An Ohio woman claimed her servicer failed to timely respond to a notice of error (NOE) regarding complications over who was listed as a borrower on the marital home after a divorce.
The servicer argued it is entitled to summary judgment because the NOE was duplicative.
Read on to discover how a federal judge ruled in the case, which stemmed over confusion of whether or not the plaintiff’s former spouse was a co-borrower.
TO READ THE FULL STORY
Cover Story: