Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-mortgage-lending
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:50:38+00:00

Document:
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).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — General Electric Co. (GE) will pay a $1.5 billion civil penalty pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) to resolve claims that it originated billions of dollars in subprime mortgage loans and issued and sold them to investment banks without disclosing the true quality of the loans, according to a settlement agreement reached on April 12 between the U.S. Department of Justice and GE.
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 8 affirmed a court’s ruling that a borrower was not entitled to appellate fees under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), holding that she had no interest in the fee award because it would not affect the ability to pay her attorneys (Sara Alhassid v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d.b.a. Champion Mortgage, No. 18-11985, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10201).
SAN FRANCISCO — After holding that a bank’s payment of homeowners association dues was sufficient under Nevada case law to show that it held the superior interest in a deed of trust, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 reversed part of a court’s decision that granted summary judgment on the bank’s quiet title claim (Bank of America, N.A. v. Arlington West Twilight Homeowners Association, et al., No. 17-15796, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9666).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A borrower on March 18 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant his request for rehearing of a case seeking review of a court’s dismissal of his claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against a bank, asking the high court to consider recent material developments involving a computer glitch that allegedly resulted in foreclosures (John M. Barone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a.k.a., et al., No. 18-783, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Borrowers on March 15 filed a petition for rehearing with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the court reconsider its denial of their petition for a writ of certiorari, which sought review of a District of Columbia federal court’s 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., 2019 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1058).
SPOKANE, Wash. — A Washington appellate panel on April 2 upheld a trial court’s summary judgment ruling for a bank in a suit seeking to judicially foreclose its deed of trust on a delinquent mortgage but split as to reason to affirm (U.S. Bank National Association, et al. v. Angela Ukpoma, et al., No. 35791-1-III, Wash. App., Div. 3, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 798).
ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Minnesota appeals court on April 1 reversed a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a borrower’s claims for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), holding that the court was of competent jurisdiction to decide FDCPA claims and that the law provides that the borrower could choose her forum (Hannah Levine v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, No. A18-0789, Minn. App.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In an opinion filed March 27, a California federal judge refused to dismiss a borrower’s claims for breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and slander of title, holding that she showed that a loan modification agreement existed between her and a bank and that the lender owed her a duty of care that it may have breached by refusing to accept her payments (Denise Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al., No. 2:18-cv-02768, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52182).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal National Mortgage Association (FHFA), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Fannie Mae) on March 25 argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should deny a petition for review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling because the federal foreclosure bar under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) requires that homeowner associations (HOAs) and other lien holders first seek consent from the FHFA before foreclosing on property held by it (SFR Investments Pool 1 LLC v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al., No. No. 18-670, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 25 denied two petitions for writ of certiorari filed by a borrower and a law firm that sought review of whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to nonjudicial foreclosures (Maxwell & Morgan, P.C., et al. v. Martha A. McNair, No. 18-729, Rick Greer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, et al., No. 17-1351, U.S. Sup.).
RENO, Nev. — A Nevada federal judge on March 19 granted summary judgment for lenders, holding that a homeowners association foreclosure sale did not extinguish the Federal National Mortgage Association’s (Fannie Mae) interest in a property (Bank of America, N.A., et al. v. Huffaker Hills Unit No. 2 Residence Association, et al., No. 3:15-cv-00502, D. Nev., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46025).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on March 20 (Dennis Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, U.S. Sup.).
TAMPA, Fla. — After holding that a trial court erroneously granted borrowers summary judgment on their statute of limitations defense to a deficiency action brought against them by a debt collector, a Florida appeals court on March 15 reversed the ruling in their favor and remanded the case for further proceedings (Dyck-O’Neal, Inc. v. Teresa Norton, et al., No. 2D17-4968, Fla. App., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 3939).
SAN FRANCISCO — Borrowers on March 12 sued a lender and a trustee in a California court, asserting claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) related to the alleged mishandling of the servicing of their home equity line of credit loan (HELOC) (Timothy S. Bostwick, et al. v. First Tennessee Bank, No. 574465, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
ATLANTA — The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 11 affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims against a loan servicer, holding that the servicer did not engage in unlawful debt collection because none of the requested amounts was barred under a five-year statute of limitations under Florida law (Paul A. Green v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, No. 17-15681, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7066).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on March 8 certified two classes of consumers who accuse Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS) of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by having its agents leave misleading door hangers at their homes (Thomas Quinn, et al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 16-2021, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37975).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1692
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.