The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage loan servicer violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., by failing to properly respond to the borrowers’ request for information, but because the borrowers failed to provide evidence of damages stemming from the violation, the servicer was entitled to summary judgment. In so ruling, the Court held that the borrowers sufficiently alleged a concrete injury in fact that was fairly traceable to the servicer’s alleged violation of RESPA in order to have standing under Spokeo, but that “[w]hether the allegations…
Posts published in “RESPA”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that, under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, a mortgage loan servicer had no duty to evaluate a borrowers’ loss mitigation application submitted two days before the foreclosure sale, even though the sale was continued, affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the servicer’s favor. The Court also held that the borrowers had to present evidence that they suffered actual damages or were entitled to statutory damages in support of their claim based on the servicer’s supposedly inadequate response to their “notice of error” under RESPA…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a borrower properly pleaded a “notice of error” claim under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), reversing the lower court’s grant of the servicer’s motion to dismiss. A copy of the opinion in Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2006, a borrower refinanced her mortgage with a lender, with monthly payments of $998.68. Several years later, servicing of the loan was transferred. The borrower’s payments allegedly increased by about $100 after the transfer. The borrower claimed that she repeatedly contacted the…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment against a putative class of borrowers who were allegedly victims of a captive reinsurance scheme by a lender and its affiliated reinsurance company. In so ruling, the Court held that the plaintiff borrowers’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply because the plaintiff borrowers had not exercised reasonable diligence in investigating their potential claims. A copy of the opinion in Judith Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp. is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff borrowers financed the purchase…
SD Fla. Provides Mixed Ruling on RESPA RFI Responses, Property Inspection Fees Assessed Post-Default
SD Fla. Provides Mixed Ruling on RESPA RFI Responses, Property Inspection Fees Assessed Post-Default
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed with prejudice a borrowers’ allegations that a loan servicer’s response to their request for information regarding drive-by property inspections violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and dismissed the remaining state-law allegations that the drive-by inspections violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the opinion is available here: Link to Opinion. The borrowers defaulted on their home mortgage loan. The loan servicer began conducting drive-by inspections pursuant to the mortgage. The borrowers sent a letter to the…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a plaintiff’s motion to certify a class of home buyers alleging that a scheme involving a title insurer buying minority interests in title agencies in exchange for referral of future title insurance business violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), affirming in part, vacating in part and remanding for further proceedings. In so ruling, the Court held that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s position in its amicus brief was not entitled to Chevron deference, because the CFPB was…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently rejected claims by borrowers who failed to maintain hazard insurance on their mortgaged properties that they were overcharged by their loan servicer for lender-placed insurance, holding the claims were barred by the filed rate doctrine. A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs, borrowers who failed to purchase hazard insurance on their homes as required by the terms of their loans, sued their loan servicer, who purchased lender-placed insurance (LPI) from defendant insurers at rates approved by the applicable regulatory agencies, then sought to collect…
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued its final rule confirming the delay of the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures (TRID) rule to Oct. 3, 2015. A copy of the final rule is available at: Link to Final Rule. The final rule also makes certain technical corrections, including: Amending 12 CFR § 1026.38(i)(8)(ii) and (iii)(A) to “include, in the amount disclosed as ‘Final’ for Adjustments and Other Credits, the amount disclosed under § 1026.38(j)(1)(iii) for certain personal property sales, thus conforming the calculation of Adjustments and Other Credits on the Closing Disclosure and Loan Estimate;” and Amending 12 CFR…
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a brief press release yesterday, confirming reports that it would be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the effective date for the “Know Before You Owe” TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rule until Oct. 1, 2015. A copy of the press release is available at: Press Release. The press release simply states: “The CFPB will be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the effective date of the Know Before You Owe rule until October 1, 2015. We made this decision to correct an administrative error that we just discovered in meeting the requirements under federal law,…
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has ordered RealtySouth, the largest real estate firm in Alabama, to pay a civil monetary penalty of $500,000 for mortgage disclosure violations. The CFPB has charged the company with illegally steering purchasers to use its affiliated company, TitleSouth LLC, for title and closing services. The penalty, along with other injunctive relief, are contained in a consent order under which RealtySouth neither admits nor denies the CFPB’s allegations. The CFPB says the company violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, when it encouraged its agents and in some cases required them to use TitleSouth in real estate…