Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Illinois AG Files Suit Alleging Improper Recording of Mortgage Assignments

    State Issues

    On February 2, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that a Florida-based company that prepares documents for use in default servicing and foreclosure actions filed faulty documents with Illinois county recorders. According to a press release issued by the Attorney General, the defendant processes and records mortgage assignments that are used in foreclosure proceedings by some of the largest mortgage lenders and servicers. The defendant's activities in Illinois purportedly violate the state consumer protection statutes, and are alleged to have contributed to the state's mortgage crisis. The state is seeking an order requiring that the company (i) review and correct all documents it unlawfully created and recorded in Illinois, (ii) disgorge all financial gains obtained in connection with the allegedly unlawful practices, and (iii) pay civil penalties.

    Foreclosure Mortgage Servicing State Attorney General

  • Florida Appeals Court Denies Request to Certify Question Important to State Foreclosure Investigation

    Lending

    On February 1, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's request to certify to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the creation of invalid assignments of mortgages by a law firm and subsequent use of such documents to foreclose constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice under Florida law that may be investigated by the Attorney General. In April 2011, the Fourth District ruled that the Attorney General's office did not have authority to subpoena records from one of the law firms under investigation. Because the Attorney General cannot appeal that decision to the Florida Supreme Court, it sought certification of the issue as one of great public importance. With that request now denied, the Attorney General must reassess its pending investigations of law firms alleged to have engaged in foreclosure misconduct.

    Foreclosure State Attorney General

  • Rhode Island Court Appoints Special Master to Oversee Foreclosure-Related Negotiations

    Lending

    On January 5, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island judge responsible for handling “hundreds” of cases related to mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices appointed Merrill Sherman as special master to assist with resolution of the backlog of pending cases. In re Mortgage Foreclosure Cases, Misc. No. 11-mc-88-M-LDA (D.R.I. Jan. 5, 2012). Under the order, Ms. Sherman, formerly the President and CEO of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc., has authority to, among other things, (i) order parties to meet and engage in settlement negotiations, (ii) order production of information to facilitate negotiations, and (iii) establish certain other procedural mechanisms to support discussions. The special master also may, among other things, make recommendations for court action to facilitate settlement or better manage the litigation.

    Foreclosure

  • FRB Governor Reviews Mortgage Servicing Enforcement Actions

    Lending

    On January 7, Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin, in a speech to the Association of American Law Schools, reviewed the status of federal banking regulators’ enforcement responses to what she characterized as the "foreclosure crisis". Governor Raskin described the enforcement actions brought last year by the FRB and other banking regulators against mortgage servicers as “only a start in a comprehensive enforcement response to the foreclosure crisis” and provided a reminder that anticipated monetary penalties for alleged deficient servicing and foreclosure practices are still to come. Further, Governor Raskin identified strong enforcement as a necessary incentive to developing an improved mortgage servicing model.

    Foreclosure Federal Reserve Mortgage Servicing

  • Oklahoma District Court Dismisses Most Claims in Putative Wrongful Foreclosure Class Action

    Lending

    On January 6, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the majority of claims brought by two borrowers seeking to represent a class of borrowers against Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (collectively BAC) for alleged wrongful foreclosure practices. Risener v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 10-1110 (W.D. Okla. Jan 6, 2012). In this case, the borrowers claim that after their original servicer ceased operations, their loan servicing was assigned to BAC and their loan was inaccurately recorded as being in default. According to the borrowers, multiple attempts to prove that the borrowers were not in default were ignored by the defendants. Further, according to the borrowers, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, continued to send default notices and threatened to foreclose, refused to verify the borrowers’ default status, and reported false information about borrowers to credit reporting agencies.

    As such, the borrowers allege that defendants (i) violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in the collection of debts and by failing to provide certain required notices; and (ii) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by providing false information to credit reporting agencies and by failing to investigate the disputed default loan status. Agreeing with a recent Georgia decision involving a similar fact pattern, the court held that because the borrowers allege their loan was not in default, BAC could not have been “debt collectors” subject to the FDCPA, because the FDCPA requires a loan to be “in default”, not “allegedly in default.” Further, the borrowers do not allege that Bank of America Corporation or Bank of America, N.A. ever attempted to collect a debt and, therefore, regardless of their status as a debt collector, cannot be found in violation of the FDCPA. With regard to the borrowers’ FCRA claims, the court held that the FCRA does not include a cause of action for the act of providing false information but that borrowers’ claims that BAC Home Loans Servicing failed to investigate were sufficiently supported by the allegations in the complaint and therefore could proceed.

    Foreclosure FDCPA FCRA

  • OCC Supports Independent Foreclosure Review Program with Public Service Adds

    Lending

    On January 4, the OCC announced that it placed print and radio public service advertisements to inform mortgage borrowers of the Independent Foreclosure Review program launched by the OCC in November 2011. The print feature explains that borrowers foreclosed upon between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 are eligible to have their foreclosures independently reviewed to determine if the borrowers suffered financial injury as a result of any errors by certain large, federally regulated mortgage servicers. The ads will run in Spanish and English in 7,000 small newspapers and on 6,500 small radio stations.

    Foreclosure

  • Michigan Enacts Several Foreclosure-Related Bills

    Lending

    In late December, Michigan enacted several bills related to certain of the state's foreclosure rules. HB 4542 and 4543 alter and extend through the end of 2012 Michigan's pre-foreclosure notice and mediation procedures. Among the changes is a shift from mandatory to optional filing of a one-time pre-foreclosure notice publication. The new laws also (i) make clear that a borrower's housing counselor may initiate a pre-foreclosure mediation on the borrower's behalf, (ii) extend to thirty days the time for a borrower or housing counselor to respond to a pre-foreclosure notice, and (iii) allow foreclosure by advertisement before the end of the 90-day stay period if a borrower fails to return a completed financial package within sixty days of the pre-foreclosure notice. Additionally, pre-foreclosure notices mailed on or after February 1, 2012 must (i) provide certain detailed contact information related to scheduling mediation, (ii) state the length of the redemption period, and (iii) include certain statements regarding responsibility for property damaged during the redemption period. Finally, HB 4544, among other things, reduces to six months the redemption period on non-agricultural properties over three acres when the amount claimed due exceeds two-thirds of the original mortgage balance.

    Foreclosure

  • Florida AG Seeks to Advance Unfair and Deceptive Foreclosure Case

    Lending

    On December 30, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (AG) filed a motion in the Fourth District Court of Appeal seeking to advance the state's investigation into whether certain law firms engaged in misconduct while foreclosing on Florida homeowners. In April, the appeals court ruled that the AG did not have authority to subpoena records from one of the law firms under investigation. The state cannot appeal that decision to the Florida Supreme Court unless it is certified as an issue of great public importance. Therefore, the AG has asked the Fourth District to certify to the state supreme court as such an issue the question of whether the creation of invalid assignments of mortgages by a law firm and subsequent use of such documents to foreclose constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice under Florida law that may be investigated by the AG.

    Foreclosure

  • Tenth Circuit Confirms MERS Has Authority to Foreclose

    Lending

    Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed separate lower court rulings that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) had authority to foreclose under Utah law even though the notes at issue had been sold by the original lenders and securitized. Commonwealth Property Advocates v. Mortgage Elec. Reg. Sys, Inc., Nos. 10-4182, 10-4193, 10-4215, 2011 WL 6739431 (10th Cir. Dec. 23, 2011). In each of the underlying cases, the deed of trust contained the usual language naming MERS as the "nominee" for both the original lender and the lender's "successors and assigns," and providing MERS with authority "to foreclose and sell the Property" on behalf of those entities. The plaintiff (a firm that acquired title to each of the properties from delinquent borrowers) based its challenge to MERS' authority to foreclose on a Utah statute providing that the "transfer of any debt secured by a trust deed shall operate as a transfer of the security therefor." Utah Code Ann. § 57-1-35. According to the Plaintiff, the statute meant that sale and securitization of the notes deprived "original 'nominees,' such as MERS," of any right to exercise any power under the deeds of trust absent authorization by the new owners of the debt, i.e., the security-holders. The Tenth Circuit, relying on prior Utah and federal-court decisions, rejected that argument. It held that the statute merely codifies the well-established rule that a lender's transfer of a note also transfers that lender's interest in the associated security instrument. The statute in no way impacted MERS' explicit authority under the deeds of trust to continue to act as the "nominee" of each successive buyer of the note and to foreclose on each such buyer's behalf.

    Foreclosure

Pages

Upcoming Events