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 »

Minnesota Court Rejects Tweaked Version of Show-Me-the-Note Claim

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, Minnesota, Note ownership litigation.

The court in deciding Mutua v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 Minn. Dist. 65 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2013) found that since the defendant had a valid legal title to plaintiffs’ mortgage. Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against either defendant and their respective motions to dismiss are granted. This Court reasoned that there… Read more »

Appellate Court of Illinois Denies Defendants’ Motion for Presentment and Cause to Vacate Judgment was Misplaced and Had no Legal Significance

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

The Appellate Court of Illinois in deciding Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Cole, 2013 IL App (2d) 130450-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2013) held that the trial court properly confirmed a judicial sale, as the plaintiff had no obligation to produce the originals of the mortgage and the note. Moreover under the appropriate… Read more »

Hawaiian Court Finds That Foreclosure was Permissible on 1250 Oceanside

Posted by & filed under 2013, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Downstream litigation commentary, Downstream litigation media coverage, Equity, Foreclosures, Hawaii, MBS industry, MERS/Bank has standing, MERS/Bank lacks standing.

The court in deciding In re 1250 Oceanside Partners, (Bankr. D. Haw., 2013) ultimately came to the conclusion that Oceanside was entitled to foreclose. The debtor in possession, 1250 Oceanside (Oceanside), sought to enforce a promissory note and foreclose a mortgage made by defendants Lawrence Shaw and Lisa Shaw (the Shaws). The other defendants claimed… Read more »

Tennessee Court Dismisses TILA, RICO, and RESPA Claims

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

The Tennessee court in deciding Mhoon v. United States Bank Home Mortg., 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Tenn., 2013) dismissed the complaint of the plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff [Mhoon] filed a complaint against defendant U.S. Bank. This case was an action to prohibit a non-judicial foreclosure of real property. The complaint alleged… Read more »

Ohio Court Held That the Promissory Note was a Negotiable Instrument Subject to Relevant Provisions of R.C. Chapter 1303

Posted by & filed under 2013, Downstream litigation, Downstream litigation by date, Downstream litigation by state, Equity, Foreclosures, MBS industry, Note ownership litigation, Ohio.

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013-Ohio-5795 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County, 2013) ultimately decided that the motion to strike moot, thus this court affirmed judgment of the lower court. This court held that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument subject to relevant provisions of R.C. Chapter 1303 because it… Read more »