The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order allocating class notice costs in the amount of $602,838 to the defendant in a putative class action alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Posts published by “Jacob C. VanAusdall”
Jake VanAusdall is Senior Counsel in the Nashville office of Maurice Wutscher LLP. He practices in the firm’s Consumer Credit Litigation and Commercial Litigation groups predominantly representing financial institutions. Jake also has substantial litigation experience representing clients involved in intellectual property, construction, contract, and business disputes. Jake has been recognized as a “Mid-South Super Lawyers – Rising Star” in the area of Business Litigation (2018-2022), and is a former member of the Tennessee John Marshall American Inn of Court. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/jacob-vanausdall/
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, recently dismissed a putative class action asserting allegedly unwanted text messages under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act for lack of standing under Florida law.
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently held that a party who purchased the collateral property through a homeowners association foreclosure sale is a "successor in interest" under California Civil Code § 2924c, and therefore has the right to cure any payment defaults and reinstate the loan and has standing to bring a wrongful foreclosure action.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s certification of a putative class action for various failures to “rigorously analyze” the claims prior to certifying the class.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment and dismissing a mortgagee’s foreclosure action as time-barred under Tennessee law, and rejecting the mortgagee's arguments of oral modification, partial payment, and equitable estoppel, as well as its request for an equitable lien.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that a borrower failed to identify any meritorious defense sufficient to stop or undo a judicial foreclosure sale. In so ruling, the Appellate Court rejected the borrower's arguments that the servicer failed to comply with the loss mitigation rules under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) that she claimed would have allowed her to cure her default, because the servicer qualified as a "small servicer" under 12 C.F.R. 1026.41(e)(4), and was therefore exempt from the loss mitigation rules.
In a lien priority dispute between two judgment creditors, the Illinois Supreme Court recently held that email delivery does not constitute proper service of process for judgment enforcement proceedings.
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently upheld the dismissal of a mortgagee's writ of mandamus actions seeking to avoid transfers of REO and mortgaged property to county land banks for unpaid taxes, holding that the mortgagee should have pursued other available remedies in state court.
The Supreme Court of Indiana recently reversed and remanded a trial court’s order compelling arbitration of two bank customers’ putative class action complaint. In so ruling, the Court held that the account agreement’s change-of-terms clause did not allow the defendant bank to add an addendum compelling arbitration and restricting class actions to the terms and conditions of the customers’ account agreement.
Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Rejects Borrowers’ Claims of Trespass by Mortgagee During Foreclosure
Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Rejects Borrowers’ Claims of Trespass by Mortgagee During Foreclosure
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of two borrowers’ counterclaims alleging that the mortgagee improvidently trespassed on their property during the foreclosure process.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a mortgagee, holding that the mortgagors did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding the authenticity of a mortgage and promissory note, and rejecting the mortgagors' arguments under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law that the foreclosure sale price was "unconscionable" and that "justice was not done" with the foreclosure sale.
The Illinois Court of Appeals, First District, recently reversed a trial court’s order dismissing a quiet title lawsuit that alleged a lender's commercial loan agreement violated the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (IMFL) and was invalid and unenforceable.