The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s finding that a servicer did not violate the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Wis. Stat. § 224.77 because the borrower could not prove that the servicer’s alleged failure to completely respond to a “qualified written request” (QWR) caused any actual damages, notwithstanding the alleged attorney’s fees incurred in reviewing the servicer’s response and the borrower’s alleged emotional distress. In so ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that “RESPA was not intended to give people who cannot pay their mortgages the means to engage in…
Posts tagged as “RESPA”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that, under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, because the borrower did not prove actual damages he also could not prove he was entitled to ‘additional’ statutory damages, and therefore failed to prove an essential element of his RESPA claim. In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit also held that “[a] borrower cannot manufacture a pattern or practice by sending multiple requests in quick succession involving the same subject matter,” and “that two instances of noncompliance are not enough.” Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in…
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied a borrower’s motion to exclude testimony of an insurer’s expert regarding the reasonableness of lender-placed insurance premiums levied upon the borrower’s mortgage loan. In so doing, the Court rejected the borrower’s argument that the expert testimony failed to address claims that the insurer colluded with its mortgage servicer to inflate insurance premiums, concluding that the borrower’s objection goes to the weight, rather than the admissibility of the testimony, and that testimony concerning the insurer’s compliance with applicable rules, regulations and industry standards would assist the trier in fact.…
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…
In an unpublished ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage servicer did not violate the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act or its implementing regulation (at 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A)) by failing to provide the loan owner’s phone number in response to a borrower’s request for information (“RFI”). In so ruling, the Court also held that: (1) The borrower’s allegation of having expended “certified postage costs of less than $100 for mailing” was not sufficient to meet the requirement of “actual damages” under RESPA at 12 U.S.C. § 2605; and (2) The…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a mortgage servicer, holding that the servicer had no duty to respond to a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) because the borrower failed to send the QWR to the servicer’s designated address for QWR receipt. A copy of the opinion in Bivens v. Bank of America, NA is available at: Link to Opinion. A mortgage servicer sent a letter to a borrower advising that the lender transferred the servicing of the borrower’s mortgage loan to…
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently granted a mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claim that the servicer violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by allegedly failing to respond in a timely or adequate manner to a written Request for Information (“RFI”). In so ruling, the Court held that the servicer’s conduct did not cause the claimed actual damages incurred in preparing and sending the letters to the servicer, as required by RESPA at 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f). The Court also referenced the Supreme Court of the United States’s ruling in…
In an unreported ruling, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim that the mortgage servicer failed to confirm receipt of the plaintiff’s request for information because the servicer’s signed certified mail receipt qualified as confirmation of receipt under the statute. Importantly, the Eleventh Circuit also held that the plaintiff’s RESPA claim for statutory damages failed to allege an injury in fact under Spokeo. A copy of the opinion in Meeks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is available at: Link to Opinion. A borrower’s attorney sent the…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage loan servicer violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., by failing to properly respond to the borrowers’ request for information, but because the borrowers failed to provide evidence of damages stemming from the violation, the servicer was entitled to summary judgment. In so ruling, the Court held that the borrowers sufficiently alleged a concrete injury in fact that was fairly traceable to the servicer’s alleged violation of RESPA in order to have standing under Spokeo, but that “[w]hether the allegations…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that, under the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, a mortgage loan servicer had no duty to evaluate a borrowers’ loss mitigation application submitted two days before the foreclosure sale, even though the sale was continued, affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the servicer’s favor. The Court also held that the borrowers had to present evidence that they suffered actual damages or were entitled to statutory damages in support of their claim based on the servicer’s supposedly inadequate response to their “notice of error” under RESPA…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment against a putative class of borrowers who were allegedly victims of a captive reinsurance scheme by a lender and its affiliated reinsurance company. In so ruling, the Court held that the plaintiff borrowers’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply because the plaintiff borrowers had not exercised reasonable diligence in investigating their potential claims. A copy of the opinion in Judith Cunningham v. M&T Bank Corp. is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiff borrowers financed the purchase…
SD Fla. Provides Mixed Ruling on RESPA RFI Responses, Property Inspection Fees Assessed Post-Default
SD Fla. Provides Mixed Ruling on RESPA RFI Responses, Property Inspection Fees Assessed Post-Default
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed with prejudice a borrowers’ allegations that a loan servicer’s response to their request for information regarding drive-by property inspections violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and dismissed the remaining state-law allegations that the drive-by inspections violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of the opinion is available here: Link to Opinion. The borrowers defaulted on their home mortgage loan. The loan servicer began conducting drive-by inspections pursuant to the mortgage. The borrowers sent a letter to the…