The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that periodic statements required by the federal Truth in Lending Act may violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act if they are not truthful and fair.
Posts tagged as “TILA”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a consumer’s complaint against a mortgage servicer brought under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The Court of Appeals of the State of Illinois, First District, recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a mortgage lender on an appraiser’s claims of intentional interference with a business relationship arising from the lender barring the appraiser from working on its loans and notifying various appraisal management companies of this decision.
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, recently held that a trial court erred in ruling that several borrowers' claims were precluded by a prior unlawful detainer judgment entered against them following the foreclosure sale of their home.
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a mortgage lender’s reliance upon the borrower’s representations concerning the amount of his future spousal support and rental income without proper verifiable documentation were insufficient to satisfy the “ability to repay” income verification requirements arising under the federal Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation (“Regulation Z”).
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on June 2 announced a settlement with a Tennessee-based company and its subsidiaries that provide short-term loans (payday or auto-title) for the lenders' conduct at all stages of their operations, including providing “deceptive finance charge disclosures … failing to refund overpayments ... and engaging in unfair debt collection practices.”
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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claim was barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that -- despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements -- the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the financial services defendants in an action to rescind the mortgage under the federal Truth in Lending Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff consumer did not have a right of rescission under TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., because he previously quitclaimed his interest in the property to his ex-wife, and his new loan to acquire the property from his ex-wife was a “residential mortgage transaction.” A copy of the opinion in Barnes v.…
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that where a plaintiff challenges the validity of a transaction as a whole and not specifically the arbitration agreement that is included as part of a transaction, the plaintiff must arbitrate their claims because an arbitration agreement is severable and enforceable, notwithstanding a plaintiff’s general claims about the invalidity of the transaction as a whole. Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court was reversed and the trial court orders compelling arbitration were reinstated. A copy of the opinion in Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp. is available at: Link to Opinion. The plaintiffs each purchased cars…