Summary:
Kellie Ballard co-signed a loan agreement for her husband, Michael Ballard, for a loan (and three subsequent restructuring) from Bank of America (“BoA”) for his business, FoodSwing, even though she has neither an ownership or operating interest in the business. The couple owns, among other assets, a home in Maryland (presumably as Tenants by the Entireties) and a winery in California. In November 2012, Ms.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary:
Randle brought a complaint against the Defendants for violations of the FDCPA and sought certification of her case as class action. Prior to any class certification, the Defendants settled, agreeing to pay $6,000 “in full final settlement of all her claims,” plus attorney’s fees related to her individual claims. Counsel then submitted requests for $89,083.69, which was reduced by the district court to $76,876.59.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary:
In this putative class action, prospective luxury home buyers allege that a real estate development company unlawfully refused to return deposits when the prospective buyers could not obtain mortgage financing. Toll Brothers sought to dismiss or stay pending arbitration, but the district court found the arbitration provision to be unenforceable as it only required buyers, and not Toll Brothers, to submit disputes to arbitration.
The Federal Arbitration Act “ is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements”, 9 U.S.C.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary:
Mrs. Holliday primarily asserted that the refinance documents, on which Mr. Holliday allegedly forged her signature in granting a Deed of Trust to Cambridge Home Capital (Cambridge), were void ab initio and thus ineffective to transfer an interest in the Hollidays’ property. The Deed of Trust was ultimately assigned to BAC Home Loans. (BAC.)
The Court of Appeals restated that a “deed obtained through fraud, deceit or trickery is voidable as between the parties thereto, but not as to a bona fide purchaser.
By Ed Boltz, 22 May, 2013
Summary:
Knox obtained payday loans from loan servicers for Community State Bank (CSB), an out of state-chartered bank, and subsequently brought suit in state court alleging various violations of North Carolina lending and usury laws, as well as unfair and deceptive trade practices.
In response, the loan servicers advanced on two fronts- first, the loan servicers sought to have the matters removed to federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina, arguing that the National Bank Act (NBA) and Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) completely pre-empted state-law usury
By Ed Boltz, 20 May, 2013
Summary:
As an initial matter, the 4th Circuit affirmed, in a published opinion, that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(a) and 1322(b)(2), a junior lien against real estate that serves as the debtor’s principal residence can be stripped-off if there is no equity above the senior lien(s).
The Court of Appeals next proceeded to the question of whether a Debtor, who had recently obtained and Chapter 7 discharge and was thus ineligible for a Chapter 13 discharge, could similarly strip-off a junior lien.
By Ed Boltz, 20 May, 2013
Summary:
The McFaddens obtained a mortgage from Flagstar in July 2007 for $116,500.00, secured by their real property located in Virginia. The note provided that it could be freely transfered by Flagstar and that the agreements in the Deed of Trust would bind and benefit successors and assignees of the note. Before August 2009, the note was transferred to Fannie Mae and around the same time the McFaddens fell delinquent on their payments.
By Ed Boltz, 19 April, 2013
Summary:
After falling delinquent on their mortgage payments to Wells Fargo in early 2010, the Hayletts sought a HAMP modification. After being supplied with initial documentation, Wells Fargo requested further information from the Hayletts on March 1, 2010, allowing ten days to respond. The Hayletts provided the requested documents on March 22, 2010, but Wells Fargo denied the request and proceeded to foreclosure.
By Ed Boltz, 26 March, 2013
Summary:
The District Court determined that the contract relating to the easement did not sufficiently describe the portion or parcel of the servient estate to be affected by the easement. On appeal, Rogers argued that the property description was sufficient because River Hills owned only one parcel of land at the time the writing was executed.
By Ed Boltz, 25 March, 2013
Summary:
McCauley raised state law claims against Home Loan Investment Bank (“Home Loan”) for unconscionability and fraud, due to multiple factors, including a hurried closing, the inducement by inflated appraisal, the disparity between the size of the loan and the value of the home, and an “exploding” ARM. Home Loan moved to dismiss on the basis that the Home Owner’s Loan Act (“HOLA”) and related regulations at 12 C.F.R.