is currently held by Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC” as servicer for CitiMortgage.
misrepresentation is irrelevant and immaterial to the Jacobsons’ default.
violation of the FDCPA and the MCPA.
Bayview improperly contacted the Jacobsons.
provided false discovery answers claiming to have no communications with either U.S.
Court concluded that this long series of Bayview’s actions was in violation of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692e and § 30-14-103, MCA.
materially misleading and violations of the FDCPA.
bank (DBNTC) falsely asserted it was the owner and holder of the notes and mortgages.
collection is filed does not constitute a FDCPA violation.” Whittiker at 929.
¶42 Bayview’s actions here are easily distinguished from the actions in Whittiker.
Bayview’s misdeeds go far beyond a “simple inability to prove ownership” of the debt.
assignments of the loan. It falsely represented that it was “attorney-in-fact” for U.S.
Bank when it assigned the Trust Indenture to “CBO-6 REO Corp.” when it did not exist.
current beneficiary, and falsely stated that it was servicing the loan for U.S. Bank. U.S.
Bayview recorded the assignment under false authority to a fictitious creditor.
deceptive practices in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, f, and the MCPA.
FDCPA and accordingly, we affirm its decision with respect to the FDCPA claims.
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” Rohrer v.
remedies or obligations that it does not involve.’” Morrow, ¶ 67 (citing Admin. R. M.
practice.” Morrow, ¶ 67 (citing § 30-14-133, MCA).
Mortgage Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504, 513 (6th Cir. 2007).
FDCPA can also constitute grounds for violation of Montana law pursuant to the MCPA.
MCPA apply to the “collection and servicing of loans”); see also, Lamar at 513.
provide an option for cure of the default in the five days preceding the Trustee’s sale.
was a clear violation of the FDCPA and the MCPA.
substantial evidence demonstrating Bayview and Peterson’s liability under the MCPA.
¶52 3. Whether the District Court erred in awarding damages to the Jacobsons.
damages unless it is clearly erroneous. Watson, ¶ 18 (citation omitted).
assessed statutory damages of $1,000.00 for each of the Jacobsons under 15 U.S.C.
collect debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).
liability was wrongfully increased as a result of Bayview’s actions.
detriment and the losses are properly considered actual damages by the District Court.
Protection Act].) (internal citation omitted).” Wigod, 673 F.3d at 575, n.14.
balance. However, Bayview is merely the loan servicer; it does not hold the mortgage.
the date of the District Court’s final order following remand.
and the consequent loss of ability to properly resolve the default.
damages “the Jacobsons were forced to endure” as a result of Bayview’s misconduct.
damages. Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003).
We conclude it was well within the District Court’s discretion to award these damages.
District Court properly awarded statutory damages to each of the Jacobsons.
the issue on the merits.
consequential and will not be tolerated.
as equitable relief under the MCPA.
the District Court did not err in awarding damages to the Jacobsons.
¶67 4. Whether this Court should award costs and fees to the Jacobsons on appeal.
defends an FDCPA action is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal. Joe v.
fees and costs incurred on appeal.
in the defense of their claims on appeal.
in their favor under § 30-14-133(3), MCA.
¶72 I concur in the Court’s opinion.
of any debts’ and ‘the enforcement of security interests.’”) (citation omitted); Derisme v.
(citation omitted). Consequently, resolution of this threshold issue is left for another day.

References: v. 
 v.

 § 1692
 § 1692
 § 30
 § 1692
 § 30
 § 1692
 § 30

§ 1692
 § 30
 § 1692
 v.

 § 30
 v. 
 § 1692
 v. 
 v.

 § 30
 v.