InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Alabama extends right of redemption period
On February 22, Alabama enacted HB 90, which amends the Code of Alabama section relating to the right of redemption on residential property. The amendment provides for a one-year right of redemption period after the foreclosure sale date. Alabama requires a mortgagee to mail a notice of a mortgagor’s right of redemption at least 30 days prior to the foreclosure sale, and the amendment allows the mortgagee to use the proof of mailing of the notice as an affirmative defense to any notice requirement action. Finally, the amendment reduces the time all actions related to the notice requirement must be brought from two years to one year after the date of foreclosure.
NJ appeals court says consumer should have litigated issues in original foreclosure action
On January 31, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision that a widower (plaintiff) should have raised improper foreclosure allegations during the final foreclosure action and cannot subsequently litigate the issues in a different forum. According to the opinion, in 2009, the bank initiated a foreclosure complaint against the plaintiff’s husband (borrower) and the borrower raised no defenses to the complaint. The borrower then initiated a modification request, which the bank ultimately denied due to title liens, and a final foreclosure judgment was entered at the end of 2010. The borrower filed an appeal to the foreclosure action but the plaintiff ultimately withdrew it after the borrower died. The current litigation was filed after the final foreclosure judgment was entered and asserted, among other things, that the foreclosure was improper due to the modification curing the default. The lower court dismissed two of the plaintiff’s claims because she was not a party to the original mortgage or modification attempt and granted summary judgment for the bank on the remaining claims because the “issue of the enforceability of the 2010 loan modification agreement is at the heart of plaintiff's claims and was directly related to the foreclosure action and should have been raised as part of that litigation.” The appeals court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning noting that the plaintiff “attempted to litigate the same issue in two forums.”
Massachusetts AG fines nonbank for alleged mortgage servicing concerns
On January 30, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced a settlement with a nonbank mortgage servicer to resolve allegations concerning unfair and deceptive mortgage modifications made by the servicer that put borrowers at a heightened risk of foreclosure. According to the state’s press release, in making modifications, the servicer allegedly violated Massachusetts’ Act Preventing Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures (the “Act”), which offers foreclosure protections to borrowers, including requiring “creditors to make a good faith effort to avoid foreclosure for borrowers whose mortgage loans have unfair subprime terms.” Specifically, the AG’s office found that the servicer had violated the Act by offering “unfair and deceptive short-term, interest-only loan modifications” to borrowers without considering the borrowers’ ability to repay. In support of claim against the servicer, the Massachusetts AG pointed to the fact that “[a]fter one or two years, the monthly payments on those modifications ballooned to an amount higher” than what the borrower was paying when the default originally occurred. This practice, Healy stated, increased the risk of foreclosure and thus violated the Act. According to the AG’s press release, in addition to providing $500,000 in restitution to certain borrowers affected by foreclosures, the servicer is also required to provide “millions of dollars” in principal reductions to affected borrowers.
10th Circuit reverses lower court decision in mortgage action
On January 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed a District Court’s decision dismissing a borrower’s claims against a lender and mortgage loan servicer (collectively, “defendants”) under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits lower federal courts from reviewing state court civil judgments. Colorado maintains a unique procedure for non-judicial foreclosure. Specifically, under Rule 120 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 120”) a trustee is required to obtain a trial court ruling that a “reasonable probability” of default exists before moving forward with a non-judicial foreclosure. According to the opinion, in 2014, the defendants initiated a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding against the borrower through the Rule 120 process. Prior to completing the sale, however, the borrower filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado seeking, among other things, an injunction against the sale, damages, and cancellation of the promissory note. Relying on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the District Court dismissed the borrower’s suit as an attempt to unwind the results of the Rule 120 proceedings. The 10th Circuit reversed this decision based on its finding that the borrower’s suit did not challenge the Rule 120 state court decision, but rather took issue with the defendant’s actions prior to the state court proceedings. In reaching this conclusion, the 10th Circuit noted that even if the borrower had filed suit after the Rule 120 judgment had been entered, unless the borrower was alleging the state court wrongfully entered the judgment, the suit would not be barred by Rooker-Feldman.
10th Circuit says FDCPA does not cover non-judicial foreclosures
On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not cover non-judicial foreclosures in Colorado. In affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the case, the 10th Circuit reasoned that non-judicial foreclosures in Colorado do not constitute an attempt to collect money from a debtor because the state only allows the trustee to obtain payment from the sale of the foreclosed property and a deficiency judgment must be sought through a separate action. According to the opinion, in 2014, a mortgage servicer hired a law firm to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure and the law firm sent the homeowner a letter indicating that it “may be considered to be a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.” The homeowner then filed a complaint in District Court against the firm and the mortgage servicer for FDCPA violations, which was subsequently dismissed. The 10th Circuit reasoned that the mortgage servicer was not considered a debt collector under the law because servicing initiated prior to the loan’s default and the law firm’s communications with the homeowner never attempted to induce payment. The opinion acknowledges that many courts are split on this topic and emphasizes that the holding does not apply to judicial foreclosures.
Servicemember and bank settle SCRA issue, dismiss Supreme Court request
On January 5, the Supreme Court dismissed a servicemember’s petition for a writ of certiorari after receiving a Stipulation of Dismissal from both parties who agreed to settle the dispute. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the servicemember filed the petition after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision that the servicemember was not entitled to the protections against non-judicial foreclosures under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The lower court concluded that because the servicemember “incurred his mortgage obligation during his service in the Navy, the obligation was not subject to SCRA protection” even through the servicemember, after a discharge period, later re-enlisted with the Army.
Fed terminates foreclosure enforcement actions, fines five banks CMPs
On January 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced the termination of ten enforcement actions for legacy mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing activities, along with the issuance of more than $35 million in combined civil money penalties (CMPs) against five of the ten banks. Combined with penalties previously assessed against other supervised firms (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the Fed’s mortgage servicing enforcement actions have totaled approximately $1.1 billion in penalties. The CMPs assessed against the five banks range from $3.5 million to $14 million.
According to the Fed, the termination of the ten enforcement actions is a result of “evidence of sustainable improvements in the firms’ oversight and mortgage servicing practices.” Under the terms of the previously issued consent orders, in addition to the CMPs, the banks were required to (i) improve residential mortgage loan servicing oversight, and (ii) correct deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing for banks with Fed supervised-mortgage servicing subsidiaries.
The Fed also announced the termination of two related joint enforcement actions (see here and here) with the OCC, FDIC and FHFA (a party to only one of the actions) against key mortgage servicing service providers. According to the announcement, the terminations were a result of proof of “sustainable improvements” in the companies’ foreclosure-related practices.
U.S. government, national bank parties enter $5 million False Claims Act settlement
On January 5, the U.S. Government reached a $5 million settlement with a national bank and its affiliates (together, the bank parties) to resolve a lawsuit concerning allegations that the bank parties violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by engaging in improper foreclosure-related practices. The settlement is not an admission of liability by the bank parties. Specifically, as previously covered in InfoBytes, the lawsuit primarily alleged that the bank parties knowingly used rubber-stamped surrogate signed endorsements and false mortgage assignments to support false claims for mortgage insurance from the Federal Housing Administration. The lawsuit also asserted a reverse FCA claim alleging that the bank parties made false statements when entering into the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. The U.S. Government, the bank parties, and the relator who initially brought the suit stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice concerning 39 “Implied Certification and False Statement Claims,” along with all claims brought or that could have been brought by the relator, but without prejudice as to any other claims that could be brought by the U.S. Government. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the bank parties are required to pay $3.4 million to the U.S. Government—$891,000 of which will be paid to the relator who originally brought the suit. In addition, the bank parties will pay the relator an additional $1.6 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs and expenses.
District Court Allows Government to Intervene in False Claims Act Litigation
On January 3, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted the U.S. Government’s motion to intervene in a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit against a national bank. The lawsuit, filed by a foreclosure attorney and relator, alleges that the national bank submitted false claims in violation of the FCA in two ways. First, the lawsuit alleges that the national bank knowingly used rubber-stamped surrogate signed endorsements and false mortgage assignments to support false claims for mortgage insurance from FHA. Second, the lawsuit asserts a reverse FCA claim alleging that the national bank made false statements when entering into the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. On December 21, the U.S. Government requested to intervene to assist in “effectuating and formalizing” a proposed settlement between the relator and the national bank that would resolve the matter.
Fannie and Freddie Extend Foreclosure Suspension for Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands
On December 20, Fannie Mae, in Lender Letter LL-2017-11, and Freddie Mac, in Guide Bulletin 2017-29, extended the suspension of foreclosure sales through March 31, 2018 of mortgaged properties in FEMA-declared disaster areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The extension does not apply to any other jurisdictions similarly designated.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on Disaster Relief here.