The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that a borrower is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Law (“Act 6”) relating to an affirmative defense raised in a mortgage foreclosure action that was subsequently discontinued without prejudice. A copy of the opinion in Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Lindsay is available at: Link to Opinion. The borrower defaulted on his mortgage loan, and the mortgagee filed a foreclosure action. Thereafter, the borrower answered the foreclosure complaint and asserted as an affirmative defense an alleged violation of § 403(a) of Act 6, which, according to the Court, is an “extensive…
Posts tagged as “Foreclosure”
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin recently held that claim preclusion does not bar a mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure complaint despite a prior litigation which resulted in a dismissal with prejudice if the subsequent litigation is based upon a default and acceleration which occurred after the initial foreclosure proceeding. A copy of the opinion in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Thompson is available at: Link to Opinion. Following a borrower’s default on his mortgage loan, the prior servicer of the loan initiated foreclosure proceedings based upon a default and acceleration alleged to have occurred in 2009. The trial court in this initial foreclosure…
The District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District of Florida recently denied a motion to reconsider an order awarding appellate attorney’s fees to borrowers who were the prevailing party on appeal, reversing judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of the mortgagee. Distinguishing contrary rulings from a different Florida appellate court, the Court upheld its prior order awarding the borrowers attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 57.105 and the terms of the subject mortgage, despite its conclusion that the mortgagee lacked standing when it filed the foreclosure complaint, as the mortgagee nonetheless was a party to the mortgage contract…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that where a mortgagee rescinded a notice of intent to accelerate and then filed a foreclosure action without first issuing a new notice of intent to accelerate, it failed to meet its burden to show clear and unequivocal notice of intent to accelerate prior to filing suit, and therefore was not entitled to foreclosure judgment. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the bank, and dismissed the foreclosure action. A copy of the opinion in Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Angel…
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently held that a condominium association acting on its six-month super-priority lien for unpaid condominium assessments pursuant to § 42-1903.13(a)(2) of the District of Columbia Condominium Act (the “D.C. Condo Act”) may not conduct its foreclosure sale subject to a first deed of trust lien, even if the terms of sale stated that the condo unit would be sold subject to first deed of trust. A copy of the opinion in Liu v. US Bank National Association is available at: Link to Opinion. The borrower obtained a loan to finance his purchase of a condominium…
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District recently held that a foreclosing mortgagee’s payment of post-foreclosure sale assessments nearly a year after the sale date confirmed the extinguishment of a condominium association’s lien for pre-sale assessments created under the Illinois Condominium Property Act. In so ruling, the First District found that the plain language of the Act did not place any “temporal requirement on the payment of post-purchase assessments in order for the payment to confirm the extinguishment of any lien created under subsection 9(g)(1) of the Act[.]” A copy of the opinion in Quadrangle House Condominium Association v. U.S.…
The Supreme Court of Florida recently denied a pro se borrower’s petition to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, and imposed sanctions against him for filing numerous meritless and inappropriate petitions for relief pertaining to trial court foreclosure proceedings to which he is a defendant. In so doing, the Supreme Court barred the borrower from filing any future pleadings, motions or requests for relief in the Supreme Court related to his foreclosure proceedings, unless filed in good faith by an attorney in good standing. A copy of the opinion in Rivas v. Bank of New York Mellon is available at: Link…
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently held that the “statutory power of sale” as defined in M.G.L. ch. 181, § 21 was incorporated by reference in a lender’s form reverse mortgage instrument even though the lender used the term “power of sale” rather than the specific term “statutory power of sale.” Accordingly, the SJC ruled, the lender was able to utilize the Massachusetts statutory power of sale. A copy of the opinion in James B. Nutter & Company v. Estate of Murphy is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2007 and 2008, three elderly borrowers each obtained loans from the same lender…
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently held that a dialing system — which required calls to be manually dialed, could not place calls without human input, and could not dial predictively, or store or produce telephone numbers independently, which in this case was the Avaya X1 Platform — was not an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant mortgage loan servicers. A copy of the opinion in Ferrer v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC et al. is available at: Link…
Illinois Supreme Court Holds Foreclosure Deadline to Challenge Service Tolled While Action Dismissed
Illinois Supreme Court Holds Foreclosure Deadline to Challenge Service Tolled While Action Dismissed
Reversing the rulings of both the appellate and the trial courts, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois recently held that the deadline to file a motion to quash service under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (IMFL) did not run while the foreclosure action was dismissed for want of prosecution. A copy of the opinion in Bank of New York Mellon v. Laskowski is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff mortgagee filed a residential mortgage foreclosure complaint against, among others, the borrower and a limited liability company. The mortgagee filed an affidavit of service by publication indicating that,…
The Court of Appeal of California, First District, recently concluded that if two deeds of trust are submitted at the same time for recording, the order in which they are indexed is not determinative of priority. Instead, according to the Court, the intent of the parties will determine priority. In this case, one originating lender extended two loans secured by the same real estate, and it was apparent that the expectation was that the larger mortgage loan would have priority. The trial court had held that the defendant was the senior lienholder even though the defendant’s mortgage was indexed after…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the trial court from considering the plaintiff’s claims because she was not challenging or seeking to set aside an underlying non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceeding under Colorado law. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit remanded to the trial court to determine what effect, if any, the non-judicial proceeding had under the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion. A copy of the opinion in Mayotte v. U.S. Bank National Association is available at: Link to Opinion. The borrower signed a note secured by a deed of trust. The…