For several years now, New York courts have grappled with the issue of what constitutes revocation of the acceleration of mortgage debt. Because the Appellate Division of New York has four Departments that preside over different counties within the state, the same set of facts has resulted in different outcomes. That may change, however, when
Certified Credit & Collection Bureau (“CCCB”) sent a collection letter to Delia Rodriguez seeking payment of $29.88 for an unpaid medical debt. CCCB’s letter referred to the creditor as its “client” and did not explicitly state that the client was the creditor to whom the debt was owed.
Rodriguez brought a putative class action in
One of the most ambitious (i.e., bad) arguments ever made by a defendant in a TCPA case was rejected by the Western District of New York in Gerrard v. Acara Sol. Inc., 1:18-cv-1041, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108038, 2019 WL 2647758 (W.D.N.Y. June 27, 2019). Acara Solutions argued their text messages with
A pro se plaintiff’s lawsuit brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was dismissed by the District of New Jersey for lack of standing in Kraft v. Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, P.C., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126323 (D. N.J. July 30, 2019). Plaintiff Warren R. Kraft inherited real estate from his deceased
On July 25, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) asking for the mortgage industry’s opinion on the scheduled expiration of a provision in its Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (“Rule”), commonly known as the “QM patch.” The QM patch allows certain mortgage loans that are eligible for purchase
The Second Circuit remains a hotbed for consumer claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act related to disclosures of interest and fees in collection letters. Plaintiffs bombard New York courts with these claims, forcing courts to meticulously review every possible disclosure of amounts due. While most of these claims ultimately fail on summary judgment,
Aspiring plaintiffs continue to litigate the issue of an attorney’s role in sending debt collection letters. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a debt collector may not use false or misleading representations in the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In Bencomo v. Forster & Garbus LLP, et al., No.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hosted a symposium with private attorneys to discuss the term “abusive” in “unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices” (“UDAAP”) in late June. This was the first symposium, part of a symposia series, that will help the CFPB explore consumer protections in the changing financial services marketplace. There were two
The Eleventh Circuit’s most recent decision regarding Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.1, et seq., of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., will come as a relief to mortgage lenders and borrowers alike—although not to the individual plaintiff in Landau v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp.
In Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp. (“In re Witt”), 113 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit held that Chapter 13 debtors are not permitted to bifurcate undersecured home mortgage loans into separate secured and unsecured claims. In re Witt, 113 F.3d at 509. Recently, the Court overruled this twenty-two-year-old decision