Summary: Hensel had student loans of more that $90,000. In November 2012, he received two bills for late fees in the total amount of $68.28. In response, on December 9, 2012, Hensel sent XBS a check for $68.28 attached to a letter that asserted the late fees violated the FDCPA, that assessment of the late fees had harmed his ability to purchase a home, and proposing to release his claims if XBS cancelled his remaining student loans, with cashing of the $68.28 to constitute acceptance.

Summary: In 2006, Devane executed a promissory note and Deed of Trust in favor of Aurora. Aurora subsequently, erroneously asserted that Devane violated the repayment terms of the note on six occassions. In September 2010, an agent of Aurora informed Devane that it had misapplied payments made by Devane to another account. At that time, Devane was place on a new payment plan, but her original payments were still not applied.

Summary: Wells Fargo sought a reformation of a Deed of Trust, which it discover, after the borrowers defaulted and Wells Fargo foreclosed (putatively purchasing the property itself), did not describe the actual real property upon which the house was built. The trial court held that as Wells Fargo, having purchased the property at foreclosure, was no longer a lender and lacked standing as a purchaser to seek reformation. The Court of Appeals disagreed, following Citifinancial Mortg. Co. v. Gray, 187 N.C. App.

Summary: In February 2003, Currie, serving as the executor for the Estate of Della Brown, brought suit against the Poteats, for conversion of funds which were used to purchase their home, filing a notice of lis pendens on March 13, 2003. This action was subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in open court on September 7, 2004, so that Currie could be re-qualified as the executor of the estate.

Summary: Petri originally had a mortgage with Luxury Mortgage Corp., but subsequently Bank of America (“BOA”) commenced foreclosure proceedings. Appealing the order allowing foreclosure, Petri argued that BOA was not the true holder of the note authorized to foreclose.

Summary: The Register of Deeds for Guilford County (ROD) brought suit against MERS, LPS and most of the large mortgage servicers asserting that the various practices of the mortgage industry violated the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 45-36.9, were unfair and deceptive trade practices, and constituted an unjust enrichment. The Defendants sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). N.C.G.S.

Proposed opinion examines the ethical duties of a lawyer representing both the buyer and the seller on the purchase of a foreclosure property and the lawyer’s duties when the representation is limited to the seller. Editor's note: This opinion supplements and clarifies 2006 FEO 3. Inquiry #1: Bank A foreclosed its deed of trust on real property and was the highest bidder at the sale. Bank A listed the property.

Proposed opinion rules that a lawyer/trustee must explain his role in a foreclosure proceeding to any unrepresented party that is an unsophisticated consumer of legal services; if he fails to do so and that party discloses material confidential information, the lawyer may not represent the other party in a subsequent, related adversarial proceeding unless there is informed consent. Inquiry: Lender requests that Lawyer’s Firm serve as the substitute trustee under a note and deed of trust to commence foreclosure proceedings based on an alleged event of default.

Summary: In 1986, the Smiths acquired title to Lot #184 of Crestview Subdivision, 106 Crestview Terrace, in Davidson County, Thomasville, North Carolina (“the property”) and recorded the Deed. The Smiths executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $96,000 (“the Note”) to New Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”) secured by a Deed of Trust on the property that was recorded on 16 December 2002.

Summary: Ussery brought suit against BB&T as a result of a failure to qualify for a government loan, more than six years after a learning of the denial of the loan.