The Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director, for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers.
However, the court found that the structure can be saved by striking out the for-cause termination provision.
Read on for more details from this long-awaited case.
Industry experts and trade organizations said they fear the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will lead to more questions than answers as to the agency’s powers.
The Supreme Court found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director, for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional.
Read on for reaction from RESPRO President/Executive Director Ken Trepeta, attorney Marx Sterbcow, Dorsey & Whitney Partner Joseph Lynyak III, among others.
A borrower who was denied a loss mitigation by her servicer sued for RESPA violations after her notice of error letters were not timely returned.
The New York district court examined, as a matter of apparent first impression, whether errors in evaluating loss-mitigation opens were subject to RESPA’s servicer response requirements.
Read on for details from the ruling.
An Ohio borrower claimed his servicer failed to follow RESPA when denying his completed and timely loss mitigation application.
The servicer argued it did not violate RESPA because the loss mitigation procedures pertained to the application, option or trial loan modification plan and not to the permanent loan modification the borrower was seeking.
Read on to see why a federal judge overruled the servicer’s motion to dismiss in the case.
A group of Ohio homeowners accused their mortgage broker of conspiring with a title company to fraudulently fix settlement services prices at above-market rates and then sharing the ill-gotten gains through a kickback scheme.
The broker countered that the borrowers’ claims are time-barred and failed to adequately plead fraudulent concealment as a basis for tolling.
Read on to find out how a district court ruled on the brokerage’s motion to dismiss the RESPA claim.
An Oklahoma couple sued their servicer for failing to properly respond to qualified written requests when their insurance company paid off their mortgage after their house burned down.
The borrowers argued Seterus did not conduct a reasonable investigation, provided factually inaccurate responses and did not explain why it could not pay down the note as requested.
Read on for highlights of the judge’s recent opinion on the dueling motions for summary judgment.
A New York borrower sued his servicer for allegedly improperly charging him for a lender-placed insurance policy, failing to timely refund these charges and inadequately responding to his qualified written requests (QWRs).
The servicer argued RESPA does not apply to a defaulted loan, the company adequately responded to the borrower’s QWRs and the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege damages.
Read on for highlights of the judge’s recent ruling.
A group of Maryland homeowners accused their mortgage company’s branch managers, loan officers and agents of accepting illegal kickbacks in exchange for referrals to a specific title company.
The mortgage company argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because its payments to the title company fall within RESPA Section 8(a)’s safe harbor provision.
Read on for details on why a federal judge agreed to dismiss the class action suit.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Massachusetts Attorney General have filed a joint lawsuit against credit-repair telemarketers accused of deceptive acts and practices.
The telemarketers are accused of collecting at least $23 million in fees from consumers while violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Read on for details from the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
more RESPA Tips »
Cover Story: