The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District recently concluded that two borrowers failed to rebut the foreclosing mortgagee’s prima facie case of standing to pursue foreclosure against the borrowers, and affirmed the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff mortgagee established as a matter of law that it had standing. The Second District, however, reversed the trial court’s order of summary judgment by concluding there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff complied with HUD’s face-to-face interview requirement at 24 C.F.R. § 203.604. As to the standing issue, the Second District held that the plaintiff established a prima facie…
Posts tagged as “Foreclosure”
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently dismissed a mortgagee’s “breach of mortgage contract” action as an impermissible second refiling following prior voluntary dismissals of a 2011 foreclosure complaint and 2013 action for breach of the promissory note based upon the same note and mortgage. In so ruling, the Appellate Court concluded that, despite the plaintiff mortgagee’s differing theories of relief based upon foreclosure sale and deficiency judgment and enforcement of the note itself in past suits, dismissal was warranted under Illinois law, because all of the complaints arose from a single group of operative facts and sought to…
The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed a trial court’s order denying two borrowers’ request for attorney’s fees and costs on judicial estoppel grounds. In so ruling, the Fourth DCA held that the trial court improperly relied on a Fifth Circuit case and failed to apply Florida’s judicial estoppel doctrine when it concluded that the borrowers’ failure to disclose their attorney’s fee claim in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy schedules barred the fee claim. A copy of the opinion in Anfriany v. Deutsche Bank National Trust is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2008, the…
9th Cir. Holds Temporary Stay of Foreclosure Not Enough to Satisfy Diversity ‘Amount in Controversy’
9th Cir. Holds Temporary Stay of Foreclosure Not Enough to Satisfy Diversity ‘Amount in Controversy’
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity over claims which sought a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale pending the review of a loan modification application because the amount of controversy did not exceed $75,000. In so ruling, the Court held that, for claims which merely seek a temporary stay of a foreclosure sale, the amount in controversy is not the value of the underlying loan. A copy of the opinion in Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is available at: Link to Opinion.…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that, following the confirmation of a foreclosure sale in Illinois, the only remedy available to a borrower under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was damages, and therefore the one-year limitation period under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) applied and his claims were barred despite the fact that he provided rescission notices within three years of the loan closing, and despite the fact that the parties engaged in back-and-forth communications after the demands were first sent. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the borrower’s claims by the trial court. A…
Following rulings from other appellate courts in other appellate districts, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s order involuntarily dismissing a mortgagee’s foreclosure against a borrower holding that the mortgagee’s witness from its current mortgage servicer laid a sufficient foundation at trial to admit business records from a prior mortgage servicer necessary to prove a default under Florida’s business records exception to hearsay. A copy of the opinion in Deutsche Bank v. de Brito is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2006, a mortgagee provided the borrower with an adjustable rate note and mortgage that contained a…
The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District recently reversed a final foreclosure judgment in favor of a mortgagee, holding that the mortgagee did not establish that the original foreclosure plaintiff acquired the note by virtue of a merger, and did not establish the relationship between the original foreclosure plaintiff and the originating lender. Accordingly, the Court held, the mortgagee did not properly establishing standing as to the original foreclosure plaintiff, as required. A copy of the opinion in Green v. Green Tree Servicing is available at: Link to Opinion. In 2004, a bank (“originating bank”) extended a mortgage loan…
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently held that even though the Illinois Residential Mortgage License Act (“IRMLA”) was applicable to a lender that only made one loan in Illinois, an amendment to the IRMLA provided an exception to the law of the case doctrine and under the amendment the mortgage was not void merely because the lender was not licensed under the IRMLA at the time the loan was extended. A copy of the opinion in First Mortgage Company v. Dina is available at: Link to Opinion. As you may recall, in First Mortgage Co. v. Dina, 2014 IL…
The California Court of Appeal for the Second District recently held that the mortgage lender’s purchase at foreclosure sale of a leasehold estate – identified in the deed of trust by reference to the lease – did not constitute an express agreement to assume the lease. A copy of the opinion in BRE DDR BR Whittwood CA LLC v. Farmers and Merchants Bank of Long Beach is available at: Link to Opinion. In December 2006, the original owner of a shopping center entered into a 15-year lease with the tenant for restaurant space. After a series of transactions, the shopping center was…
In an appeal involving an amicus filed by a national mortgage lending trade association, the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of a mortgagee, holding that the mortgagee failed to prove that it had possession of the promissory note when the complaint was filed and thus lacked standing to sue because: (a) despite the admission of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) into evidence, the evidence was still insufficient to show that the loan was physically transferred; and (b) there were discrepancies between the copy of…
The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed the dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on res judicata and the statute of limitations, holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association and its progeny controlled. In so ruling, the Court confirmed that a second foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations or res judicata where continuing payment defaults occurred within the five years preceding the filing of the second foreclosure action. A copy of the opinion in HSBC Bank USA, National Assoc., etc.…
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that where the beneficiary of a land trust filed a motion to intervene in a foreclosure, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene because the beneficiary filed the motion after the trial court had entered the order confirming the foreclosure sale. A copy of the opinion in Urban Partnership Bank v. Chicago Title Land and Trust Company is available at: Link to the Opinion. A mother and father created a land trust for their residence with the property rights to transfer to their four…