In Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Philipson, No. 25-2354 (4th Cir. Aug. 27, 2026), the Fourth Circuit vacated a garnishment order because the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to enter a final order.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), a magistrate judge can enter final judgment only when the case has been properly referred and the parties consent. Here, the record did not show that the parties voluntarily consented after receiving the required written notice. The garnishment order therefore had to be vacated and the case remanded.
In Trimble v. Entrata, Inc., the Fourth Circuit has again reminded businesses that the Federal Arbitration Act may favor arbitration, but it does not allow a company to manufacture an enforceable arbitration agreement out of contractual smoke and mirrors.
Jon Anthony Seppanen purchased a vehicle from Fayetteville Dodge under a retail installment contract requiring 72 monthly payments of $988.93, secured by the vehicle and expressly permitting repossession after default. Seppanen nevertheless believed that writing "Pay to the order of JON SEPPANEN, without recourse" on the agreement discharged his obligation to pay.
Mortgage servicing transfers are supposed to transfer the servicing of a mortgage. They are not supposed to erase a loan modification, resurrect amounts that were already capitalized or waived, or require a homeowner to repeatedly litigate what everyone had supposedly already agreed to.
But that, at least according to the evidence presented by the homeowner in Johnson v. SN Servicing Corp., is essentially what happened.
The Fourth Circuit has issued another significant decision involving TitleMax's efforts to continue making high-interest title loans to residents of states that restrict or prohibit those loans.
