A Washington buyer claimed he is entitled to actual damages because his servicer failed to respond to a notice of error related to a trial period plan.
The servicer argued it was not required to respond because the letter related to loan modification rather than the “servicing” of the loan.
Read on to find out why a federal judge denied the servicer’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
Seila Law said it will petition the Supreme Court to rule on a lawsuit to decide whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) structure violates the constitutional separation of powers.
This would be the second opportunity the Supreme Court has to decide whether the CFPB – and every regulation enacted by it – is unlawful.
Read on for details from Seila Law’s motion for stay of the Ninth Circuit’s appellate ruling as it plans tofile a petition for writ of certiorari.
A Maryland borrower sued his servicer for allegedly moving toward foreclosure after failing to provide specific enough reasons for denying his loss mitigation application.
The servicer argued the denial letter – which provided non-retention options including a short sale and a deed in lieu of foreclosure – specified that the plaintiff’s financial information did not support other loss mitigation options.
Read on to find out how a federal judge ruled.
A New Jersey federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging mortgage loan servicers and insurers charged borrowers for kickbacks when buying lender-placed insurance policies.
The borrower – whose property became inhabitable because of mold infestation – also accused the defendants of conspiring to undervalue losses on LPI-covered properties, then misappropriating the insurance proceeds when his New Jersey property was damaged.
Read on to learn why the case was dismissed.
A borrower claimed his servicer violated RESPA by failing to timely evaluate his short-sale application and loss mitigation request regarding his Washington home.
RESPA Section 1024.41 limits a mortgage servicer’s ability to conduct a foreclosure sale if a borrower submits a complete application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale.
However, the servicer argued the regulation does not concern short sales. Read on for the judge’s reasoning on why the plaintiff may have a case.
A federal judge’s October decision in Zillow’s favor in a Washington state securities case appeared to confirm that co-marketing – if done properly – complies with RESPA.
Now that the same federal judge has reversed himself, ruling that new whistleblower allegations plausibly allege that Zillow’s co-marketing program may have violated RESPA after all, what’s the industry to think?
Read on for reaction from Brian Levy, of counsel at Katten & Temple.
A non-profit initiative that advocates on behalf of low-income people and communities of color has accused the Consumer Financial Credit Bureau of helping to facilitate discriminatory lending practices.
The California Reinvestment Coalition recently filed a lawsuit claiming the CFPB defied Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act by failing to collect and disclose data on lending to women-owned, minority-owned and small businesses.
Read on for details from the federal suit.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is claiming a debt collection law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by falsely representing that attorneys were meaningfully involved in filing and preparing consumer lawsuits.
The bureau seeks an injunction, damages, redress to consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and a civil money penalty against the New York company for alleged high-volume litigation tactics.
Read on for details from the suit.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to declare the agency constitutional in light of a recent decision in the Ninth Circuit.
However, the Ninth Circuit’s findings in CFPB v. Seila Law are irrelevant to the issues before the Fifth Circuit in CFPB v. All American Check Cashing, All American’s attorney countered.
Read on for both sides of the argument.
An Ohio borrower accused his servicer of violating TILA and RESPA by failing to disclose the need for flood insurance as a condition of the mortgage loan.
The servicer argued that as a creditor, it had no obligation to advise the borrowers the property was located in a flood zone and that the seller and real estate agent are necessary parties to the lawsuit.
Read on to see why a federal magistrate denied the servicer’s motion to dismiss.
more RESPA Tips »
Cover Story: