The Supreme Court of Texas recently held that a mortgagee’s foreclosure action was time-barred and that the doctrine of equitable subrogation did not provide the lender with an alternative timely claim.
Posts published in “Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law”
Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Trial Court Improperly Denied Borrower’s Estate Opportunity to Show Lack of Capacity
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently reversed a trial court’s order striking an affirmative defense to a foreclosure, vacated the foreclosure rulings, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
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 New York Court of Appeals recently held that a plaintiff mortgagee was permitted to dispute and contradict whether a taxing authority complied with the statutory tax foreclosure mailing and notice requirements contained in N.Y. Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125(1)(b), and thereby challenge the validity of a tax 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.
Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Reverses Dismissal of Claims That Choice of Law Provisions in Mortgage Loan Docs Violated IMFL
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.
In a repurchase and indemnification action involving mortgage loan liabilities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld a trial court’s $5.4 million compensatory damages judgment and over $14 million attorney fee award in favor of the plaintiff, while overturning the trial court’s award of post-judgment interest.
The New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, recently reversed the ruling of an intermediate appellate court and held that the inclusion of information that is not “false, misleading, obfuscatory, or unrelated” does not void an otherwise proper notice to borrowers sent pursuant to New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1304, and thus does not bar a subsequently filed foreclosure action.