Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Foreclosure”

7th Cir. Rejects ECOA Claim Based on Vague Statement by Defendant’s Employee

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under a disparate treatment theory where their only evidence was a vague statement from one of the defendant’s employees. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. A copy of the opinion in Mario Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs, an African-American couple, purchased a home from the seller in October 2008 for $185,000.  The plaintiffs…

5th Cir. Confirms MERS Assignment Not Defective Due to Dissolution of Originating Lender

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a purported defect in the assignment of a security instrument — that it was executed solely as “nominee,” and not as beneficiary – did not affect the rights of the beneficiary and its successors and assigns to foreclose the subject property, and entered judgment in favor of the mortgagee. A copy of the opinion in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burke is available at:  Link to Opinion. In May 2007, a lender extended a mortgage loan, evidenced by a promissory note executed by the borrower and secured…

11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal, Suggests Sanctions for ‘Shotgun Pleading’

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently rejected an attempt by homeowners to collaterally attack a state court mortgage foreclosure judgment, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of an amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but on alternative grounds. More specifically, the Court upheld the dismissal on the grounds that, “by attempting to prosecute an incomprehensible pleading to judgment, the plaintiffs obstructed the due administration of justice” in the trial court, and by trying to defend the fatally defective complaint on appeal. The Court also ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause why he should…

11th Cir. Holds HUD Regs Did Not Prevent Reverse Mortgage Foreclosure on Non-Borrower Surviving Spouse

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-20(j) did not alter or limit the lender’s right to foreclose under the terms of the valid reverse mortgage contract where the non-borrower spouse was still living in the home. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition for injunctive relief to prevent the foreclosure sale. A copy of the opinion in The Estate of Caldwell Jones, Jr. v. Live Well Financial, Inc. is available at:  Link to Opinion. A borrower obtained a reverse mortgage that was subsequently assigned to the defendant…

Fla. Supreme Court Resolves Conflict on Deadline to Claim Foreclosure Surplus Funds

In a dispute over surplus funds from a judicial foreclosure property sale, the Florida Supreme Court recently held that a subordinate lienholder’s claim to surplus funds — filed 61 days after the public auction — was timely and superior to the claim of the former record owners of the property. In so ruling, the Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified conflict between Florida’s Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal by concluding that the 60-day timeframe for filing a claim to surplus funds under the provisions of chapter 45, Florida Statutes, begins upon the clerk’s issuance of the certificate of…

9th Cir. Holds 4-Yr Federal ‘Catch-All’ SOL Applies to SCRA Claims

On an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held the federal catchall statute of limitations of four years under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) applies to private suits alleging violations of section 303(c) of the federal Servicemembers Credit Relief Act (SCRA). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred. A copy of the opinion in McGreevey v. PHH Mortgage Corporation is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2006, the plaintiff, a U.S. Marine, refinanced a mortgage loan on his home in the state of Washington with a loan from…

5th Cir. Holds Automatic Stay Violation Claim Against Mortgagee Barred by Judicial Estoppel

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s foreclosure action did not violate an automatic stay imposed during one of the plaintiff’s chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules, where the debtor failed to amend his bankruptcy schedules to disclose his recent acquisition of the subject property from his son. In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the mortgagee because father and son plaintiffs were judicially estopped from claiming a stay violation. A copy of the opinion in Fornesa v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company is available at:  Link to Opinion. A…

6th Cir. Holds BK Debtor’s Challenge to Mortgage Not Barred by Rooker-Feldman

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a debtor’s claim seeking to use a bankruptcy trustee’s § 544(a) strong-arm power to avoid a mortgage on the ground that it was never perfected did not require appellate review of the state court foreclosure judgment, and therefore was not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. A copy of the opinion in In re Isaacs is available at:  Link to Opinion. In 2003, the debtor and her husband took out a home-equity loan secured by a mortgage on their home in Kentucky.  The original mortgagee did not immediately record…

8th Cir. Holds Civil Procedure Rules Could Not Extend Minnesota Foreclosure Deadlines

Answering a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that a rule of civil procedure cannot be used to modify deadlines in the state’s foreclosure statute. In so ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that to allow a rule of procedure to extend a deadline contained in the Minnesota foreclosure statute would alter the substantive rights of the litigants. At issue in the case was the borrowers’ argument that the loan servicer violated the statutory requirements for handling foreclosures under Minn. Stat. § 582.043. The statute at issue required the borrowers…

Fla. Supreme Court Holds Lenders May Pursue Separate Deficiency Action After Foreclosure

The Florida Supreme Court recently resolved a conflict among the state appellate courts. At issue in the case was whether section 702.06, Florida Statutes (2014) permitted lenders to pursue a deficiency claim as a separate action at law even though the foreclosure court had reserved jurisdiction in its final judgment to adjudicate the deficiency claim. The First District Court of Appeal had ruled that a lender could not pursue the deficiency as a separate action at law, which was in conflict with decisions from the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal. The Florida Supreme Court resolved the…

9th Cir. Holds Judicial Foreclosures Are Debt Collection Under FDCPA

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a law firm’s effort to collect homeowner association (“HOA”) assessments through judicial foreclosure constitutes debt collection under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In so ruling, for purposes of whether activity constitutes debt collection under the FDCPA, the Court distinguished judicial foreclosures that allow for deficiency judgments from non-judicial foreclosures that do not allow for deficiency judgments. A copy of the opinion in McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan, PC is available at:  Link to Opinion. The plaintiff consumer purchased the subject property in Arizona subject…

To the U.S. Supreme Court: Does the FDCPA Apply to Non-Judicial Foreclosure Proceedings?

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP that presents the question “whether the FDCPA applies to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.” The borrower in the underlying case defaulted on his home loan and the mortgage servicer hired a law firm to pursue a non-judicial foreclosure.  The borrower informed the law firm he was disputing the debt and the law firm, without responding to the dispute, proceeded with the non-judicial foreclosure. The borrower then filed a lawsuit against the mortgage servicer and law firm alleging, among other things,…