DETROIT - After holding that a mortgagee's claims for violation of Michigan law applied only to landlord-tenant relationships and that his claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) failed, a Michigan federal judge on April 25 granted summary judgment in favor of a mortgage lending service and a finance corporation on all of his claims and dismissed the case (John Tierney v. HSBC Consumer Lending Mortgage Services Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11379, E.D. Mich., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62157).
HOUSTON - After determining that the amount in controversy met federal jurisdictional requirements, a Texas federal judge on April 20 refused to remand claims for breach of contract and fraud asserted by property owners against their mortgage lender (George Holland, et al. v. CitiMortgage Inc., No. 4:16-CV-3219, S.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60046).
SAN DIEGO - After finding that borrowers who are challenging the foreclosure of their property failed to respond to a motion to dismiss their claims asserted against the current owner of the property, a California federal judge on April 21 granted dismissal with leave to amend (Celia Duenas, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc., et al., No. 16-CV-2824, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62117).
SAN FRANCISCO - Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. have agreed to increase their settlement payment to $142 million, $32 million more than the settlement proposed in March, to end claims by a class of individuals who allege that the banking company opened accounts, enrolled them in products and services and submitted applications for products and services without consent, according to a motion for preliminary approval filed by the plaintiffs on April 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Shahriar Jabbari, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., No. 15-2159, N.D. Calif.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A Kansas federal judge on April 20 partially granted a motion filed by a loan management company to dismiss numerous claims asserted against it in relation to the denial of a loan modification, but found that claims for violation of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) can proceed (Douglas and Serenity Boedicker v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-02798, D. Kan., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60597).
TOLEDO, Ohio - An Ohio federal judge on April 19 refused to grant former property owners a temporary restraining order enjoining lenders from evicting them from a property, finding that their claims were already adjudicated in a state court foreclosure action (Barbara Jacobs, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 3:17-CV-0475, N.D. Ohio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59672).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on April 14 dismissed a borrower's complaint asserting causes of action for wrongful foreclosure and violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) after he failed to litigate the case or follow a previous order of the court (Hans D'Oleire v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., et al.,No. 3:16-cv-02520, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57717).
LAS VEGAS - A Nevada federal judge on April 17 stayed an action in which the parties seek relief related to the nonjudicial foreclosure of a homeowners association, pending the exhaustion of all appeals in a petition currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which seeks review of an appeals court ruling that held that Nevada housing law is facially unconstitutional (Bank of America, N.A. v. Elkhorn Community Association, et al., No. 2:16-cv-02193, D. Nev., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58239).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on April 10 dismissed a borrower's claims for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL), negligence and other claims related to foreclosure proceedings, finding that she failed to show that she was not notified of a denial of a loan modification or that the lenders and loan servicers owed her a duty of care (Lisa McCarthy v. Servis One Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00900, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54649).
CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 10 found that an errors and omissions liability insurer has a duty to defend against underlying claims that its title insurance agency insured executed real estate "flip" transactions "contrary to the spirit and purpose" of its agency contract (Title Industry Assurance Co. v. First American Title Ins. Co., et al., No. 15-3310, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6092).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - After finding a lack of federal jurisdiction over claims related to a foreclosure case and that amendment would be futile, a California federal judge on April 6 dismissed claims for violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and state law claims against a lender and trustee (Jose R. Carnero, et al. v. Elk Grove Financial LLC, et al., No. 16-cv-03606, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53290).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on April 5 dismissed numerous claims asserted by a property owner, including causes of action for violations of California's unfair competition law (UCL) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), finding that he failed to plead the claims with the required specificity (Fernando D. Lopez v. Wells Fargo, N.A., et al., No. 16-cv-0811, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527).
NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 affirmed the dismissal of a complaint filed by borrowers against a loan servicer, finding that the servicer properly notified them under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that the loan had been transferred (Weston Wright, et al. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 16-2842, 2nd Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5650).
CHICAGO - An Illinois federal judge on April 3 dismissed a property owner's claims related to fees incurred for default-related property inspections she incurred while still allegedly residing in her home, finding that she failed to assert that she complied with a notice provision in her mortgage agreement (Susan Michael v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al., No. 16-CV-07238, N.D. Ill, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50197).
BALTIMORE - A Maryland federal judge on April 4 granted summary judgment in favor of a mortgage lender on claims asserted by borrowers for violation of Maryland and federal law in relation to debt collection practices, finding that the lender was not required to comply with loss mitigation procedures and that the claims were time-barred or failed (Sterling Lindsay, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management, Services LLC, No. 15-1031, D. Md., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51000).
CHICAGO - An Illinois appeals panel on March 31 held that second- and third-level excess insurers' exhaustion provisions were unambiguous and must be enforced as written, reversing and remanding a lower court's ruling against the excess insurers in a coverage dispute arising from the collapse of an $11 million hedge fund (A.R. Thane Ritchie, et al. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., et al., No. 1-16-0413, Ill. App., 1st Dist., 6th Div., 2017 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 689).
BALTIMORE - A Maryland federal judge on March 31 dismissed a lawsuit filed by a senior citizen who sought damages and an order preventing a property foreclosure, finding that her vague civil rights allegations did not support federal jurisdiction (Yvonne Roundtree v. Anthony Onwaunibe, et al., No. 16-4014, D. Md., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48667).
CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 31 found that a borrower's claims against a federal housing agency were barred by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act because the act provides a cause of action only to regulated entities (Jody Kimbrell v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, No. 16-2992, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5580).
GALVESTON, Texas - After finding that the true party to a lawsuit filed by a borrower in relation to a lien on its property was a business trust and not bank, a Texas federal court remanded a case to state court for lack of jurisdiction (Pechua Inc. v. America's Wholesale Lender, et al., No. 3:16-CV-364, S.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47486).
CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 29 affirmed the dismissal of the majority of a borrower's claims against various lenders and their legal counsel for lack of jurisdiction, but modified the ruling to allow for dismissal without prejudice (Eric Mains v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 16-1985, 7th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5429).
HOUSTON - A Texas federal judge on March 28 partially granted a motion filed by former property owners to amend their complaint against a loan servicer in relation to a foreclosure action, finding that amendment of their common-law fraud claim would be futile (Roger Law, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No.16-2675, S.D. Texas, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45758).
BLUEFIELD, W.Va. - A West Virginia federal judge on March 23 refused to dismiss an insurer's declaratory judgment lawsuit challenging coverage for a lawsuit alleging that the insured's employee filed fraudulent tax returns, finding that the factors weigh in favor of the federal court retaining jurisdiction (Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. K R Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 15-16264, S.D. W.Va., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42011).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California court on March 22 affirmed a trial court's decision to grant a demurrer filed by a mortgage company to a complaint filed by borrowers in relation to a foreclosure, finding that they did not allege sufficient facts to support their claim for violation of California's unfair competition law (UCL) (Lonnie Ratliff, Jr. v. EMC Mortgage LLC, et al., No. A144123, Calif. App., 1st. Dist., Div. 3, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2057).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - An Alabama federal judge on March 22 overruled objections submitted by lenders and a borrower to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that some claims related to a foreclosure be allowed to proceed but noted that some of the objections would be better adjudicated on summary judgment (Steven Thomason v. One West Bank, FSB, et al., No. 2:12cv604, M.D. Ala., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41122).
DETROIT - A Michigan federal judge on March 21 refused to dismiss a former property owner's claims that a lender breached a settlement agreement when it refused to consider his loan modification, finding that the lender failed to show that dismissal was warranted (Dominick Gray v. CitiMortgage Inc., No. 16-cv-11295, E.D. Mich., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39990).