On October 18, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In granting the petition, the Court agreed to take up two distinct issues. First, whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers clause of the Constitution. Second, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, whether 12 ...
On Tuesday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued what is already being touted as a landmark ruling in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 15-1177, 2016 WL 5898801 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016), holding in a 2-1 decision that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB"), and specifically its organization as a "single-Director independent agency" with no meaningful Presidential oversight, violates Article II of the United States Constitution, which in relevant part vests the authority to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in ...
In Edwards v. Macy's, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2016 WL 922221 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that state law claims arising from plaintiff's enrollment in a debt cancellation program were preempted by the National Bank Act ("NBA") and accompanying regulations promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"). Further, the court held that the claims against both the national bank and the corporation acting on behalf of the national bank were preempted, even though the corporation was not a ...
Beginning August 31, 2015, the CFPB will begin supervising nonbank auto finance companies pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 1090.108. The Final Rule provides that auto finance companies that qualify as "larger participants of a market for automobile financing" will be subject to the new regulation. The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB supervisory authority over "larger participants" of certain markets for consumer financial products or services, as defined by the CFPB. See 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(B). In June 2015, the CFPB finalized its larger participant regulation as it relates to the ...
In Bryan v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 2014 WL 2988097 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2014), plaintiffs alleged violations of RESPA and the applicable regulations set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 3500 and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.30, et seq. (Regulation X) against Seterus and Fannie Mae, respectively. The facts alleged that Fannie Mae was the "master servicer" of the note and mortgage, and Seterus was the "subservicer" of the note and mortgage. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants Seterus, and Fannie Mae by the failure of Seterus, failed to take timely action to respond to ...
Cataldi v. New York Community Bank (N.D. GA Feb. 3, 2013) (Loss Mitigation & Dual Tracking)
This action involves one of the first decisions issued pursuant to the new mortgage servicing regulations under the "Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and Consumer Protection Act." Plaintiff sought injunctive relief for violation of the Act, including a claim that the Defendant did not fairly offer and negotiate loss mitigation options and pursued "dual track" foreclosure. The facts established that the parties engaged in modification negotiations, that one or more modifications ...
The Connecticut Court of Appeals recently found that the prohibition of yield spread premiums in the Dodd-Frank Act did not establish a per se violation of a fraud claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"). In CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Coolbeth, --- A.3d ---, 2013 WL 6448883 (Conn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2013), CitiMortgage filed a foreclosure action against the defendant mortgagors. The mortgagors filed special defenses and a counterclaim alleging that the mortgage broker falsely represented a higher interest rate, that CitiMortgage paid the mortgage broker a ...
In Empire Bank v. Dumond, No. 13-CV-0388-CVE-PJC, 2013 WL 6238605 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 3, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma recently held that the Dodd-Frank amendment to the statute of limitation for Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") claims does not apply retroactively. While the court held that the statute of limitation barred spousal guarantors' ECOA counterclaim, the counterclaim was allowed to proceed because it was asserted under a recoupment theory. Empire Bank obtained guaranties from various individuals, entities, and spousal ...
In Henning v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, No. 11-11428-WGY, 2013 WL 5229837 (D. Mass. Sept. 17, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently agreed with numerous decisions of other courts finding that the preemption provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act do not apply retroactively. Plaintiff, a mortgagor, filed suit against Wachovia Mortgage raising a number of claims based on Wachovia's purported wrongful conduct in providing him with a subprime stated-income loan knowing that he would likely default. After removal, Wachovia moved to dismiss based on ...
In Zevon v. Department Stores Nat'l Bank, No. 12 Civ 7799(PAC), 2013 WL 5903024 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that the increased statutory cap on class action damages under the Truth-in-Lending Act ("TILA") became effective January 21, 2013, rather than upon the Dodd-Frank's enactment. Plaintiff Marcy Zevon filed suit against Department Stores National Bank ("DSNB") alleging DSNB violated TILA and Regulation Z by failing to include the full text of Regulation Z's model billing rights notice in monthly ...
On July 10, 2013, the CFPB issued mortgage rules under Regulation Z and Regulation X pursuant to its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB further amended the mortgage rules on September 15, 2013 and October 1, 2013. The result is a super regulation which keeps the original framework of Regulations X and Z, but adds entirely new provisions addressing eight major topics. In this article, David A. Elliott, Nicholas S. Agnello and Seth I. Muse discuss the new regulations and the possible effect on mortgage litigation. You can find a copy of the article by clicking here. For more ...
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 ...
For the first time, a federal court in Alabama addressed preemption under the Dodd-Frank Act. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, subsidiaries and affiliates of national banks can no longer argue that state laws are preempted. While the court held that the Dodd-Frank Amendment did not apply retroactively and found that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted, it noted the changed status of subsidiaries and affiliates of national banks in light of the Dodd-Frank Amendment. In Selman v. CitiMortgage, the plaintiffs filed suit against their mortgage loan servicer, the investor, and the insurer ...