In Re Herrera, BAP No. CC-09-1155 (Bankr., 9th Cir., January 5, 2010) involved three separate Chapter 13 cases whereby the mortgagees holding mortgages on the debtors’ primary residences objected to confirmation of proposed plans that incorporated a local form containing optional plan provisions approved by the district’s bankruptcy judges. The…
Read More »The FDCPA provides that after receiving a validation notice required under 12 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), the consumer has thirty days to dispute the debt or request the name of the original creditor. If the consumer does so, the debt collector must cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion…
Read More »In King v. Long Beach Mortg. Co. No. 06-11931-WGY (D. Mass., Dec.09, 2009) a debtor filed an action under TILA seeking damages and rescission against the FDIC, which was appointed the receiver of a failed lender, and against the lender’s successor, which purchased debtor’s mortgage from the FDIC. The District…
Read More »A recent Third Circuit decision held that a consumer must establish that there is a proximate cause between the violation and the consumer’s injury to sustain a claim of actual damages for a TILA violation. In Vallies v. Sky Bank, No. 08-4160 (3rd Cir., Dec. 31, 2009) the court observed…
Read More »At issue in In re West, — B.R. —-, No. 07-23398-JKF, (Adv. No. 08-2075, Bkrtcy.W.D. Pa., Nov. 19, 2009) was whether Section 108(a) or Section 108(b) of the Bankruptcy Code extends the time within which the debtor may rescind a mortgage under TILA. The debtors asserted that their rescission claim…
Read More »In Douglas v. Wilmington Finance, Inc., No. 09 C 1370. (N.D.Ill., November 18, 2009) the mortgagor argued that despite not being brought within the time allowed under TILA her damage claim survived by virtue of 15 U.S.C. §1635(g). That provision reads in any action in which it is determined that…
Read More »Having been denied loan modifications, the Plaintiffs in Williams v. Timothy F. Geithner, et al. 00-1959 ADM/JJG (Nov. 9, 2009 D. Minn.)) sued their mortgage loan servicers, among others, contending that they had a constitutional right to have their mortgages modified under HAMP. Specifically, Plaintiffs contended that the servicer’s failure…
Read More »The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Huckic v. Aurora Loan Services, 07-3826 (7th Cir. Nov. 2009) that two mortgage servicers did not violate FCRA when they reported delinquencies to a credit reporting agency about a mortgagor who had defaulted on his escrow payment obligations but…
Read More »In Collado v. Boklari, No. —- N.Y.S.2d —— 2009 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.) N.Y. Slip Op. 29447, the respondent sought to vacate a judgment of possession and eviction on the ground that a recent federal law, Title VII of 2009 Emergency Economic Stabilization, “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act” of 2009, requires that a…
Read More »The borrower, in Dahn v. Fifth Third Bank, NO. 3:09-CV-184-JPG-PMF) (S.D.Ill., August 2009) argued that the notice of right to cancel was inaccurate because it deviated from the model form contained in Appendix H of 12 C.F.R. Pt. 226. He argued that the notice was unclear because the section where…
Read More »