No bar to attorneys’ fees under TILA
A car buyer whose damages under the Truth in Lending Act were slashed by the Supreme Court is nevertheless entitled to attorneys’ fees for that portion of his otherwise “successful action,” the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.
The decision affirms a fee award of more than $80,000 to Bradley Nigh, who claimed Koons [...]
Melfi v. WMC Mortg. Corp
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. Hon. Mary M. Lisi, U.S. District Judge.
Melfi v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1454 (D.R.I., Jan. 9, 2009)
DISPOSITION:
Affirmed.
COUNSEL: Christopher M. Lefebvre with whom Claude F. Lefebvre and Christopher M. Lefebvre, P.C. were on brief for appellant.
Jeffrey S. Patterson with [...]
Homeowners should be suing lenders!
Homeowners, welcome to Paradise Lost, the fate of millions of financially strapped boomers. A simultaneous loss of life savings, job income and foreclosure has many of them wondering, “Whose America is this, anyway? The bankers got bonuses to defraud us, and our industries and economy are in the pits. We worked for decades to live [...]
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )Darling v. Indymac Bank (TILA Audit)
Darling v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B., No. 06-123-B-W (D.Me. 12/03/2007)
[1]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE
[2]
Civ. No. 06-123-B-W
[3]
2007.DME.0000264
[4]
December 3, 2007
[5]
JOSEPH AND ROXANNE DARLING, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., AND WESTERN THRIFT & LOAN, DEFENDANTS.
[6]
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret J. Kravchuk U.S. Magistrate Judge
[7]
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT EXPERT TESTIMONY
[8]
The [...]
Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig (TILA)
Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig, 124 S.Ct. 1741, 541 U.S. 232, 158 L.Ed.2d 450 (U.S. 04/21/2004)
[1]
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2]
No. 02-857
[3]
124 S.Ct. 1741, 541 U.S. 232, 158 L.Ed.2d 450, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4821, 4 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3433, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3433, 2004.SCT.0000066< http://www.versuslaw.com>
[4]
April 21, 2004
[5]
HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, [...]
Rescission turns mortgage in to unsecured debt!
The borrowers were married but received only 2 copies of the Right to Cancel notice five days after signing the closing documents for a refinance of their primary residence. Upon completion of a Forensic Loan Audit and the discovery of “material disclosure violations” they rescinded the loan and filed for protection under chapter 13 [...]
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Sterten v. Option One Mortgage Corp.
A provision in the Truth in Lending Act that excuses minor inaccuracies on the part of lenders is not an “affirmative defense” that must be specifically raised by the defendant, but instead is a “general defense” that cannot be waived, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The ruling in Sterten v. Option One [...]
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Case Law
A. Availability of Rescission in a Class Action
Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB
(2007 WL 112568, E.D. Wisconsin, January 16, 2007).
Borrowers alleged that the lender:
(1) failed to properly disclose the payment schedule because the schedule did not reflect that the required payments were due monthly;
(2) did not clearly disclose the APR and variable rate feature, based [...]
Right to Cancel Notice – Same Lender Refinance
JOHNNY SANTOS-RODRIGUEZ;
MARIA BETANCOURT-CASTELLANOS; C/P SANTOS-BETANCOURT;
LYMARY ROJAS-MORALES; RANFI VELEZ-ROMAN;
C/P VELEZ-ROJAS,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
DORAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION;
DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
XYZ CORPORATIONS,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Howard, Circuit Judge.
Gary E. Klein, with whom Gillian Feiner, Roddy, Klein & Ryan, Juan M. Suarez [...]
Set Aside Foreclosure and Decree and Motion for New Trial
By: Kenneth DeLashmutt
Prove Up of the Claim
To recover on a promissory note the Plaintiff (lender) must prove existence of the note.
To recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove:
(1) the existence of the note in question;
(2) that the party sued signed the note;
(3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note [...]
« Previous Entries
