Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Foreclosure”

4th Cir. Holds Non-Mortgage Office Was Not ‘Branch Office’ Under HUD F2F Rule

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s office that was located within 200 miles of the mortgaged property, but did not conduct any mortgage-related business, was not a “branch office” of a “mortgagee” under the HUD rule requiring a face-to-face meeting with mortgage borrowers before filing a mortgage foreclosure action unless the mortgagee does not have a branch office within 200 miles of the borrower's home.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist.) Holds TILA ‘Failure to Rescind After Notice’ Claims Subject to 1-Yr Statute of Limitations

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court order dismissing a foreclosure counterclaim by two borrowers seeking rescission under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., holding that section 1640(e)’s one-year statute of limitation for legal damages applied to bar the borrower’s section 1635 equitable claim, when the borrowers demanded rescission within three years of closing but did not file suit within one year after the lender failed to respond.

Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Bona Fide Foreclosure Sale Not Voided by Latent Defect in Service of Process

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently held that improper service that does not affirmatively appear on the face of the record will not allow a former homeowner to void a foreclosure judgment against the bona fide purchasers of the property.

5th Cir. Holds ‘Minor Defect’ in Notice of Default Not Enough for Wrongful Foreclosure

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. 

Indiana Supreme Court Explains 3 Options Available to Mortgagees as to Statutes of Limitations

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.

Fla. Supreme Court Holds Foreclosure Buyer Could Recover for Property Improvements If Sale Was Later Vacated

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.

Bankruptcy Court (EDPA) Holds Servicer May Have FDCPA Liability for Proofs of Claim

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.