The ability of Mick Mulvaney to hold two hats at once in the executive branch has been at times a source of humor, with Mulvaney joking about his workload, and Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) joking about Mulvaney’s interest in adding a third role as Speaker of the House upon news that Paul Ryan was not running for re-election.
Yet in oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the joint jobs Mulvaney has as director of the Office of Management and Budget and the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are at the heart of what the three-judge panel may rule in English v. Trump.
Read on for more from the oral arguments.
Homeowners in Ohio sued their loan servicer for violations of RESPA, stemming from the servicer’s failure to timely provide a response to a loan modification application.
The servicer moved for summary judgment, arguing there was “undisputed evidence” of the mailing of the response.
The judge denied summary judgment to both parties, ruling there were genuine issues of material fact about the notice. How could “undisputed evidence” have genuine issues? Read on for the details.
In a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s allegations against an Ohio-based debt collector, each side filed for summary judgment.
The judge ruled against both requests, determining that there were facts in dispute on each side of the case. The judge kept the case on schedule for a jury trial May 1.
Read on for more about the case, and how quickly it has progressed to a jury trial.
In a recent motion to dismiss charges against Zillow Group, the company provided details of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s investigation into the company’s co-marketing program, as well as why Zillow believes its co-marketing does not violate RESPA.
The motion to dismiss comes as Zillow is being charged with false disclosures about its legal compliance efforts.
Read on for details Zillow disclosed in its motion to dismiss.
From the start of Thursday’s oral arguments, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals justices Thomas Griffith, Patricia Millett and Judith Rogers put Leandra English’s counsel on the defensive.
The latest round in the dispute over leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was held in Washington, with active participation from the judges driving discussion on Article III standing, on the meaning of ‘shall’ and on the status of for-cause protection for the acting director of the bureau.
Read on for details from arguments and reaction from counsel for both sides.
As attorneys for Leandra English and the federal government went to court three days before Christmas to conduct arguments concerning a preliminary injunction, the initial debate shifted from a month earlier, when the two sides discussed the chaos of the first days of transition in leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
D.C. District Judge Timothy Kelly began the Dec. 22 arguments with a discussion between the two sides of what the status quo at the CFPB was, as it relates to the case. Kelly asked whether there were developments the sides wanted to make him aware of, and English lead counsel Deepak Gupta brought up the status quo.
Read on for more about the discussion, and how it sets up Thursday’s oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
At the heart of the debate over leadership succession at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – a debate which is back in court Thursday for oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals – is the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).
A new wrinkle involving the Veteran’s Affairs office could put the FVRA back in the forefront of the argument. An acting director has been appointed under FVRA, but there is dispute over whether the previous director was fired or resigned – and whether FVRA could apply if there was a firing.
Could a new discussion over the extent of the FVRA’s reach affect arguments Thursday? Read on for more.
It’s a ruling which will certainly generate plenty of discussion, and potentially an appeal from a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which has appeared less and less likely to pursue civil cases.
The decision by Judge Charles Simpson of the District Court in the Western District of Kentucky in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Borders & Borders to deny the bureau’s motion for reconsideration is notable as much for its change in direction as for its final ruling.
Read on for more on the differences between his latest ruling and the initial decision, along with industry reaction.
A buyer whose house eventually was demolished by the city sued his servicer, alleging RESPA violations for not compliantly responding to qualified written requests (QWRs).
In looking at the buyer’s amended complaint, the Alabama district court determined that the two letters written did meet the QWR standard and examined whether the service compliantly replied.
Read on for details of how the court ruled.
A buyer whose home fell into foreclosure filed suit against his loan servicer four years later, citing violations of RESPA.
The servicer moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The district court in Florida examined whether the buyer had standing to bring the lawsuit.
Read on for more from the Florida court’s decision.
more RESPA Tips »
Cover Story: