A borrower from Puerto Rico filed a motion to dismiss a foreclosure of a reverse mortgage, claiming the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed while her loss mitigation application still was pending.
The servicer alleged that during its consideration of the application, the borrower withdrew her deed in lieu of foreclosure application to pursue a short sale instead.
Read on to find out how the judge ruled.
A Maryland couple accused their servicer of proceeding with a foreclosure sale after they allegedly provided a complete and timely loss mitigation application.
Fay Servicing, LLC argued the company is not liable for violating RESPA Section 1024.41(g), which 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.
Read on to find out how a federal judge ruled.
An Alabama borrower whose house was demolished after he failed to make necessary repairs accused his servicer of failing to send explanations to letters related to servicing of his mortgage loan.
The defendants argued the loan was primarily for investment purposes and therefore not covered under RESPA. However, the plaintiff claimed he intended to renovate the property, move into and rent it.
Read on for highlights from the magistrate judge’s opinion.<
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) and national real estate broker franchisors violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to require home sellers to pay inflated buyer broker commissions, according to a class action lawsuit filed by a group of home sellers.
The plaintiffs are arguing NAR’s Buyer Broker Commission Rule has led to home sellers being saddled with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a competitive market.
Read on to learn why NAR calls the lawsuit baseless.
A debt relief service that was found to have defrauded consumers even after a permanent injunction recently agreed to pay more than $35 million in restitution and a $40 million civil money penalty to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
However, the CFPB suspended the vast majority of the $75 million in fines and redress based on the defendants’ financial statements showing they were unable to pay the total amount.
Read on for details from the consent judgment.
In its latest briefing in an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau argued that the district court erred by not granting restitution in its decision in favor of the bureau against online lender CashCall.
The bureau’s brief not only addressed the restitution issue, but challenged a cross-appeal claim against its constitutionality – directly challenging then-judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent in PHH Corp. v. CFPB along the way.
Read on for more details of the latest filing.
A Wisconsin couple who argued their former mortgage servicer failed to provide a loan modification in violation of RESPA sued for attorneys’ fees incurred as part of a foreclosure action.
The servicer filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the lawsuit does not satisfy RESPA’s “actual damages” requirement.
Read on to find out why the district court judge denied the motion at this stage of the proceedings.
A federal judge recently upheld a jury’s $3.5 million verdict for an Illinois woman who claimed her loan servicer’s responses to her qualified written requests failed to comply with RESPA’s investigation and explanation requirements.
The plaintiff alleged the servicer’s actions resulted in emotional distress and her being fired from her job.
Read on to see why the borrower prevailed on all her claims, and why the servicer’s conduct was deemed “reprehensible” by the judge.
Is it possible to be foreclosed upon even though you have always paid ahead on your mortgage? A California borrower says it happened to him.
The plaintiff said he was not timely notified that his loan had been transferred, and asked a federal judge to stay the foreclosure sale of his home until his RESPA case against his new servicer is resolved.
Read on for the judge’s ruling.
Oral arguments became contentious Tuesday in the case of a Mississippi payday loan company alleging a lawsuit filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be dismissed because the agency is unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel in New Orleans heard arguments stemming from the CFPB’s case against All American Check Cashing, which asked the court to consider an unusual choice to provide the defendant relief.
Read on for highlights of the hearing.
more RESPA Tips »
Cover Story: