Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Mortgage Law”

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Rejects Borrowers’ Allegations of Fraudulent Reverse Mortgage Scheme

In an action by a group of borrowers who alleged a fraudulent reverse mortgage scheme, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed the trial court’s judgment against the borrowers, and held that neither the discovery rule nor the continuing violation rule tolled the five-year statute of limitations for the borrowers’ declaratory judgment claims, making them untimely.

7th Cir. Rejects County’s Allegations That Lenders Engaged in ‘Integrated Equity-Stripping Scheme’

In an action by Cook County, Illinois against various lenders for alleged increased expenses supposedly arising from heightened default rates, in which the County asserted that the lenders engaged in an “integrated equity-stripping scheme," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant banks.

7th Circ. Sets Standard for FCRA ‘Incomplete or Inaccurate Furnishing’ Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a mortgage loan servicer and held that no reasonable jury could find that the servicer provided patently incorrect or materially misleading information sufficient to support a claim under Section 1681s-2(b) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Calif. App. Court (4th Dist) Holds HOA Foreclosure Buyer is ‘Successor in Interest’ Under § 2924c

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently held that a party who purchased the collateral property through a homeowners association foreclosure sale is a "successor in interest" under California Civil Code § 2924c, and therefore has the right to cure any payment defaults and reinstate the loan and has standing to bring a wrongful foreclosure action.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds Trial Court Improperly Denied Borrower’s Estate Opportunity to Show Lack of Capacity

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently reversed a trial court’s order striking an affirmative defense to a foreclosure, vacated the foreclosure rulings, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

6th Cir. Holds Mortgagee’s Foreclosure Action Time-Barred Under Tennessee Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment and dismissing a mortgagee’s foreclosure action as time-barred under Tennessee law, and rejecting the mortgagee's arguments of oral modification, partial payment, and equitable estoppel, as well as its request for an equitable lien.

Illinois App. Court (1st Dist) Holds ‘Small Servicer’ Exempt from RESPA Loss Mitigation Rules

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that a borrower failed to identify any meritorious defense sufficient to stop or undo a judicial foreclosure sale. In so ruling, the Appellate Court rejected the borrower's arguments that the servicer failed to comply with the loss mitigation rules under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) that she claimed would have allowed her to cure her default, because the servicer qualified as a "small servicer" under 12 C.F.R. 1026.41(e)(4), and was therefore exempt from the loss mitigation rules.

Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Mortgagee’s Writ of Mandamus Challenges to County Tax Sales

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently upheld the dismissal of a mortgagee's writ of mandamus actions seeking to avoid transfers of REO and mortgaged property to county land banks for unpaid taxes, holding that the mortgagee should have pursued other available remedies in state court. 

NY High Court Rules Mortgagee Could Challenge Proper Notice of Tax Foreclosure

The New York Court of Appeals recently held that a plaintiff mortgagee was permitted to dispute and contradict whether a taxing authority complied with the statutory tax foreclosure mailing and notice requirements contained in N.Y. Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125(1)(b), and thereby challenge the validity of a tax foreclosure.