Press "Enter" to skip to content

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Subsequent Foreclosure-Related Action Barred by Illinois ‘Single Refiling’ Rule

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently dismissed a mortgagee’s “breach of mortgage contract” action as an impermissible second refiling following prior voluntary dismissals of a 2011 foreclosure complaint and 2013 action for breach of the promissory note based upon the same note and mortgage. In so ruling, the Appellate Court concluded that, despite the plaintiff mortgagee’s differing theories of relief based upon foreclosure sale and deficiency judgment and enforcement of the note itself in past suits, dismissal was warranted under Illinois law, because all of the complaints arose from a single group of operative facts and sought to…

9th Cir. Rejects Attempt to Hold Lenders Liable for Promoter’s Alleged TCPA Violations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s judgment in favor of several lender defendants in a putative TCPA class action, ruling that the defendants could not be vicariously liable under the TCPA for a promoter’s text messages because the promoter was either not the defendants’ agent or the defendants did not have knowledge concerning material facts about the agent’s unlawful activities. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that mere knowledge that an agent is engaged in an otherwise commonplace marketing activity, such as text message marketing, would not lead a reasonable person…

Fla. App. Court (4th DCA) Holds Trial Court Improperly Applied Federal Judicial Estoppel Rule to Undisclosed Assets in Bankruptcy

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed a trial court’s order denying two borrowers’ request for attorney’s fees and costs on judicial estoppel grounds. In so ruling, the Fourth DCA held that the trial court improperly relied on a Fifth Circuit case and failed to apply Florida’s judicial estoppel doctrine when it concluded that the borrowers’ failure to disclose their attorney’s fee claim in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy schedules barred the fee claim. A copy of the opinion in Anfriany v. Deutsche Bank National Trust is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2008, the…

2nd Cir. Affirms Judgment in Defendants’ Favor in TCPA Putative Class Action

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the entry of judgment on the pleadings against the plaintiff in a putative class action alleging that a text message sent by a third party on behalf of a hospital reminding the plaintiff about a flu shot violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), holding that the plaintiff provided his prior express consent to receive such messages in a hospital admission form. A copy of the opinion in Latner v. Mt. Sinai Health System, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff went to a medical clinic owned by a…

Calif. App. Court (3rd Dist) Holds Servicer May Owe Borrower Duty of Care as to Loan Mod Efforts

Adding to the growing split of authority among California’s various state appellate courts, and among various federal courts in California, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, recently held that a loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the “Biakanja” factors, even though its involvement in the loan does not exceed its conventional role. In so ruling, the Third District “assumed without deciding” that California Civil Code § 2923.6(g) offers an affirmative defense to a negligence claim in loan modification cases where the borrower submits multiple loan modification…

6th Cir. Reverses Contempt Sanction Against Defendant That Thwarted Paying Plaintiff Class Counsel’s Fees

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that distributing all of a company’s cash to its owners after a class action settlement was reached but before the court’s order to pay became final, thus leaving the company without the ability to pay class counsel’s fees or administration costs as required under the settlement agreement, did not constitute contempt. The trial court had originally determined that the distribution of the money constituted contempt because the defendant had knowingly violated the court’s order to pay class counsel’s fees. The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that a finding of contempt is limited to…

9th Cir. Holds Temporary Stay of Foreclosure Not Enough to Satisfy Diversity ‘Amount in Controversy’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity over claims which sought a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale pending the review of a loan modification application because the amount of controversy did not exceed $75,000. In so ruling, the Court held that, for claims which merely seek a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale, the amount in controversy is not the value of the underlying loan. A copy of the opinion in Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion.…

6th Cir. Holds Michigan’s 6-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Penalty for Untimely Insurance Claims Payments

In a case involving a claim on a fire insurance policy relating to damaged real estate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that the insurance policy’s two-year limitations provision did not apply to a claim brought under section 500.2006(4) of Michigan Complied Laws because it was not a claim “under the policy,” and instead Michigan’s “catch-all” six-year period of limitations applied. In addition, and contrary to two previous unpublished rulings, the Sixth Circuit determined that a private cause of action exists under section 500.2006(4) Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit determined that the insured’s claim was timely,…

Use of FTC ‘Approved’ Disclosure No Safe Harbor Against FDCPA Claim

A recent decision from a trial court sitting in Illinois calls into question whether debt collectors can rely on a widely used disclosure when collecting debt that may be subject to an expired limitations period. A copy of the opinion in Richardson v. LVNV Funding, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2012 the Federal Trade Commission and Asset Acceptance, LLC entered into a consent decree to resolve an enforcement action that included allegations that Asset’s debt collection activities violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The consent decree provided that when collecting “time-barred” debt not subject to credit reporting,…

7th Cir. Holds TILA Claim for Failing to Rescind After Notice Was Time Barred by 1-Year SOL

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that, following the confirmation of a foreclosure sale in Illinois, the only remedy available to a borrower under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was damages, and therefore the one-year limitation period under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) applied and his claims were barred despite the fact that he provided rescission notices within three years of the loan closing, and despite the fact that the parties engaged in back-and-forth communications after the demands were first sent. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the borrower’s claims by the trial court. A…

7th Cir. Upholds Class Settlement Despite Atty Fee Award in Excess of Award to Class

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held, over extensive objections by intervenors, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving a class action settlement, despite alleged problems with the class notice and the fact that the attorneys’ fees award exceeded the total award to the class. In so ruling, the Court rejected the intervenors’ argument that the proponents of a class settlement must file briefs in support of settlement before the deadline to object. A copy of the opinion in J.G. Goodman, et al v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. is available…

Fla. App. Court (3rd DCA) Reverses Dismissal of Foreclosure on ‘Prior Servicer’s Records’ Issue

Following rulings from other appellate courts in other appellate districts, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s order involuntarily dismissing a mortgagee’s foreclosure against a borrower holding that the mortgagee’s witness from its current mortgage servicer laid a sufficient foundation at trial to admit business records from a prior mortgage servicer necessary to prove a default under Florida’s business records exception to hearsay. A copy of the opinion in Deutsche Bank v. de Brito is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2006, a mortgagee provided the borrower with an adjustable rate note and mortgage that contained a…