Eastern District of California Holds That 10-Day QWR Response Deadline Does Not Apply Retroactively
In Schneider v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 2:11-CV-2953-LKK-EFB PS, 2013 WL 1281902 ( E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013), the Eastern District of California dismissed a Plaintiff's claims under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RESPA"), holding that the 10-day QWR response deadline provided in the amended version of RESPA does not apply to QWRs submitted prior to the amendment's effective date. Plaintiff Christopher Schneider ("Plaintiff") sought a temporary restraining order enjoining Defendants Bank of America, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Quality Loan Service Corporation (collectively "Defendants") from proceeding with a foreclosure on Plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff alleged several state and federal claims related to the foreclosure, including violation of RESPA. As part of his RESPA claim, Plaintiff alleged that BANA violated 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1) (C) and (k)(1)(D). The Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010, amended certain provisions in RESPA and added subsections (k)-(m). Section 2605(k)(1)(C) requires the servicer to "take timely action to respond to a borrower's requests to correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other standard servicer's duties." 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(C). Section 2605(k)(1)(D) requires the servicer to "respond within 10 business days to a request from a borrower to provide the identity, address, and other relevant contact information about the owner or assignee of the loan." 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(D). Addressing these claims, however, the court noted that "the Dodd-Frank Act's revisions to RESPA were not in effect as of the time when plaintiff allegedly submitted his QWRs to defendants in 2010 and 2011." Thus, the court held that the deadline to acknowledge receipt of plaintiff's QWRs was 20 days, as provided in 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(A), rather than 10 days as provided in 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k). Accordingly, the court dismissed plaintiff's claims under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(C) and (k)(1)(D). For more information on consumer finance litigation topics, please contact one of the Burr & Forman team members for assistance. We are happy to answer any questions or concerns you may have.
Posted in: California, RESPA
Jump to Page
Arrow icon Top

Contact Us

We use cookies to improve your website experience, provide additional security, and remember you when you return to the website. This website does not respond to "Do Not Track" signals. By clicking "Accept," you agree to our use of cookies. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.