The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that bankruptcy courts could confirm Chapter 13 plans proposing estimated time periods to complete the plan if unsecured creditors and the trustee did not object, reversing a contrary ruling from its Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
Posts published by “Kevin M. Hudspeth”
Kevin Hudspeth is Of Counsel to Maurice Wutscher LLP. He has substantial litigation experience regarding claims arising under federal and state consumer protection statutes. He also has substantial experience in the areas of repurchase litigation, Uniform Commercial Code litigation, commercial business disputes, and contested foreclosures. Kevin has worked as an Assistant Attorney General with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, where he litigated actions arising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Securities Law, and other related statutes. He also participated in the Illinois Supreme Court’s Mortgage Foreclosure Task Force, advising on proposed amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules regarding mortgage foreclosure, and acted as an Official Observer to the Uniform Law Commission’s drafting committee for a proposed uniform law regulating residential foreclosure throughout the country. Kevin has taught legal research and writing as an Adjunct Professor with Loyola University Chicago School of Law, and has published articles in academic and trade journals on procedural and evidentiary problems presented in mortgage foreclosure cases, including issues related to the transfer and enforcement of promissory notes. Kevin is admitted to practice law in the States of Ohio and Illinois. He has litigated cases at both the trial and appellate levels in federal and state courts throughout the country. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/kevin-m-hudspeth/
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act prohibits merchants from including, among other information, credit- and debit-card expiration dates on printed receipts. After this provision originally became effective in 2004, plaintiff class-action firms flooded courts with expiration date lawsuits, which courts and others “met with varying degrees of contempt.”
Maine’s Supreme Court recently held that a foreclosing lender’s equitable interest in the mortgage does not by itself equate to ownership of the mortgage and does not allow courts to compel the mortgage’s assignment. Beal Bank USA v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 2019 ME 150, ¶ 15. The opinion revives concerns over the viability of foreclosing Maine mortgages involving Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that a debtor alleged a plausible claim against a mortgage loan servicer under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on the servicer's proof of claim filed after obtaining a foreclosure judgment.
Lenders foreclosing FHA-insured mortgages in Ohio often face challenges that contest the lender’s compliance with relevant regulations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Like most courts throughout the nation, Ohio courts treat HUD regulations as contractual terms incorporated into FHA-insured mortgage loan documents. As Ohio case law on this issue continues to evolve, confusion—and sometimes shock—can arise for out-of-state lenders unfamiliar with the state-specific intricacies of litigating contested foreclosures involving FHA-insured mortgage loans in Ohio.
• A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action. • Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another opinion. • Federal courts interpreting Ohio law must apply the correct statute of limitations to mortgage foreclosure actions. In the bankruptcy case of In re Fisher, 584 B.R. 185, 199–200 (N.D. Ohio Bankr. 2018), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio disallowed a lender’s proof of claim on a mortgage based on…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal of borrowers’ state law negligence and constitutional due process allegations arising from the foreclosure and sale of their home under Michigan’s foreclosure-by-advertisement statute. A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff borrowers obtained a mortgage loan in 2008. The mortgage named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the lender’s nominee and the mortgagee. The note was endorsed in blank to the original lender and was later transferred to a loan servicer. The assignment of mortgage to the loan servicer…