REFinBlog

April 16, 2014

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

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 … Continue reading →

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

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 … Continue reading →

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

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 … Continue reading →

April 1, 2014

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

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 … Continue reading →

Hawaiian Court Finds That Foreclosure was Permissible on 1250 Oceanside

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 … Continue reading →

Tennessee Court Dismisses TILA, RICO, and RESPA Claims

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 … Continue reading →

March 28, 2014

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

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 … Continue reading →