In Thomas v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 12-40122-FDS, 2013 WL 4786060 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently addressed preemption under the Dodd-Frank Act. While the court found that the Dodd-Frank amendment limited the preemptive scope of the HOLA, it held that the amendment did not apply retroactively. Additionally, the court held, for the first time, that a bank that table-funds a loan is considered the original lender for the purposes of the HOLA preemption analysis that existed prior to Dodd-Frank's enactment. Plaintiff ...
In Hartman v. Smith, --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 4407058 (8th Cir. 2013), the Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit extended its prior holding and held that a borrower must file suit before foreclosure to exercise his or her right of rescission under the TILA. Plaintiffs RogerHartman, Mavis Hartman, and Maul Lee Hartman filed suit against defendants alleging violations of the TILA and state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs' TILA rescission claim and various state law claims, and the jury found for defendants on the remaining claims ...
The FTC and CFPB recently filed an amici curae brief supporting the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois's decision denying defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff Juanita Delgado's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") claims. The brief was filed in connection with the CFPB's amicus program, which was announced in August 2012. In Delgado v. Capital Management Services, LP, Case No. 13-2030 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2013), Delgado filed a putative class action against a defendant debt collector and its affiliated companies alleging violations of the FDCPA ...
In Hunt v. 21st Mortgage Corp., No. 2:12-CV-2697-WMA, 2013 WL 5230061 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 17, 2013), the Northern District of Alabama rendered an important decision regarding what constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") in the digital age, holding that a system constitutes an ATDS only if it has the present capacity, at the time the calls were being made, to randomly dial phone numbers. The plaintiff, who had brought claims under the TCPA, sought to compel inspection of the defendant's telephone system. The ...
In Royal Fin. Grp., LLC v. Perkins, ED98991, 2013 WL 4419343 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2013), the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District held, as a matter of first impression in Missouri state court, that a debt collector violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by filing a debt collection lawsuit without the intention of ever obtaining evidence to prove the plaintiff's indebtedness. The debt collector in Royal had purchased a portfolio of charged-off debt, for which its assignor had expressly disclaimed any representations or warranties. Under the assignment ...
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently held that obtaining a credit report for assistance in the collection of a debt constitutes a permissible purpose under § 1681b(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA. In Fritz v. Capital Management Services, LP, No. 2:12-cv-1725, 2013 WL 4648370 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2013), the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant debt collector alleging violations of the FCRA after the defendant inquired into her credit history upon placement of plaintiff's account with the defendant. It was undisputed that the plaintiff never ...
In Forrest v. Genpact Servs., LLC, 3:12-CV-2249, 2013 WL 4516479 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2013), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that a plaintiff bringing a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claim under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) is not required to allege that she actually answered the phone calls placed to her cellular telephone. Defendant Genpact Services, LLC, admitted to calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone over 225 times in a 54-day period using an automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff brought a TCPA claim against ...
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held in Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 12-50569, 2013 WL 3480207 (5th Cir. July 11, 2013), that facially valid assignments can only be challenged for want of authority by the defrauded assignor. In Reinagel, the plaintiffs/borrowers alleged that the "robo-signed" assignments of their note and deed of trust were invalid and prohibited the defendant's foreclosure. First, the Fifth Circuit found the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the validity of the assignments of the note and deed of trust to Deutsche ...