The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that class action plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate that there is an administratively feasible way to determine who is in a class in order for the class to be certified. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit noted that the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have similarly ruled. See Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medtox Sci., Inc., 821 F.3d 992, 995–96 (8th Cir. 2016); Rikos v. Procter & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497, 525 (6th Cir. 2015); Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2015),…
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,…
The Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Third District, recently reversed summary judgment in favor of a mortgagee-loss payee under a homeowner’s insurance policy, holding that the mortgagee failed to provide evidence of the value of the property after repairs, and therefore failed to show that repairing the property was not economically feasible. A copy of the opinion Alvarez-Mejia v. Bellissimo Properties, LLC, et al. is available at: Link to Opinion. A consumer took out a purchase money loan for $120,000 secured by a mortgage on the residential property. The original lender assigned the mortgage to two fractional…
A New Jersey federal District Court recently granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in a claim arising from service fees where the collection account at issue did not belong to the debtor. A copy of the opinion in Benali v. AFNI is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff received a dunning letter from a collector allowing him to make payments by phone or online subject to a $4.95 processing fee. Similar payments made by mail would not be subject to the processing fee. Although the account at issue did not belong to him, the plaintiff filed suit…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that a mortgagee did not violate the discharge injunction in 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) by sending IRS 1099-A forms to borrowers after their discharge, agreeing that the IRS forms were not objectively coercive attempts to collect a debt. A copy of the opinion in Bates v. CitiMortgage, Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion. The borrowers obtained a mortgage loan secured by their home. They filed bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in 2008 and received a discharge of their personal liability for the loan in 2009.…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s denial of class certification and dismissal of consolidated complaints alleging that a mortgage lender violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending “junk faxes” to businesses without their consent or a pre-existing business relationship. In so ruling, the Court held: (a) the mere mention of a defense is not enough to defeat the predominance requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); and (b) an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case. A copy of the opinion in Bridging…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently rejected an interpretation of Spokeo that would preclude all violations of statutorily mandated procedures from qualifying as concrete injuries supporting standing. In so ruling, the Court held that some violations of statutorily mandated procedures might entail the concrete injury necessary for standing where Congress conferred the procedural right to protect a plaintiff’s concrete interests, and where the procedural violation presents a material “risk of real harm” to that underlying concrete interest. A copy of the opinion in Strubel v. Comenity Bank is available at: Link to Opinion. As you may…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank’s lawsuit against the husband of a debtor who had filed for bankruptcy did not violate the co-debtor stay because the husband’s credit card debts were not a consumer debt for which the debtor was personally liable. A copy of the opinion in Smith v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA is available at: Link to Opinion. A debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2011. During the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, a bank filed suit and obtained a judgment against the debtor’s husband on a credit card debt…
The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois recently affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against her mortgagee, property inspection and preservation company and its local subcontractors, who entered the home after the borrower’s default to secure the property. In so ruling, the Court held that: (a) a direct victim’s claim for emotional distress must include an allegation of contemporaneous physical injury or impact that caused emotional distress, or that she was a bystander in a zone of physical danger that caused her to fear for her own safety and that…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s effort to avoid a mortgage on the basis that the acknowledgment signed by the borrowers’ attorney-in-fact was defective under Massachusetts law, holding that the acknowledgment was not materially defective because as a matter of agency law the attorney-in-fact’s signature was the borrowers’ “free act and deed.” A copy of the opinion in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Lassman is available at: Link to Opinion. The borrowers purchased a parcel of “registered land” in 1994 in North Attleboro, Mass. (the “subject property”). “Registered land” is real property…
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently determined that the sole issue for trial was whether the consumer should be awarded treble damages in his complaint alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because “a plaintiff need not answer or hear a call to prove prohibited conduct under the TCPA, but need only prove the act of placing the call itself.” A copy of the opinion in Manuel v. NRA Group, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. The consumer alleged that the issue of statutory damages was resolved by the Court during…
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recently ruled that 18 telephone calls to a consumer over a two-week period – of which 17 were unanswered, and the last where the consumer hung up – did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In so ruling, the Court also affirmed that under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), persons who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given their invitation or permission to be called at the number which they have given, absent instructions to the contrary. A copy of the opinion…