Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/199309276/16-List-of-Affirmative-Defenses-and-Counterclaims
Timestamp: 2017-09-24 18:38:15
Document Index: 376204705

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1601', 'art 226', '§1639', 'art 226', '§2601', 'art 3500', '§ 1640', '§1345', '§ 1302', '§1961', '§1961', '§2305', '§ 1302', '§1692', '§5301', '§ 1345', '§1692', '§1692', '§117', '§1692', '§1345', 'Art.000', '§5301', '§1345', '§ 1335', '§ 1345', '§1345', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§1691', '§2923', '§3601']

16 List of Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims | Mortgage Law | Truth In Lending Act
LIST OF DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Citation: 15 U.S.C. §1601, et seq. 12 C.F.R.
Part 226 (Regulation Z) Creditor (generally the original lender) Assignee, if violation “apparent on face” of documents Failure to disclose credit information or cancellation rights Material Violations (grounds for rescission) Amount financed Finance charge Annual percentage rate Total of payments Payment schedule Failure to give proper notice of right to cancel Certain HOEPA violations Material Violations (grounds for statutory damages) Amount financed Finance charge Annual percentage rate Total of payments Payment schedule Security interest disclosures Failure to provide proper notice of right to cancel Remedies: Rescission, unless transaction was for purchase or construction of home Actual damages Statutory damages up to $4,000 Attorney fees 3 years to rescind under TILA, though limit does not apply to recoupment under state law 1 year to bring damages claim No limit if used defensively by way of recoupment
Actionable Wrongs:
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) Citation: 15 U.S.C. §1639 12 C.F.R. Part 226 (Regulation Z) Creditor (generally the original lender) Assignee
10079 (HUD Policy Statement on lender-paid broker fees) Lender Broker.S.F. §2601. HOEPA violations give rise to "enhanced" monetary damages under 15 U.C. namely. et seq. if not exclusive agent of lender Servicer Title company Actionable Wrongs: Failure to give Good Faith Estimate. Part 3500 (Regulation X) 64 Fed. though limit does not apply to recoupment under state law 1 year to bring damages claim No limit if used defensively by way of recoupment Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Citation: 12 U. and give HUD-1 Settlement Statement and servicing statements Payment or acceptance of kickbacks or referral fees Making charges for which no identifiable services are provided Improper servicing of loan Liable Parties: .000(Note: In addition to regular TILA monetary damage remedies. 24 C.S. unless transaction was for purchase or construction of home Actual damages Statutory damages up to $4.Actionable Wrongs: Failure to disclose credit information and give conspicuous warning Inclusion of prohibited terms in transaction Balloon payments in loans less than five years Negative amortization Most repayment penalties Default interest rates Most prepaid payments Making loan lender should know borrower can’t afford Paying contractor without homeowner’s consent Remedies: Rescission.C. § 1640(a)(4). all payments made by the borrower) Attorney fees Limitations: 3 years to rescind under TILA. disclose other creditrelated information. Reg.R.
A.01 et. Chapter.C.28 “Supplier” (generally not lenders. §§1345. 109:4-3 “Supplier” (generally not lenders until January 2007.A. 1345.C. but would include brokers.C. written agreement. seq.21 .C.1345.Remedies: Three times amount of illegal charges Attorney fees 1 year to bring affirmative claim No limit if raised by way of recoupment Limitations: Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) Citation: R. notice of cancellation rights. Chapter. home repair contractors and some assignees) Liable Parties: Actionable Wrongs: Unfair acts or practices Deceptive acts or practices Unconscionable acts or practices Violations of O. but would include brokers. home repair contractors and some assignees) Failure to give proper disclosures. 109:4-3 Remedies: Rescission Actual damages Three times actual damages Declaratory judgment Statutory injunction Attorney fees Two years for affirmative claims No limitation if raised as counterclaim Limitations: Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA) Citation: Liable Parties: R. Chapter. O. Inclusion of prohibited terms Failure to cancel when properly requested Cancellation of transaction Remedies provided under the Consumer Sales Practices Act Actionable Wrongs: Remedies: .
§ 1302. though UCC applies if sale of goods involved (R. §1961 (a long list of actionable wrongs.S. Persons (broadly defined) conducting RICO enterprise Pattern of “racketeering activity” as defined in 18 U.01. Chapter. fraudulent. but this is a very complex statute in application) Three times actual damages Attorney fees Four years to bring damages claim Remedies: Limitations: Breach of Warranty Citation: N/A.Limitations: Unlimited right to cancel contract if proper cancellation rights not provided by supplier Two years for affirmative claims No limitations if raised as counterclaim Mortgage Brokers Act (MBA) Citation: R.) Seller Lender Broker Home repair contractor Liable Parties: . 1301: 8-7 Mortgage brokers (the person or entity registered with the Superintendent of Financial Institutions) Failure to maintain records Making “false promises” or engaging in course of misrepresentations Engaging in “improper.C. so probably four years Liable Parties: Actionable Wrongs: Remedies: Limitations: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Citation: Liable Parties: Actionable Wrongs: 18 U. Chapter. 1322 O.C.A.C.S.C. et seq.C. et seq. §1961. or dishonest” dealings Damages Punitive damages Statutory injunction None specified.
Business Centers. Inc. R. (10th Dist. Myer v. Inc. Preferred Credit. 2008). 766 N. falsity. (10th Dist.Assignee Actionable Wrongs: Remedies: Failure to carry out contractual obligations Actual. (Hamilton Cty.06 and . consequential damages Specific performance or rescission Generally fifteen years (written contracts) or six years (oral contract) as provided by R.. ¶39.07. concealment. Limitations: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Citation: Common law/case law: Swayne v.3d 293.E. §§2305.C. Broker Failure to act in best interests of borrower Failure to disclose information to borrower and inform of options Actual and consequential damages Punitive damages Probably four years (general statute of limitations) Liable Parties: Actionable Wrong: Remedies: Limitations: Fraud Citation: Liable Parties: Common law Seller Lender Broker Home repair contractor Appraiser Trickery. Case v. ¶19. 2001).98(A). 270. deceit. Four years relative to sale of goods. so need to look under appraisal fraud cases) Actual and consequential damages Injunction Rescission Punitive damages Actionable Wrong: Remedies: . appraisal fraud(Note: appraisal fraud has its own standard. deception. 176 Ohio App.C. § 1302.2d 612. Beebles Invs.2d 267. Inc. 1976).. 48 Ohio App..
(10th Dist. 2008)( goes through elements of substantive and procedural unconscionability) Citation: Liable Parties: Common law Seller Lender Broker Home repair contractor Assignee Over-reaching..Attorney fees Limitations: Civil Conspiracy Citation: Liable Parties: Common law Seller Lender Broker Home repair contractor Appraiser Title company Unlawful injury through necessary concerted action with another Whatever is available for the underlying wrongful acts. inequity Actual and compensatory damages Rescission Injunction Punitive damages Probably four years Actionable Wrongs: Remedies: Limitations: . Beebles Invs. Inc.. unfairness. coconspirators are liable for the acts of the others Dependent on underlying wrongful acts Four years Actionable Wrongs: Remedies: Limitations: Unconscionability Swayne v.
§1692a(5). Johnson. As such.S. Ohio Rev. the [HomeOwner] is entitled to an award of actual damages plus up to $1. §5301.C. example of facts: In order to collect on the Note debt and to bring a foreclosure action. & Lauinger.S. Stat. the Notary Public’s acknowledgement was not valid.1 Here.. Ohio and Florida law require that any granting of a mortgage interest be acknowledged by a Notary Public.C. . allege: 1 Ohio Rev.FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 15 U. Stat. After reviewing definition of supplier and making sure plaintiff fits. Plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the Note and does not have an interest in the Mortgage. And at all material times. 15 U. and punitive. Put facts in.L. Here. Plaintiff violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it filed a Complaint in Foreclosure. Plaintiff is not the Mortgagee. Rodenburg. The Notary Public did not actually witness Crystal Moore sign. § 1345.S.S. A Mortgage is an interest in land.01 (2008). Plaintiff is a “debt collector” as the term is defined under 15 U. Any attempted transfer of land that violates the Statute of Frauds is void. [HomeOwner] has never executed a Mortgage in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff has never received an interest in the Mortgage. L. Plaintiff is not the Note holder and is not the Mortgagee as it alleges. the Plaintiff must have possession of the original Note.3d 939 (9 Cir. along with an endorsement. §1692(k).C. the Plaintiff must be entitled to enforce the Note and have an interest in the Mortgage. 637 F. §1692(e)(5). The Statute of Frauds requires that an interest in land be transferred in writing and signed by an authorized party. [HomeOwner] has never executed a Note in favor of Plaintiff and the Note has never been endorsed in blank or specifically to Plaintiff. McCollough v. the Note debt is a “debt” as defined under 15 U. 2011). To be a Note holder. OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT. §117. Therefore. The chain of Mortgage Assignments was not signed by an authorized party and contains a defective acknowledgment. Also.S. to an award of costs.C.C. Stat.107(9)(2009). allege: At all times material. §1692a(6 ). attorney fees.C.000. Fla. Plaintiff violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it filed a Complaint in Foreclosure against the [homeowner] because it is threatening to take a legal action that it cannot legally take. Plaintiff does not have the legal right to collect on the Note debt and to Foreclose. 15 U. 1692 If cannot show have right to collect note debt and to request foreclosure.
5 Other Claims and Defenses to Consider Constitutional: “The Court’s facilitation of a process that allows for property to be taken away by an entity that has failed to show that it has a legal right to do so. am. 4 Ohio Rev. Section 16 & Article IV Section 4) Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of the Mortgage. Code§1345.At all times material. Failure to comply with a condition precedent 2 3 Ohio Rev. Failure to mitigate damages Foreclosure barred by principles of Equity Mortgage Assignment contains defective notary. Art.000 in noneconomic damages and reasonable attorney fees for each violation. §5301. HomeOwner is entitled to actual damages plus up to $5. Const.091(A). Code§1345. If not originator and no Mortgage Assignment or Mortgage Assignment is not signed by an authorized party. violates the Grosses’ United States Constitutional due process rights and their Ohio Constitutional Inalienable Rights. § 1335.S.01 (2008). I. Bank v. Section 1.14.” Lack of Standing (not entitled to enforce the Note or Mortgage)(Constitutional “ripeness” issue-Article I.3d 399 (Ohio 2008).02(A) 5 Ohio Rev. Ohio Rev. Ohio Rev. Plaintiff’s transactions with the [HomeOwner] is a “consumer transaction” as defined under the Act. Code § 1345.01(A). U. Plaintiff committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Act when it filed the foreclosure action after regularly accepting the [HomeOwner’s] payments and inducing them to believe that they would receive a permanent loan modification.(F). Code§1345.S. Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice.01. Ohio Constitution.04 (1953). Stat. Ohio Rev. 1345. . 120 Ohio St. U. Gullotta. Plaintiff is a “supplier” as is defined under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act2. As a result.01(C).09(A).3 Plaintiff violated the Act when it filed this foreclosure action alleging that the Grosses were in default. Stat.4 Plaintiff caused HomeOwner considerable physical and emotional distress and suffering and monetary damage.
before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid. loan modification. or make a reasonable attempt to arrange such a meeting within 30 days after such default and at least 30 days before foreclosure is commenced. Wilson or attempted to arrange such an interview. The requirements include the right to a faceto-face interview with the mortgagor.F. Title 12 of the United States Code section 1715u(a) states.616. preforeclosure sale.604 states in pertinent part: The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor. support for borrower housing counseling. the mortgagee must have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor. . § 203. If default occurs in a repayment plan arranged other than during a personal interview. or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting. and deeds in lieu of foreclosure. . The 2nd and 10th District Courts of Appeals have held that the failure of the mortgagee to follow HUD servicing requirements set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations for FHA loans constitutes an affirmative defense to foreclosure.508 and 24 C. At no time has Plaintiff conducted a face-to face interview with Mr. See Affidavit of Steve Daugherty and Diane Wilson (attached as Exhibit 1). page 1). These requirements are found in 24 C. Chapter 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 203. page 2). (See Plaintiff’s Exhitbit A “Note”. The Note and Mortgage terms only allow acceleration of the debt if it is permitted by the Secretary’s regulations (See Sections 9(a) and 9(d) of the Mortgage.F. . as defined by the Secretary of any mortgage insured under this subchapter. borrower incentives. The Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insures this loan. Plaintiff’s Exhibit B. The loan’s FHA Case Number is 411-3439335. In addition. federal law mandates that the mortgagee take certain pre-foreclosure servicing requirements to avoid foreclosure. Since the federal government backs FHA loans.R. Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.500 to § 203. subordinate lien resolution. in part (emphasis added): Upon default or imminent default.FHA Face to Face meeting requirement6 6 An example FHA argument is: Plaintiff failed to perform the pre-foreclosure servicing steps required by the Code of Federal Regulations and Ohio case law.600 to § 203. Daugherty or Ms.R. page 3 and Section 6(b) of the Note. § 203. Ohio case law requires that a mortgagee meet these servicing requirements before initiating a foreclosure. mortgagees shall engage in loss mitigation actions for the purpose of providing an alternative to foreclosure (including but not limited to actions such as special forbearance.
CI-2008-6136 at pgs 1.” U. Stark Cty. Montgomery Cty. are met. . stating.R.606(a) to allow a lender to commence foreclosure after three full months of default. [T]he scheme of the regulation is that a lender may not commence foreclosure until at least three full monthly installments are due but unpaid. Plaintiff may not proceed with a foreclosure against Defendant until all servicing requirements mandated by 24 C. The Fifth District Court of Appeals recently agreed with the Mahaffey court.S.R. 3d 44. 203. Gray. of Pennsylvania v.). Further. v.S. v. Franklin Cty.B. at 6. Bank. the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the bank.A. Williams. “We agree with this reasoning and hold that the failure of a mortgagee to adhere to the HUD servicing requirements set forth in the regulations and handbook constitutes an affirmative defense to foreclosure. the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas recently ruled that a foreclosing party must follow the servicing requirements before filing a foreclosure complaint. ¶¶24. of Pennsylvania v. 2010). the Second District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the bank.A. before initiating foreclosure. § 203. In denying Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain a judgment. Detweiler. Id.P.F. at ¶58. Washington Mutual Bank v. *7 (attached as Appendix A). N. Lucas Cty.604(b). Case No.F. March 4.R. Detweiler (5th Dist. Mahaffey (2nd Dist. Gray (10th Dist. 203. N. and 24 C. without having complied with the face-to-face interview requirements of Section 203. Id. including the face-to-face interview requirement. 2003).R. F. Similarly.).S. summary judgment is still improper even when the defendant fails to respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Williams (C. 4 (attached as Appendix B). 1991 WL 268742. In Flagstar Bank. 154 Ohio App.604 as a condition precedent to foreclosure. Section 203.S.” GMAC Mortg. In U.In Washington Mutual Bank v. v.F. Bank.600 et. v. It would be inconsistent with C. Mahaffey. and the lender. Accordingly.F. must ensure that the servicing requirements have been met.500 et. 2010-Ohio-6408. the legal fiction that no default exists may be maintained by Defendant until such time as Plaintiff complies with the statutory and regulatory requirement to pursue loss mitigation prior to the filing of a foreclosure. F.. seq. Flagstar Bank. stating. the court held that a foreclosing party “must also establish that is sufficiently complied with 24 C. seq.B. the Court held: While Defendant may technically be in default. in GMAC Mortg. In addition. ¶57. the court addressed the issue of whether a party is entitled to foreclose on a FHA loan if it does not conduct or attempt to conduct a face-to-face interview. 55.
§1691. Mr. R. Daugherty and Ms. et seq. and the Code of Federal Regulations. 7 Plaintiff’s claims are barred for failure to comply with Making Home Affordable Program (HAMP) guidelines.RHS/VA loss mitigation requirements Failure to follow HAMP guidelines7 Failure to abide by National Fair Housing Goals. 2011. Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages. Fair Housing Act. §2923. See: Making Home Affordable Program. Accordingly. .S. 42 U. version 3. et seq. et seq. Negligent/intentional misrepresentation Intentional infliction of emotional distress Breach of contract Duress Lack of Capacity Unconscionability Illegality Promissory/equitable estoppel Failure of consideration Unjust enrichment Illegality Mistake In short. Plaintiff failed to follow the applicable servicing requirements. a party may not proceed with a foreclosure until it has fulfilled its pre-foreclosure servicing requirements as mandated by the terms of the loan. Wilson request that this Court dismiss this case. Defendants request that this case be dismissed. 15 U. Their application is still pending as Plaintiff has not made a decision whether the Defendants are eligible or ineligible.S. the United States Code. §3601. 42 U.2. 1441 (government loans) Equal Credit Opportunity Act. section 3. As such. 2011).1.S.C. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an essential condition precedent to establish standing robs this Court of jurisdiction to proceed with this matter. Ohio Corrupt Activity Act (mini-RICO). pg 58 (June 1. Plaintiff filed this foreclosure action on July 18. HAMP guidelines require that before a foreclosure can be filed.C.C.C.31. Yet. a borrower’s loan modification application must be first reviewed and a determination made that the borrower is ineligible. 2011.Defendants applied for a loan modification on May 27.
Documents Similar To 16 List of Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims
Nationstar Fax
Nationstar Default