Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “RESPA”

11th Cir. Holds Servicer Did Not Violate RESPA by Omitting Loan Owner’s Phone Number, Damages Allegations Insufficient

In an unpublished ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage servicer did not violate the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act or its implementing regulation (at 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A)) by failing to provide the loan owner’s phone number in response to a borrower’s request for information (“RFI”). In so ruling, the Court also held that: (1) The borrower’s allegation of having expended “certified postage costs of less than $100 for mailing” was not sufficient to meet the requirement of “actual damages” under RESPA at 12 U.S.C. § 2605; and (2) The…

11th Cir. Confirms Servicer May Designate Address for QWRs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a mortgage servicer, holding that the servicer had no duty to respond to a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) because the borrower failed to send the QWR to the servicer’s designated address for QWR receipt. A copy of the opinion in Bivens v. Bank of America, NA is available at:  Link to Opinion. A mortgage servicer sent a letter to a borrower advising that the lender transferred the servicing of the borrower’s mortgage loan to…

MD Fla. Dismisses Borrower’s RESPA Servicing Claims for Lack of Actual Damages, Cites Spokeo

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently granted a mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claim that the servicer violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by allegedly failing to respond in a timely or adequate manner to a written Request for Information (“RFI”). In so ruling, the Court held that the servicer’s conduct did not cause the claimed actual damages incurred in preparing and sending the letters to the servicer, as required by RESPA at 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f). The Court also referenced the Supreme Court of the United States’s ruling in…

8th Cir. Upholds Exclusion of ‘Similar Borrower’ Testimony in 8-to-1 Punitive Damages Award Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a punitive damages award in an approximately 8-to-1 ratio to compensatory damages to a borrower who sued her mortgage loan servicer for alleged common law invasion of privacy and for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). In so ruling, the Court also held that the trial court properly excluded the testimony of a non-party consumer who was supposedly treated similarly by the servicer to rebut the servicer’s assertions of good faith conduct,…

11th Cir. Holds RESPA Claim for Request for Information Violation Failed Under Spokeo

In an unreported ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim that the mortgage servicer failed to confirm receipt of the plaintiff’s request for information because the servicer’s signed certified mail receipt qualified as confirmation of receipt under the statute. Importantly, the Eleventh Circuit also held that the plaintiff’s RESPA claim for statutory damages failed to allege an injury in fact under Spokeo. A copy of the opinion in Meeks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. A borrower’s attorney sent the…

MD Fla. Holds Non-Foreclosure Collection on Time-Barred Debt Does Not Provide Basis for FDCPA or FCCPA Claim

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently granted in part a mortgage loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a consumer borrower’s claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the federal Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), holding: (a) the borrower’s complaint stated claims under the FDCPA and FCCPA because the allegations raised a plausible inference that the servicer knew the borrower was represented by counsel; (b) the borrower’s allegations that the statute of limitations…

7th Cir. Rejects Alleged RESPA ‘Pattern and Practice’ Due to No Evidence of ‘Coordination’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage servicer’s response to a borrower’s written request for information complied with requirements of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and, to the extent any information was missing, the borrower suffered no actual damages as a result. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit rejected the borrowers’ pattern or practice argument under RESPA, based on two district court cases in 2012 and 2014 holding the servicer liable for RESPA violations, because “[t]wo examples of similar behavior — in different states, separated by a handful of years,…

7th Cir. Rules Borrowers Alleged Enough for Standing, But RESPA Claim Failed at Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Damages

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…

11th Cir. Holds Re-Scheduled Foreclosure Sale Does Not Extend RESPA Deadline for Submitting Loss Mit Application

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…

11th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of RESPA ‘Notice of Error’ Servicing Claim

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…

3rd Cir. Rejects Borrowers’ Equitable Tolling Arguments in RESPA Captive Reinsurance Class Action

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

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…