A borrower claimed his servicer violated RESPA by failing to respond to qualified written requests (QWRs) requesting a chain of title after his mortgage was transferred.
An Arizona federal judge not only dismissed the case, but ordered the plaintiff to pay the servicers’ costs and attorneys’ fees for filing the suit.
Read on for more details from the judge’s opinion, which found the plaintiff was provided with the new servicer’s name and address.
After a borrower failed to convince his servicer to add their spouse to mortgage loan documents or send loan statements directly to their home address, an Illinois resident sued for RESPA and TILA violations.
The servicer argued they responded to the plaintiffs in writing that the spouse’s name had not been placed on the mortgage statements because the loan is “not assumable.”
Read on for details about why the complaint was dismissed.
A Tennessee woman who sued her servicer for wrongful foreclosure also alleged RESPA violations resulting from the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).
However, the district court determined the plaintiff, who was not personally obligated to repay the note, cannot bring a plausible claim because she was not a “borrower” under RESPA and Regulation X.
Read on for highlights of the judge’s decision.
First, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ended its investigation into Zillow Group’s co-marketing program.
Now, a federal judge has ruled that Zillow’s co-marketing program complies with RESPA. In dismissing a securities fraud class action lawsuit against Zillow, a Washington district court judge ruled that Zillow’s co-marketing program complied with RESPA.
Read on to learn what RESPA experts told RESPA News about the decision and its impact on co-marketing programs.
A Maryland couple who alleged their servicer failed to properly acknowledge and respond to multiple qualified written requests (QWR) sued for RESPA violations when payments allegedly were not applied under their forbearance agreement.
A federal judge ruled the servicer may have violated RESPA by not acknowledging an email which met the standards of a QWR within five days and not responding to it within 30 days.
Read on for highlights of the judge’s opinion.
A Maryland woman claimed her servicer misled her to believe she was not at risk of losing her home, to ensure she would fail to defend herself in a foreclosure action. She sued for RESPA violations after the sale was ratified.
A federal judge found the plaintiff clearly stated a RESPA claim against one of the servicers.
A Louisiana buyer who claimed his monthly payments increased after his servicer wrongfully obtained force-placed insurance on the property filed suit against Ditech Financial for a violation of section 2605(m) of RESPA.
The servicer filed for summary judgment on a motion to dismiss, arguing the increase in the man’s monthly escrow payments were bona fide and reasonable.
Read on to see why the judge dismissed the case.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is arguing that a lawsuit against a Mississippi payday loan company cannot be dismissed because the bureau is constitutional.
The CFPB is claiming All-American Check Cashing’s constitutional challenge fails under binding Supreme Court precedent, as the en banc D.C. Circuit held in the PHH v. CFPB case.
Read on to see more details on the bureau’s brief, which was recently filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A Washington couple who were granted a temporary restraining order to prevent a servicer from foreclosing on them alleged their servicer violated RESPA.
The plaintiffs claimed the company failed to correct their loan information even after they sent a qualified written request and were current on the loan following a bankruptcy.
Read on to see why a federal judge dismissed the claim.
A federal judge has dismissed a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) lawsuit against a New Jersey-based settlement advance firm.
The CFPB and the New York Attorney General filed a complaint in 2017 against RD Legal Funding and two related entities. The CFPB alleged the defendants had scammed first responders in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and NFL retirees with high-cost loans.
Read on to learn why the case was dismissed.
more RESPA Tips »
Cover Story: