Defendants Could Not Show They Were not Debt Collectors as Defined by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6)(F)

Posted by & filed under 2013, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Hawaii.

The court in deciding Dias v. Fannie Mae, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181584 (D. Haw., 2013) rejected all but one of the plaintiff’s claims. The court found that the plaintiff’s Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5 defective assignment claims against defendants failed because the mortgage gave the requisite authority. The court found that a claim that… Read more »

Since Bank was the Note-Holder it was a Person Entitled to Enforce the Note Pursuant to R.C. 1303.31(A)(1)

Posted by & filed under 2013, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Downstream litigation commentary, Note ownership litigation, Ohio.

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013-Ohio-5795 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County, 2013) affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court found that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument subject to relevant provisions of R.C. Chapter 1303 because it contained a promise to pay the lender the amount of… Read more »

Court Finds that Bank was Entitled to Enforce the Instrument Under R.C. 1303.31

Posted by & filed under 2013, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Foreclosures, MBS industry, MERS/Bank has standing, MERS/Bank lacks standing, Note ownership litigation, Ohio.

The court in deciding M & T Bank v. Strawn, 2013-Ohio-5845 (Ohio Ct. App., Trumbull County 2013) affirmed the lower court’s decision and found that appellant’s argument was without merit. Appellant framed three issues for this court’s review. First, appellant contended that the trial court erred in relying upon the affidavit of Mr. Fisher to… Read more »

Tennessee Court Rejected MERS’ Argument that Sale of Property Should be Invalidated

Posted by & filed under 2014, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by state, Tennessee.

The court in deciding Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Ditto, 2014 Tenn. App. (Tenn. Ct. App., 2014) affirmed the judgment of the lower court. This appeal involved the purchase of property at a tax sale. MERS filed suit against purchaser to invalidate his purchase of property because it had not received notice of the sale… Read more »

North Carolina Court Dismisses FDCPA and RESPA Claims

Posted by & filed under 2014, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by state, Downstream litigation commentary, North Carolina.

The court in deciding Champion v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist. 78 (E.D.N.C., 2014) dismissed the plaintiff’s FDCPA and RESPA claims. Plaintiff initiated this action asserting claims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), and North Carolina statutory and common law. In response,… Read more »

Illinois Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claims of FDCPA, Fourteenth Amendment, Mortgage Foreclosure Law, and Assignment Violations

Posted by & filed under 2014, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Foreclosures, Illinois, MBS industry.

The court in deciding Gonzalez v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist, 67 (N.D. Ill. 2014) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff (Gonzalez) filed a four-count complaint against Bank of America and MERS seeking damages arising from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (Count… Read more »

Maryland Court Denies Claim Alleging Violations of Federal and State Consumer Laws

Posted by & filed under 2013, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Downstream litigation commentary, Downstream litigation media coverage, Foreclosures, Maryland, MBS industry.

The court in deciding Bolden v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist., 182057 (D. Md. 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff in bringing this action alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices… Read more »