Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Foreclosure”

U.S. Supreme Court Holds FDCPA Has Extremely Limited Applicability to Persons Engaging in Nonjudicial Foreclosure Proceedings

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated opinion in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP on March 20, ruling the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not cover persons engaged in “non-judicial foreclosures” except with respect to a single provision contained in the FDCPA. Colorado,…

5th Cir. Holds No ‘Detrimental Reliance’ Exception to Unilateral Withdrawal of Acceleration Notice

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that Texas law contains no detrimental reliance exception to a lender’s unilateral right to withdraw an acceleration notice. A copy of the opinion in Jatera Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association is available at:…

7th Cir. Holds Erroneously Recorded Satisfaction May Be Unilaterally Cancelled and Withdrawn

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a mortgagee could unilaterally cancel an erroneously recorded satisfaction of the loan where the borrower had not yet detrimentally relied on the erroneous satisfaction. A copy of the opinion in Trinity 83 Development,…

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Borrower’s General Denial Insufficient to Avoid Summary Judgment in Foreclosure

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that a borrower’s general denial that the mortgagee performed the conditions precedent of the mortgage contract prior to filing a foreclosure action was insufficient under Illinois Supreme Court Rules and therefore constituted a forfeiture of the…

7th Cir. Holds Mortgagee’s Deficiency Claim in Bankruptcy Was Precluded by Failure to Raise in Foreclosure

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s failure to take a deficiency judgment against a borrower who filed bankruptcy in a concluded state foreclosure action precluded the mortgagee from making a deficiency claim in the borrower’s bankruptcy proceeding.…

Fla. Supreme Court Rules Borrower Entitled to Attorney’s Fees After Voluntary Dismissal of Foreclosure Appeal

Reversing a ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida recently held that a mortgagee’s voluntary dismissal of an appeal made the borrower the prevailing party entitled to recover appellate attorney’s fees because the mortgagee maintained its right to enforce…

Illinois Supreme Court Holds Mortgagee’s 2nd Action on Note After Foreclosure Barred by ‘Single Refiling Rule’

The Supreme Court of Illinois recently held that a bank’s suit for breach of a promissory note — a third attempt to collect from the same defendant borrowers based on the same default of the promissory note — was barred by Illinois’ ‘single refiling rule.’…

Calif. App. Court (4th DCA) Rules Servicer and Investor Did Not Violate HBOR

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, recently affirmed summary judgment awarded in favor of the mortgage servicer and loan owner defendants on the borrowers’ claims for alleged violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), finding that the defendants properly contacted the…

7th Cir. Holds Attorney’s Fees and Emotional Distress Not ‘Actual Damages’ for RESPA QWR Claim

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s finding that a servicer did not violate the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Wis. Stat. § 224.77 because the borrower could not prove that the servicer’s alleged failure…

A Tale of Two Fishers: Unsettling Ohio’s ‘Well-Settled Law’ on the Proper Statute of Limitations for Mortgage Foreclosure Actions

• A bankruptcy court in Ohio recently applied the incorrect statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action. • Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence has evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one opinion to supposedly well-settled law stating the complete opposite in another…