Are Fraud Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations? Credit Suisse (Owner of SPS) Loses

For more information please call 954*495*9867 or 520-405-1688


I have long argued that TILA claims are not barred and that fraud claims based upon intentional withholding of information (required by the Truth in Lending Act) are also not barred by the statute of limitations UNTIL the claimant knew or should have known about the fraud. What is interesting here is that Credit Suisse, parent company of Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) went up against the New York attorney general banking (pardon the pun) on the idea that the Martin Act could not be used against them for committing financial fraud because it was barred by the statute of limitations. They lost.

And I think the arguments that caused them to lose can also be applied to common law fraud claims as well as RICO and TILA claims as long as the required disclosures were intentional withheld about the loan closing. Kudos to Schneiderman in New York for beating back people who know they have committed fraud but earnestly hope they can get away with it because of statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. I know that the US Supreme Court has recently come out with some decisions that go against this idea, but I think in the long run they will not apply it to financial fraud arising from the mortgage crisis.

So if you raise claims that relate to TILA and you are litigating against SPS, they will argue that the statute of limitations bars any mention of TILA claims. This decision presents credible argument to the contrary. You might want to say that their parent company Credit Suisse already lost that argument.

All that money going into PR and getting “objective” securities analysts and pundits to say that BOA and the stock of other banks are a great buy now may have worked up until now, but the pyramid is starting to collapse. In my opinion things are going to go pretty bad for the big banks. When people wake up to realize that the smaller regional banks, community banks and credit unions can pick up the slack left behind by the collapse of a few large banks with extreme dominance over the marketplace, support for the big banks is going to crumble. Senator Warren might seem like an extremist to some but to me she just a realist who is sticking to the truth.

see Credit Suisse Loses in Attempt to Bar Action Under Martin Act

8 Responses


    A (new) panel of CA SC justices is to hear three cases related to Glaski: does the borrower have standing to squawk about assgts to
    closed trusts? I read the justices are new and younger; maybe they’d read the peanut-gallery’s (our) thoughts on the matter if we sent them.

  2. UKG,

    “The judge used as legal precedent the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Union County, Illinois V. MERSCORP, Inc. from January 2013 that the requirements of the Illinois Residential Mortgage Act, which was passed in 1987, do not apply to MERS because it “does not engage in the acts of brokering, funding, originating, servicing, or purchasing residential mortgage loans.”

    One needs to read the entire memorandum of opinion and order prior to jumping the gun. The judge isn’t a hack and he studied everything he could prior to making his decision, including state and federal case law. That he would have chosen a district court precedent to render his decision on a strictly state case is (unfortunately) his prerogative. However, he also granted to Schak the benefit of the state “mailbox” rule, allowing the untimely motion to be heard even though he could very well have dismissed it right off the bat, on the grounds that it was 5 days past deadline. So, he was obviously not acting from a knee-jerk bank-oriented, stick-it-to-the-deadbeat position.

    While I don’t condone the atrocities of the past 10 years (which I will fight in court until I run out of ammo and no longer can), I won’t fault judges for being torn between state and fed case law and picking and choosing which ones they’ll use. Defense attorneys do exactly the same thing for the simple reason that the whole thing is a national mess and a disgrace endorsed and condoned by elected officials. We just had elections and the same morons and clowns were reelected. Whose fault? Besides, people keep paying voluntarily their salaries.

    I wouldn’t fault a judge for not wanting to stick his neck out and for using existing cases least susceptible to cause a reversal on appeal. The guy is there to apply and enforce the law. There’s a reason it is called “case law”. Cases make law. Federal cases make federal law. State cases… likewise. Don’t expect any judge to rewrite what has become law: not their job, not their prerogative and not the constitution.

    People allowed the fed to overpower states in 1913. That Schak decision is the direct result of it. Hence the number of states looking for ways to get out of the entire fed system by seceding. Until that happens, judges have a job to do. They try to do it. And since not ONE human being is immune to bias, I won’t cast the first stone.

  3. The Octopus responsible for the majority of the world economic woes has now officially turned against JPM. 2015 is going to be a good year: banks are chewing at each other.

  4. Yes Louise its clear, well used to be . All these “settlements” are ridiculous, the power they have is at issue, its time justice was the order of the day, besudes making the people who were harmed whole.

  5. Deb, I agree. Fraud does away with anything connected to it.

  6. there is a continuance of fraud and we are still in the process of discovering how deep it goes, this relates to tolling of the statute i believe. Judgements need to be set aside if they were obtained by deceit and the evidence ruled upon.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: