The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a plaintiff counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees, finding the firm’s prioritization of their interests over those of the class cut off any entitlement to attorney’s fees.
Posts published by “Maurice Wutscher LLP”
The attorneys of Maurice Wutscher are seasoned business lawyers with substantial experience in business law, financial services litigation and regulatory compliance. They represent consumer and commercial financial services companies, including depository and non-depository mortgage lenders and servicers, as well as mortgage loan investors, financial asset buyers and sellers, loss mitigation companies, third-party debt collectors, and other financial services providers. They have defended scores of putative class actions, have substantial experience in federal appellate court litigation and bring substantial trial and complex bankruptcy experience. They are leaders and influencers in their highly specialized area of law. They serve in leadership positions in industry associations and regularly publish and speak before national audiences.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a stay of a non-judicial foreclosure due to the filing of a lawsuit by the borrower did not support an “amount in controversy” in excess of $75,000 for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s attorney fee award that reduced the prevailing plaintiff’s requested fees by over 75%, ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that periodic statements required by the federal Truth in Lending Act may violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if they are not truthful and fair.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that the language of a future advances clause entitled the foreclosing mortgagee to the surplus proceeds of a condominium sale where there was an outstanding balance owed to same mortgagee on separate business loans extended to a different co-mortgagor.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that a debt collector violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it sued a debtor’s wife to recover her husband’s legal fees under Ohio’s Necessaries Statute.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer ruling that the servicer had violated its obligations under a Trial Period Plan in connection with a proposed loan modification when the servicer failed to offer a permanent loan modification after the borrower made payments in compliance with the “grace period” provisions of the TPP.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, recently reversed a trial court’s order dismissing a debtor’s federal Fair Credit Reporting Act counterclaim against a bank.
The Illinois Court of Appeals, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a creditor against a guarantor, finding that the guaranty was continuing and therefore applied to a later note obligation, even though the note was issued some two years after the guaranty.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, recently held that under Maryland Commercial Law Article § 12-1018(b), a credit grantor that knowingly violates the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions is required to forfeit treble the amount of interest, fees, and charges collected in violation of the subtitle.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently rejected the latest in a series of appeals and other challenges by a borrower to the validity of a judgment of foreclosure entered against the borrower.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court’s order denying a borrower’s motions to vacate a foreclosure judgment and for leave to file an untimely answer and counterclaims, and the subsequent motion to reconsider, finding the trial court’s decision did not result in substantial injustice.