Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published by “Brady Hermann”

Brady Hermann is based in Maurice Wutscher’s Boston office and supports the firm’s litigation matters in its New York office, practicing in the firm’s Commercial Litigation and Consumer Credit Litigation groups. Brady has substantial experience as a litigation attorney. He has represented individual and corporate clients in complex litigation matters, focusing on securities litigation and regulation, business and commercial litigation, multidistrict litigation and class actions and more. In addition, he has represented many of the nation’s largest securities broker-dealers in arbitration and regulatory proceedings before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and has represented and counseled clients in regulatory, enforcement and criminal investigations before the SEC, FINRA, state securities regulators, the Department of Justice, the FBI and various other governmental and self-regulatory organizations. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/brady-hermann/

1st Cir. Holds Failure to File Probate Claim Does Not Void Mortgage Under RI Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that a failure to file a probate claim does not extinguish a mortgage lien under Rhode Island law.  In so ruling, the Court held that “the piper must be paid.” A copy of the opinion is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs, a brother and sister, inherited their mother’s house.  During her lifetime, the mother had taken out a reverse mortgage secured by the house.  The mortgage securing the loan contained an acceleration clause and power of sale and became due and payable upon the mother’s death. The…

2nd Cir. Holds ID Theft Claim Under NY’s FCRA Not Preempted by Federal FCRA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that identity theft claims under New York’s Fair Credit Reporting Act based on a bank’s alleged vicarious liability for identity theft supposedly perpetrated by its employees are not preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). However, to the extent that the claims could arguably be read to include the theory that the bank was liable because it furnished false information to consumer reporting agencies, the Court held that such claims are preempted under the FCRA because they plainly concern the bank’s legal responsibilities as a furnisher. A…

Illinois Court Holds New Mortgagee May Be Substituted After Foreclosure Sale, Indicates Borrower’s Counsel May Be Sanctioned

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, recently held that a failure to file a motion to substitute plaintiff in a pending foreclosure proceeding prior to the judicial sale did not invalidate the sale. Also, considering the absence of any meaningful argument advanced on appeal, the Court further ordered counsel for defendant to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. The mortgagee filed a foreclosure action, and a judgment of foreclosure was ultimately entered. Thereafter, the mortgagee transferred servicing to a new mortgagee. The new mortgagee appeared at the…

Mass. Federal Court Imposes FCRA Preemption on State Law Claims

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently held that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) preempts Massachusetts state law claims for violations of the Massachusetts Credit Reporting Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 54A, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. The decision also held that the mere furnishing of information following a bankruptcy discharge, without more, is not actionable. A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. The decision adds to a growing split among federal courts on both issues. Credit Reporting a Loan Modification and…

NY High Court Rules Deficiency Judgment Properly Denied for Lack of Evidence of Property Value

The New York Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion for deficiency judgment because the lender presented conclusory, insufficient evidence about the value of the property. In so ruling, the Court held that, even with uncontested deficiency motions, a lender that has foreclosed must present satisfactory evidence about the value of the property.  However, the Court also held that when the lender presents insufficient evidence, the trial court should give the lender at least one additional chance to present adequate evidence. A copy of the opinion is available at:  Link to Opinion. The lender filed…