This involves the case of Morgan Vs. Caliber Home Loans. The homeowner received the standard answer of they were not required to answer because their request was vague and ambiguous and asked for things that were not allowed under RESPA. The court disagreed in a fairly well-reasoned opinion. These are quotes from the opinion:
To qualify as a QWR, a document must be a “written correspondence” that contains either (1) a “statement of the reasons” for the borrower’s belief the account is in error or (2) “sufficient detail” regarding the information requested by the borrower. Poindexter v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. , 792 F.3d 406, 413 (4th Cir. 2015) (emphasis deleted) (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1) ). Further, a QWR “must identify the ‘account of the borrower’ that is disputed.” Id. However, RESPA does not require the borrower to explicitly state details such as the account number; rather, it allows for the QWR to include information that “otherwise enables the servicer to identify” the account. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B)(i).
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 649 (4th Cir. 2022)
Pursuant to RESPA:
The term “servicing” means receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any loan, including amounts for escrow accounts described in [ 12 U.S.C. § 2609 ], and making the payments of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the loan.
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 649 (4th Cir. 2022) [Editor’s note: this comemnt taken in the context of the adminstrative finding by the CFPB that third aprties (FINTECH companies) are performing these functions means that the actors must be disclosed along witht heir records. The only possible legal exception to this opinion would be that FINTECH companies were operating under the direct control and supervision of the company that is named or designated as a “Servicer.”]
the district court erred by concluding the Morgan Letter is not a QWR due to a “lack of specificity.” J.A. 164. The Morgan Letter is not a general or vague complaint. To the contrary, as noted, the Morgan Letter includes an account number, as well as a reference to an agent and that agent’s ID number related to a specific phone call Morgan had with a representative of Appellee to discuss the conflicting balance information. Although oral communications are not, by themselves, sufficient to create a QWR, see Poindexter , 792 F.3d at 413, the reference to an oral communication here provided specific information that could have “otherwise enable[d] the servicer to identify” the account at issue. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B). More importantly, the Morgan Letter does not rely solely on this alleged phone call with Appellee’s representative as the basis for the description of the problem.
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 650 (4th Cir. 2022)
In September 2019, Appellants filed claims against Appellee, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of “all residential loan borrowers” who submitted QWRs per RESPA and Regulation X to Appellee in the preceding three years. As detailed below, when a loan servicer receives a QWR, the servicer is required by RESPA and Regulation X to temporarily stop reporting adverse information about the borrower’s loan payments to credit reporting agencies. Appellants contend that despite the fact that they sent QWRs to Appellee, Appellee continued to report adverse information on Appellants’ loans to credit reporting agencies in contravention of RESPA.
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 647 (4th Cir. 2022)
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss Appellants’ claims. Appellee argued the Morgan Letter is not a QWR because it does not dispute a specific payment, which Appellee contends is required by RESPA. Appellee also argued that the Johnson Letter is not a QWR because it only disputes a potential loan modification, which is not protected by RESPA. On June 10, 2020, the district court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss. Given that the district court dismissed Appellants’ individual claims, it also dismissed Appellants’ related class action claims. Appellants timely appealed.
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 647-48 (4th Cir. 2022)
loan servicers have a duty to respond to any QWR received from borrowers “for information relating to the servicing of the loan.” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Further, when a loan servicer receives a QWR, that servicer has a duty to refrain from “provid[ing] information regarding any overdue payment, owed by such borrower and relating to such period [of sixty days from the servicer’s receipt of a QWR] or [QWR], to any consumer reporting agency.” Id.
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 648 (4th Cir. 2022)
Per RESPA,
[A] qualified written request shall be a written correspondence, other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer, that—
(i) includes, or otherwise enables the servicer to identify, the name and account of the borrower; and
(ii) includes a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.
12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(1)(B). In turn, Regulation X provides:
A servicer shall comply with the requirements of this section for any written notice from the borrower that asserts an error and that includes the name of the borrower, information that enables the servicer to identify the borrower’s mortgage loan account, and the error the borrower believes has occurred. A notice on a payment coupon or other payment form supplied by the servicer need not be treated by the servicer as a notice of error. A qualified written request that asserts an error relating to the servicing of a mortgage loan is a notice of error for purposes of this section, and a servicer must comply with all requirements applicable to a notice of error with respect to such qualified written request.
Morgan v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 26 F.4th 643, 648 (4th Cir. 2022)
PRACTICE NOTE: THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT A CONTEST REGARDING MODIFICATION IS NOT A SERVICING ISSUE AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO BEING THE REFERENCE IN A QWR. But I think that the presentation of the case may have been in error — but the homeowner. If the question had been something like questioning the authority of the servicer to act as an agent for a party who is not corroborated as having ownership of an unpaid loan account, and it is the payments, interest, and “balance due” that are at stake then it is not a contractual matter. It is a servicing matter.
========================================
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?
Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
CLICK TO DONATE
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 75, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!
CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield usually within 24 hours. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.
Click here for Administrative Strategy ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).
Yes you DO need a lawyer.
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.
Filed under: foreclosure |
Responses to QWR are very limited. None are ever provided. They escape answer by multiple fake claims to not respond. Precedent law usually says fine. This case only states that the request was Qualified under RESPA. What is Qualified to be ANSWERED has not been decided this court or any other courts of law. And THAT is the major problem. Because what is Qualified to be answered is often ignored or claimed proprietary. Case law please. A start with this case. But not far enough. Attorneys need case law – or won’t take case. Whoops – case law missing.