Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Foreclosure”

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…

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Rejects Borrower’s Attempt to Undo Foreclosure Based on Improper Service

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, held that a borrower’s petition to vacate a final foreclosure order based on allegedly improper service filed six months after the borrower first participated in the foreclosure action was time-barred under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law. Accordingly, the…

1st Cir. Confirms Rooker-Feldman Barred Borrower’s State and Federal Law Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a borrower’s state and federal law claims, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because the borrower’s federal suit sought to invalidate the state courts’ judgments. A copy…

11th Cir. Holds HUD Regs Did Not Prevent Reverse Mortgage Foreclosure on Non-Borrower Surviving Spouse

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20(j) did not alter or limit the lender’s right to foreclose under the terms of the valid reverse mortgage contract where the non-borrower spouse was still living in the home. Accordingly,…