The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently vacated a trial court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer and against the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) based on res judicata.
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 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the state’s highest court, recently held that (1) the attorney for a named putative class plaintiff who is deceased does not have authority to act on behalf of the deceased plaintiff absent a motion by the deceased’s legal representative; and (2) in limited circumstances, trial courts may sua sponte order notice to putative class members prior to certification only when absent notice the putative class members would face significant prejudice.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that the borrowers' appeal in a mortgage foreclosure action was moot for failure to timely perfect a stay of enforcement of the final judgment.
Following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the rulings of multiple trial courts to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that an automated marketing system that sends promotional text messages to phone numbers randomly selected from a database of customers' information is not an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s ruling remanding the case to state court based on the federal Class Action Fairness Act’s “local controversy” exception, finding the trial court erroneously applied the exception.
The Supreme Court of Texas recently held that a bank’s wire transfer form did not create a contractual duty as claimed by a bank customer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the denial of a motion to remand to state court a putative class action removed to federal court under the federal Class Action Fairness Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a trial court erred in its amount in controversy analysis in determining jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act.
The Court of Appeals of the State of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a mortgage lender on an appraiser’s claims of intentional interference with a business relationship arising from the lender barring the appraiser from working on its loans and notifying various appraisal management companies of this decision.
The Supreme Court of Texas recently set aside default judgment against a mortgage asset securitization trust after finding that its trustee had not been properly served as required by Section 17.028 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s motion for leave to appeal in a case that was previously removed to federal court pursuant to the federal Class Action Fairness Act after the federal trial court sua sponte remanded the case back to state court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently reversed a trial court's dismissal of one named plaintiff’s claims against a loan servicer in a putative class action but affirmed the dismissal of the other named plaintiff’s claims.