Press "Enter" to skip to content

ED NY Denies Class Cert on ‘Ascertainability’ Grounds, Holds ‘Probing’ Questions in Dispute Call Did Not Violate FDCPA

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted summary judgment in favor of a debt collector, holding that the debt collector did not violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., by reporting a debt as “deleted” rather than “disputed,” and by asking probing questions in response to a call from the consumer disputing the debt. In addition, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification on ascertainability grounds, holding that trying to decipher the debt collector’s summaries of its calls with the putative class members would not be…

7th Cir. Holds Appealability of Foreclosure Judgments to be Governed by Federal Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that as a matter of federal procedural law, a judgment of foreclosure is not a final and appealable judgment, even if state foreclosure law might provide otherwise. Here, the Court held that a Wisconsin judgment of foreclosure was not final and appealable when obtained in a federal district court, even though Wisconsin law treats a foreclosure judgment ordering a sale as final and appealable. A copy of the opinion in Bank of America, N.A. v. Martinson is available at:  Link to Opinion. A mortgagee filed suit to foreclose a residential…

1st Cir. Rejects Borrower’s Attempt to Permanently Enjoin Foreclosure Due to Cancellation of Prior Foreclosure Proceedings

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that the cancellation of a foreclosure sale prohibits a borrower from obtaining a permanent injunction to bar a foreclosure, as they would not suffer irreparable harm. A copy of the opinion in Frangos v. Bank of America, N.A. is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2005, the plaintiff borrowers obtained a refinance mortgage loan on their home. The borrowers defaulted on their mortgage in 2007 and again in 2009. The loan was modified but the borrowers still had not made a mortgage payment since 2009.  Between 2011 and 2013,…

Fla. App. Court Reverses Foreclosure Despite Evidence Prior Servicer Did Not Receive Signed Loan Mod. Docs

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, recently reversed a final judgment of foreclosure, instead directing the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the borrower. In so ruling, the Appellate Court rejected and disregarded the current servicer’s evidence that the loan modification documents had not been received, because the borrowers introduced evidence that they had returned their signed loan modification agreement materials to the prior servicer, the prior servicer received the materials, and the prior servicer accepted the modified payments. With this evidence, the Appellate Court held that the loan had been modified. A copy of…

FCC Rules TCPA Does Not Apply to Official Calls Made by Feds or Federal Contractors

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently clarified “that the TCPA does not apply to calls made by or on behalf of the federal government in the conduct of official government business, except when a call made by a contractor does not comply with the government’s instructions.” A copy of the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling 16-72 is available at:  Link to Declaratory Ruling. As you may recall from our prior update, Congress amended the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 to allow autodialed calls “made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the…

CFPB Issues Supervisory Report Addressing ‘Unfair’ Coding Errors, Other Issues

The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued its “Supervisory Highlights – Issue 12, Summer 2016” report, focusing attention on automobile origination, debt collection, mortgage origination, small dollar lending, fair lending, and remedial actions, reflecting supervisory activity generally completed between January 2016 and April 2016. The CFPB reported deficiencies in Compliance Management Systems and other software-related systems in various industries.  The Bureau also emphasized the ECOA “special purpose credit programs” found at various lenders, noting that it “generally takes a favorable view of conscientious efforts that institutions may undertake to develop special purpose credit programs to promote extensions of…

Calif. App. Court Holds Alleged Foreclosure by Wrong Beneficiary Enough for Wrongful Foreclosure, No Tender Required

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, recently held that a homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so — by those allegations alone — sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. Citing Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, the Appellate Court also held that, because the plaintiff properly alleged the foreclosure was void and not merely voidable, tender was not required to state a cause of action for quiet title or for cancellation of instruments. A copy of the opinion in Sciarratta v.…

Minn. District Court Holds Even Complete Tender Does Not Moot Individual or Putative Class Claims

Interpreting the Supreme Court of the United States’s ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota recently held that a defendant cannot moot a putative class action against it, even by tendering the full amount claimed to the named plaintiff and before a motion for class certification is filed. A copy of the opinion in Ung v. Universal Acceptance Corporation is available at:  Link to Opinion. Beginning in June 2014, an auto finance company allegedly repeatedly called the plaintiff’s cell phone in an attempt to reach an individual who allegedly listed the plaintiff as a…

Calif. Supreme Court Holds Atty Fees to be Included in Determining Constitutional Limits of Punitive Damages Awards

The Supreme Court of California recently held that, in determining whether punitive damages awards are within constitutional limits, attorney’s fees may be included in the calculation of the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages, regardless of whether the fees are awarded by the trier of fact as part of its verdict or are determined by the trial court after the verdict has been rendered. A copy of the opinion in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff suffered a broken leg and was taken to a veterans hospital.  He experienced several complications from his…

MD Pa. Holds Notice Explaining Tax Consequences of Debt Cancellation Could Be Misleading

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently denied a debt collector’s motion to dismiss, holding that a collection notice describing the potential tax consequences of settlements involving cancellation of indebtedness of $600 or more may be misleading or deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer. A copy of the opinion in Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Company, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. A consumer filed a complaint against a debt collector alleging the defendant supposedly violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending a letter that stated that “any indebtedness of $600.00 or more,…

5th Cir. Confirms Self-Serving Testimony of Emotional Distress Insufficient Under FCRA, Commercial Losses Not Recoverable

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., does not allow recovery for commercial or investment property losses. The Court also concluded that where a plaintiff points to no evidence that the denial of credit was actually caused by the defendant’s inaccurate credit reporting, judgment is proper in favor of the furnisher. Finally, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a plaintiff is not entitled to emotional distress damages where the only evidence of emotional distress is the plaintiff’s own self-serving and conclusory deposition testimony. A…

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Any Entity May Be Liable for Charging Excessive Attorney’s Fees

In an appeal that garnered significant attention from consumer groups who filed briefs as amici curiae, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that any entity that charges excessive attorney’s fees in connection with a foreclosure may be liable for treble damages, fines, and attorney’s fees under the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law. A copy of the opinion in Glover v. Udren Law Offices, PC is available at:  Link to Opinion. The borrower entered into a residential mortgage in 2002, and later defaulted.  In the foreclosure proceedings that followed, the mortgagee’s counsel took several actions on the mortgagee’s behalf. The parties…