Press "Enter" to skip to content

4th Cir. Holds Defendant Must Present Sufficient Evidence to ‘Determine – Not Speculate’ as to CAFA’s Requirements

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a defendant invoking jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), must provide sufficient evidence to allow the court to determine – not speculate – that it was more likely than not that there were at least 100 class members and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. A copy of the opinion in Scott v. Cricket Communications, LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. Between July 2013 and March 2014, a consumer purchased two Samsung Galaxy S4 cell phones from the defendant…

Fla. App. Court (5th DCA) Reverses Foreclosure Judgment That Excluded Interest, Escrow

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fifth District, recently reversed final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of a mortgagee that omitted interest and escrow amounts due, and remanded to the trial court to modify judgment to include these amounts. In so ruling, the 5th DCA determined that the mortgagee met its burden to provide the trial court with figures necessary to calculate the interest and escrow amounts through its witnesses’ testimony and evidence. The Court further reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a homeowner’s association as a party to the foreclosure action, concluding that neither…

DC Cir. Confirms Mediation Not Required Prior to Judicial Foreclosure

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s counterclaims and the entry of summary judgment in the mortgagee’s favor, holding that the borrower failed to state claims (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief for allegedly failing to properly foreclose a deed of trust; (b) for supposedly violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA);  (c) quiet title;  (d) for supposedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA);  and (e) civil conspiracy. In so ruling, the Court held that District of Columbia law clearly does not require mediation prior to judicial…

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…

ED NY Holds ‘Door Knocker’ Notice Did Not Violate FDCPA, But ‘Hello Letter’ May Have

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted in part and denied in part a mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claim that the servicing transfer notice supposedly violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because it allegedly did not disclose that the debt was increasing due to interest, and that a “door knocker” notice posted on the borrower’s door failed to state that it was from a debt collector. The Court held that under Avila v. Riexinger & Associates, LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016), a debt collector must disclose…

6th Cir. Holds Debtors Could Compel Abandonment of Home If Little Equity Available

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtors’ motion to compel the trustee to abandon their home as property of the estate because it had little equity and thus little value for unsecured creditors. A copy of the opinion in Richard Jahn v. Philip Craig Burke is available at:  Link to Opinion. Husband and wife debtors filed a petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, listing their home on their schedules as having an appraised value of $108,000 and a mortgage of $91,581. The bankruptcy trustee moved to evict the…

11th Cir. Holds TCPA Allows Partial Revocation of Consent

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held the Telephone Consumer Protection Act permits a consumer to partially revoke her consent to be called by means of an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), and thereby only receive calls at certain times of the day or on certain days. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and ruled that whether the consumer had partially revoked consent was a question of fact for a jury. A copy of the opinion in Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank is available at:  Link to…

Illinois App. Court (3rd Dist) Holds Third Refiled Foreclosure Not Barred

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, recently rejected a mortgagor’s argument that the Illinois single refiling rule barred a third attempt at foreclosure where the intervening foreclosure complaint was premised upon an alleged default under a loan modification agreement. A copy of the opinion in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Norris is available at:  Link to Opinion. The convoluted procedural and factual history for the mortgage loan at issue in this matter can be boiled down to the following: The defendant mortgagor (who was not a signatory to the promissory note) and his ex-spouse defaulted under the terms of…

5th Cir. Holds Mortgage Fraud Debts Not Dischargeable

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that debts arising from a scheme to deprive mortgagees of surplus foreclosure sale proceeds were non-dischargeable, affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment against the debtor in consolidated adversary proceedings filed by various lenders that held first mortgage liens. A copy of the opinion in Cowin v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. The debtor orchestrated a mortgage fraud scheme by which a straw buyer acquired property subject to a first mortgage at a condominium association’s foreclosure sale. The buyer then entered into a “tax-transfer loan agreement”…

6th Cir. Upholds Denial of Class Certification in TCPA ‘Junk Fax’ Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a class could not be certified because the defendant’s alleged liability under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for sending a “junk fax” without an opt-out notice required determination of two individualized issues, which rendered class certification impracticable. In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit concluded that with the absence of a fax log to identity each recipient, and without an alternative method of identifying class members who had provided consent to receive the fax, the plaintiff failed to prove that its proposed class satisfied Fed. R. Civ.…

6th Cir. Rejects Municipality’s ‘Public Nuisance’ Claims Against Mortgage Lender

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a municipality’s public nuisance claims against two different mortgage lenders for allegedly maintaining a policy of violating local and state building codes if the costs outweighed the value added to the eventual resale of foreclosed property. A copy of the opinion in City of Cincinnati v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. The municipality brought multiple claims against the mortgage lender defendants alleging various claims concerning the maintenance and condition of REO properties.  Eventually, through multiple amended pleadings, stipulations and settlements, only one…

6th Cir. Questions Bank’s Contractual Limit on Liability for Fraudulent Checks

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed by a bank account holder who asserted that the bank violated the Uniform Commercial Code 4-401 and 4-103(a), dealing with liability for fraudulent checks. The account holder experienced check fraud and the bank refused liability because the master services agreement for the account contained a liability waiver for failure to purchase fraud protection products, which the account holder had not done. A copy of the opinion in Majestic Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Huntington Bancshares Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. The…