The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed entry of summary judgment against a homeowner borrower’s wrongful foreclosure claims premised upon receipt of a defective pre-foreclosure notice that erroneously provided a 30-day deadline to cure from the date the notice of default letter was printed, rather than the day the letter was mailed as required under the terms of the deed of trust.
Posts published in “Foreclosure”
The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that there are important legal differences between closed-end installment contracts (such as ordinary mortgage loans) and open-end accounts (such as HELOCs) when considering statute of limitations, and there is no need to impose a rule of reasonableness when a lender sues for payment on a closed-end installment contract.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently rejected a loan servicer’s appeal from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s ruling to remand to the lower bankruptcy court a punitive damages award for alleged discharge violations.
The Supreme Court of Florida recently held that trial courts have continuing jurisdiction to hear a third party purchaser’s motion to recover the value of repairs and improvements made to property purchased at a foreclosure sale that was later vacated, quashing and reversing the contrary ruling of Florida’s First District Court of Appeal.
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a consumer’s claims against the owner and loan servicer of her mortgage loan that their collection statements supposedly violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and the Massachusetts Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, 49.
In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the protections against default judgment under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) do not apply to the seizure and sale of real property in in rem proceedings under Louisiana law where the debtors have agreed to a confession of judgment in the mortgage or security agreement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed judgment against a borrower for quiet title claims brought against the owner and servicer of her mortgage loan, and entered judgment of foreclosure in the loan owner and servicer’s favor on their counterclaims for foreclosure against the borrower.
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.
In a putative class action of borrowers who received mortgage statements after a bankruptcy discharge, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court order denying certification for failure to establish predominance. In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that…
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, recently held that an entity with only a purported equitable interest in a property was only a permissive party to a foreclosure and not a necessary party, and therefore the plaintiff mortgagee was not required to serve the entity…