Brief Regarding Statutory Authority for RESPA loss mitigation rules. Brief explains the statutory authority for the RESPA Regulation X loss mitigation and QWR rules and explains that certain case law predating the CFPB’s 2014 rule is now outdated. Case litigated by Phillip Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC.
This document contains sections of legal argument for a brief in response to Motion to Dismiss on damages issues including statutory damages, pattern and practice, actual damages, causation. Such issues commonly are raised by defendants in mortgage servicing cases. Additional case citations and explanation on these issues are contained in NCLC's Mortgage Servicing and Loan Modifications.
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint: RESPA loss mitigation, RFI, and NOE rules, negligence, UDAP Tanasi v Citimortgage D. Conn. Oct. 2016 TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.)
RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed) Jeff Gentes
Brief in Opposition to motion to dismiss complaint, raising HAMP TPP claims of breach of contract, UDAP.
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint: RESPA loss mitigation, RFI, and NOE rules, negligence, UDAP
Tanasi v Citimortgage D. Conn. Oct. 2016 TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.)
RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed)
Jeff Gentes
Opposition to motion to dismiss Complaint alleging failure to implement loan modification, raising breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, and UDAP against servicer and loan owner. D. Mass. Jan. 2014. Hannigan v Bank of America Feb. 2014 HANNIGAN and Hannigan, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7, Defendant., 2014 WL 8388851 (D.Mass.) detailed facts, perm mod, 93A and negligence, contract.
This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage. This is the consumer’s pleading in Wilson in response to HUD’s motion the homeowner’s crossclaim against HUD. HUD’s brief and reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary and that the crossclaim is moot.
This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage. This is a reply pleading by the HUD in support of its motion to dismiss the homeowner’s cross-claim against HUD in the Wilson case. HUD’s initial brief and the homeowner’s reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary.
This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage. This is a reply pleading by HUD in support of its motion to dismiss the homeowner’s cross-claim against HUD in the Wilson case. HUD’s initial brief and the homeowner’s reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary.