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.
Posts published in “Foreclosure”
Texas Supreme Court Rules Mortgagee Could Not Avoid Foreclosure SOL With Equitable Subrogation Claim
Texas Supreme Court Rules Mortgagee Could Not Avoid Foreclosure SOL With Equitable Subrogation Claim
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.
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.
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
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 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.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently upheld a trial court’s order granting a mortgagee's motion for summary judgment, judgment of foreclosure, sale, and order confirming the foreclosure sale.
The Supreme Court of Arizona recently held that recording a notice of trustee's sale, by itself, is not an affirmative act that accelerates the debt. Therefore, the Court held, the foreclosure at issue in the notice of trustee's sale in this case was not time-barred.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s order confirming a judicial sale of real property collateral following a mortgage foreclosure, as well as the trial court’s denial of the borrower’s motion to reconsider that order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a stay of a non-judicial foreclosure due to the filing of a lawsuit by the borrower did not support an “amount in controversy” in excess of $75,000 for federal diversity jurisdiction purposes.