The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that the acceleration of the maturity date of a note does not affect the five-year limitations period for the related mortgage under Massachusetts's obsolete mortgage statute.
Posts tagged as “Mortgage Law”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a mortgagee’s office that was located within 200 miles of the mortgaged property, but did not conduct any mortgage-related business, was not a “branch office” of a “mortgagee” under the HUD rule requiring a face-to-face meeting with mortgage borrowers before filing a mortgage foreclosure action unless the mortgagee does not have a branch office within 200 miles of the borrower's home.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled in favor of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie Mae, and the mortgage loan servicer in a title dispute arising from a homeowners' association (HOA) lien foreclosure.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that California law does not permit preemptive actions to challenge a party's authority to pursue foreclosure before a foreclosure has taken place.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a trial court order dismissing a foreclosure counterclaim by two borrowers seeking rescission under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., holding that section 1640(e)’s one-year statute of limitation for legal damages applied to bar the borrower’s section 1635 equitable claim, when the borrowers demanded rescission within three years of closing but did not file suit within one year after the lender failed to respond.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a trustee borrower’s claims under the federal Truth-In-Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act seeking rescission of a loan obtained to effectuate repairs upon a property inhabited by the trust’s beneficiary.
Answering a question certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court of Texas recently held that a lender is entitled to equitable subrogation where it failed to correct a curable constitutional defect in the loan documents under Tex. Const. art. XVI, 50.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently held that improper service that does not affirmatively appear on the face of the record will not allow a former homeowner to void a foreclosure judgment against the bona fide purchasers of the property.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently dismissed an appeal for lack of Article III standing because the appellant did not allege the particularized injury necessary to confer standing and the co-appellant with standing settled and dismissed its appeal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is not a direct endorsement lender's “client” because HUD did not pay the lender for its services, and therefore HUD was not covered by the direct endorsement lender's professional liability insurance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed entry of summary judgment against a homeowner borrower’s wrongful foreclosure claims premised upon receipt of a defective pre-foreclosure notice that erroneously provided a 30-day deadline to cure from the date the notice of default letter was printed, rather than the day the letter was mailed as required under the terms of the deed of trust.
The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that there are important legal differences between closed-end installment contracts (such as ordinary mortgage loans) and open-end accounts (such as HELOCs) when considering statute of limitations, and there is no need to impose a rule of reasonableness when a lender sues for payment on a closed-end installment contract.