|
Results 1 - 10 of 1637 |
Posted Date: Monday, March 18, 2024
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stated it was concerned about the defense counsel’s conduct in a case where a woman representing herself challenged the foreclosure on her home, alleging her present servicer was liable for the dual tracking committed by the former servicer of her loan in violation of RESPA’s implementing regulation, Regulation X.
The court stated the defense counsel’s eagerness to exploit an “obvious mishap” was troubling.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Monday, March 18, 2024
A married couple brought claims against the servicers on their mortgage loan. After all but one defendant was removed from the case, a Delaware federal district judge considered the final defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
On May 20, 2010, the Davises entered into a loan modification. According to the complaint, the Davises contacted the servicer about the increase in the reported unpaid principal balance cited in the modification agreement, and they were advised that their loan had been consolidated with a subordinate mortgage debt also owned by BAC.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Friday, March 15, 2024
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) announced it has reached a settlement, still subject to court approval, in the case brought by home sellers related to broker commissions. In 2023, a jury found the defendant organizations had violated antitrust laws by following NAR’s cooperative compensation rule. RESPA News checked with our legal experts on what this means for the remaining party, and what to expect going forward.
Originally, Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, LLC, Keller Williams, HomeServices of America, and NAR were defendants. With NAR’s settlement announcement, the sole remaining defendant is HomeServices of America.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Thursday, March 14, 2024
A couples’ amended complaint against their mortgage servicer Cenlar was brought before the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiffs alleged the servicer misapplied payments made toward their mortgage loan and failed to adequately respond to qualified written requests in violation of RESPA.
The dispute involves the application of a housing choice voucher from a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development homeownership program.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Thursday, March 14, 2024
A married couple brought a RESPA class action against PHH Mortgage Services and NewRez, LLC after the servicers twice refused to remit copies of recordings and transcripts of conversations about the couple’s mortgage when asked for in a qualified written request.
The servicers argued to provide such materials would be an undue burden on PHH and the requested information was for internal purposes only.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2024
Plaintiffs who own a hunting cabin, but not the land on which it stands, defaulted on their loan secured by the domicile. In defending against the bank’s suit for recovery of personal property, i.e., the cabin, the plaintiffs argued the bank violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) when it failed to provide requisite disclosures at the outset of the loan.
Franklin Savings Bank conceded that it did not provide TILA disclosures, but argued it was not required to because the loan was for commercial purposes, citing document language as evidence.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Monday, March 4, 2024
A plaintiff who believed his mortgage was paid off brought a RESPA suit against the servicer who disagreed, after the servicer reported to the credit reporting agencies that the plaintiff had a balance four days after he had submitted a qualified written request.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland considered both parties’ motions for summary judgment, including whether to deny the plaintiff recovery for alleged emotional damages.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Monday, February 26, 2024
A homeowner who purchased her childhood home from her parents alleged Rushmore Loan Management Services violated RESPA by failing to comply with loss mitigation procedures after they refused to process her borrower modification application.
Rushmore, the initial servicer on the loan, repeatedly refused to confirm the borrower as the successor-in-interest, resulting in the holder of the mortgage, U.S. Bank Trust, initiating a foreclosure sale.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Monday, February 26, 2024
A disagreement between the buyer and seller in residential purchase and sale agreement related to a manufactured home ended up before the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
The buyer alleged the seller breached the sales contract after he failed to take steps to have the vehicle title eliminated from the unit, as required by Washington law.
Read on for more details.
Posted Date: Thursday, February 22, 2024
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case brought under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiffs alleged First United Bank violated these anti-discrimination laws when it denied their loan application for funds to purchase an apartment complex.
The three circuit judges referenced Chevron deference in its opinion, calling it a “disfavored canon of statutory construction.”
Read on for more details.