The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s inaccurate statement on an information subpoena as to the name of the Clerk of the Court did not constitute a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Jensen v. Pressler &
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s phone calls and letters to a widower and his daughter over a nursing home debt fell under the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently rejected a borrower’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim that their inaccurate disclosure allowed them extra time to rescind. See Beukes v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 786 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2015). In the case, the borrowers entered into a
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a lower court’s decision that a borrower does not have a cause of action under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) for a transaction in which a lender takes a security interest in a residence’s water treatment system.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a District Court’s grant of summary judgment to a debtor and held that a debt collector was entitled to demand interest under California law. See Diaz v. Kubler Corp., 785 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir. 2015). The Fair Debt
The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently held that the subrogation clause in one mortgage was ineffective to give priority to a subsequently-recorded mortgage. See Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of City of Detroit v. Midwest Bus. Credit, LLC, 2015 WL 1880788 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2015). In the case
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that the filing of a debt collector’s lawsuit in a then-proper venue may have constituted a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) after a retroactive Seventh Circuit Decision. See Glazewski v. CKB Firm, P.C.
A New York Supreme Court recently held that a lender may not foreclose on a reverse mortgage due to the mortgagee’s failure to pay homeowners’ insurance premiums, even if such language is included in the reverse mortgage itself. See OneWest Bank v. Smith, NYLJ 1202670454135 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 10
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted jurisdiction, severed and dismissed a complaint filed by 103 plaintiffs claiming that a group of lenders and mortgage servicers conspired to injure them through their mortgage assignment and servicing procedures. See Haley v. AMS Servicing, LLC, 201
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the class action plaintiffs’ motion to compel a defendant company to produce subpoenaed documents potentially held by the defendant’s subsidiaries, holding that the defendant did not exercise control over such documents. See Sicav v. Wang, 2014 WL