REFinBlog

December 4, 2013

Michigan Court Finds All Six of Plaintiff’s Claims Without Merit

The court in deciding McGlade v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152610 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2013) granted defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff, McGlade brought six causes of action: Count I-Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Count … Continue reading →

Levitin on the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title

Adam Levitin has posted The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title to SSRN.  This paper adds to a small (here and here, for instance), but important body of literature that seeks to harmonize the application of … Continue reading →

Tennessee Court Grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as Wells Fargo Had Ownership Interest in the Note & Deed

The court in deciding McKee v. Am. Brokers Conduit, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152657 (W.D. Tenn. 2013) granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs claimed that (1) Wells Fargo didn’t have lawful ownership or a security interest in the … Continue reading →

Michigan Court Finds Plaintiff’s Claim that Foreclosure Proceedings Violated Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.3204(1) and (3) Unpersuasive

The court in deciding Anderson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152765 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2013) dismissed plaintiff’s claims that foreclosure violated Michigan state law. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that foreclosure proceedings violated Mich. Comp. … Continue reading →

Washington Court Denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The court in deciding Cameron v. Acceptance Capital Mortg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151134 (W.D. Wash. 2013) denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Nearly all of plaintiffs’ claims turn on a single question: whether, under Washington law, Flagstar … Continue reading →

California Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Action Alleging Violations of RESPA, HOEPA, UCL & Negligent Misrepresentation

The court in deciding Monreal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151731 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental … Continue reading →

December 3, 2013

Washington District Court Dismisses Consumer Protection Case Against MERS and Bank of America as Plaintiff-Homeowners Failed to Allege Enough Facts to Support their Claims

The federal district court of Washington in Montgomery v. Soma Fin. Corp., 2013 WL 5775637 (W.D.Wash. 2013) dismissed several consumer protection claims against MERS and Bank of America because the Plaintiffs-homeowners failed to allege sufficient facts to support their claims. On … Continue reading →