2d Circuit Federal Appeals Court Upholds Homeowner’s Right to Sue for RESPA Violations

See

Naimoli v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 20-1683-cv, at *15 (2d Cir. Jan. 7, 2022)
The following was decided by the court to be covered violations, including a catch-all provision in which anything related to “servicing” is included:
(1) Failure to accept a payment that conforms to the servicer’s written requirements for the borrower to follow in making payments.
(2) Failure to apply an accepted payment to principal, interest, escrow, or other charges under the terms of the mortgage loan and applicable law.
(3) Failure to credit a payment to a borrower’s mortgage loan account as of the date of receipt in violation of 12 CFR 1026.36(c)(1).
(4) Failure to pay taxes, insurance premiums, or other charges, including charges that the borrower and servicer have voluntarily agreed that the servicer should collect and pay, in a timely manner as required by § 1024.34(a), or to refund an escrow account balance as required by § 1024.34(b).
(5) Imposition of a fee or charge that the servicer lacks a reasonable basis to impose upon the borrower.
(6) Failure to provide an accurate payoff balance amount upon a borrower’s request in violation of section 12 CFR 1026.36(c)(3).
(7) Failure to provide accu\rate information to a borrower regarding loss mitigation options and foreclosure, as required by § 1024.39.
(8) Failure to transfer accurately and timely information relating to the servicing of a borrower’s mortgage loan account to a transferee servicer.
(9) Making the first notice or filing required by applicable law for any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process in violation of § 1024.41(f) or (j).
(10) Moving for foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or conducting a foreclosure sale in violation of § 1024.41(g) or (j).

2 Responses

  1. Java, yes. And, yes Dann Law. Thank you to Neil for posting this, The “catch-all” provision is 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.35 (b) (11) is not cited above. It states – “any other error relating to the servicing of a borrower’s mortgage loan.” This is huge win for Dann law. But it is the Second Circuit that finally digs deep and applies the law. Perhaps, Neil can post the entire case for everyone else to read. Thank you.
    I am not an attorney, and did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. So this is not to be construed as legal advice.

  2. Anon.
    I think this definitely applies to my Fraudclosure. Think we should add it to Motion to Reconsider. (Whenever the clown in the robe finally provides her awful decision in writing. Said we would have it on last Monday. Wonder what the clown is waiting for ??).
    And if I’m not mistaken , I think this was Dann Law. So I will reach out to them next week as well. Fighting the Bankster Criminal and their lowlife debt collectors liars is exhausting and $$$$$$.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: