Following the Eleventh Circuit's decision last year in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the filing of a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case pending in the Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § § 1692-1692p ("FDCPA"). But as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently made clear in Gurganus v. Recovery Management Systems Corp. (In re Gurganus), No. 7:14-ap-70054-BGC, 2015 WL 65089 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Jan. 5, 2015), before debtors start hauling creditors into court for something ...
Imagine your company or client was sued for an alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act ("FCCPA"). The plaintiff has an outstanding debt that is greater than the damages sought in the FCCPA action. Consequently, you want to know if you can counterclaim to setoff (or "offset") the damages sought in the FCCPA lawsuit from the underlying debt. Though the Eleventh Circuit does not provide steadfast answers, it sheds some light on the topic, albeit in a bankruptcy context. In Brook v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 566 F. App'x 787 (11th Cir. 2014), the Eleventh Circuit ...
The United States Supreme Court recently held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., 574 U.S. -- (2015), that the Truth in Lending Act's ("TILA") rescission provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1635, does not require a borrower to file a lawsuit within the three-year time period under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) in order to rescind. The Jesinoski borrowers had refinanced their mortgage in 2007. Exactly three years later, the borrowers sent their lender and loan servicer a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. The lender and loan servicer refused to acknowledge the rescission. One ...
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal released an opinion which dramatically alters the landscape of foreclosure law in Florida. The opinion is Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, v. Harry Beauvais, et al., No. 3D14-575, and it rewrites much of what you thought you knew about the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure. Specifically, the opinion adopts an extremely narrow reading of the Fifth District Court of Appeal's ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) and certifies conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's ruling in ...
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion[1] today that provides further guidance in determining the date of accrual of a cause of action in a subsequent mortgage foreclosure action and addresses the nature of contractual conditions precedent to acceleration of debt. In the case of Richard Hubert Snow, et al. vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, 3D14-1547, the court affirmed the final judgment of foreclosure and rejected appellants' argument that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Burr & Forman LLP was appellate counsel for the appellee, Wells ...
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offers of judgment to the named plaintiffs that, if accepted, would have provided all relief that plaintiffs sought, neither moots the individual plaintiff's claims or the putative class action. Thus, the strategy to make an offer of judgment to render the case moot and prevent class certification may no longer be viable strategy in the Eleventh Circuit. In Stein v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, --- F.3d ---, 2014 WL 6734819 (11th Cir. 2014), six named plaintiffs filed suit ...
In May 2013, a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida caused great concern among creditors and debt collectors by taking an unprecedented stance against the supremacy of orders issued by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regarding the Telephone Consumer Protect Act ("TCPA"). In Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2013), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. granted partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's TCPA claims against the defendant, Gulf Coast, which had obtained the plaintiff's cell phone ...
In Roth v. CitiMortgage Inc., 2014 WL 2853549 (2nd Cir. June 24, 2014), the Second Circuit held that although a mortgage had three letters requesting various mortgage related information sent by her lawyer, the mortgagor's RESPA claim was properly dismissed on the basis that her lawyer's letters were not sent to CitiMortgage's designated QWR address. Accordingly, the requests were not QWRs under RESPA and did not trigger CitiMortgage's QWR duties under RESPA. In Roth, Defendant CitiMortgage Inc. serviced a second residential mortgage for Plaintiff Patricia Roth. Roth alleged ...
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 ...
In Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., No. 13-10951 (11th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a Florida district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claim. Specifically, Plaintiff Fredy Osorio brought suit against State Farm Bank under 47 U.S.C. § 227, which "provides a damages remedy for cellular-phone subscribers who receive autodialed phone calls without having given prior express consent to receive such calls." Id. The Eleventh ...