Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Foreclosure”

NY App. Court Holds Strict Compliance Required for ‘Separate Envelope’ for Pre-Foreclosure Notice

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, recently affirmed a lower court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a borrower in a foreclosure action due to the mortgagee’s failure to comply with the “separate envelope” requirement of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law 1304(2).

7th Cir. Rejects Borrower’s Attempt to Appeal Remand Order and Related Fee Award

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several actions by a borrower against a mortgagee, and in so ruling also held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the lower court’s remand order, and that the borrower had waived his right to challenge an award of attorney fees and costs in connection with the remand.

Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Holds Successive Foreclosures Not Necessarily Barred by Dismissal of Prior Actions

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently reversed a trial court’s grant of a borrower’s motion to dismiss a mortgagee’s foreclosure complaint and the trial court’s denial of the mortgagee’s motion to reconsider. 

Illinois App. Court (2nd Dist) Rejects ‘Dual Tracking,’ Standing, Notice, Other Challenges to Foreclosure

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed a trial court's ruling denying a borrower’s motion to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure against him and confirming the judicial sale of the borrower’s property.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds HUD ‘Face-to-Face’ Compliance May Not Have Been Excused by Letter from Borrower’s Counsel

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently vacated a judgment of foreclosure entered against a homeowner borrower, concluding that the mortgagee failed to conduct a face-to-face meeting with her prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings, as required for mortgage loans insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Rejects Borrowers’ Allegations of ‘Wrongful Foreclosure,’ UDAP Violations, Other Claims

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of a complaint from two borrowers alleging claims for among other things “wrongful foreclosure,” wrongful eviction, fraud, consumer fraud, false imprisonment, and a due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2nd Cir. Holds De-Acceleration of Mortgage Loan Does Not Require Voluntary Discontinuance of Foreclosure Action

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently vacated a trial court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in an action to quiet title for a property subject to a mortgage. While the appeal was pending for this matter, an intervening ruling in the New York Court of Appeals undermined the reasoning of the trial court. Therefore, the Second Circuit vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Upholds Order Appointing Receiver in Mixed Use Foreclosure Action

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court’s order appointing a receiver as to a mixed-use property in foreclosure, because the foreclosing mortgagee established a reasonable probability that it would prevail in a final hearing and the defendant mortgagors failed to show good cause as to why a receiver should not be appointed.

Calif. App. Court (4th Dist) Holds Prior Unlawful Detainer Judgment Did Not Bar Borrowers’ Current Claims

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that a trial court erred in ruling that several borrowers' claims were precluded by a prior unlawful detainer judgment entered against them following the foreclosure sale of their home.

9th Cir. Holds Mortgagee May Challenge HOA Foreclosure Sale That Violates Bankruptcy Automatic Stay

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the buyer at a homeowners association’s non-judicial foreclosure sale that was conducted in violation of the automatic stay in the borrower's bankruptcy, and against a mortgagee whose interest in the foreclosed property would have been extinguished.