Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 went into effect December 1, 2011. It was implemented to address a perceived problem in “cure and maintain” Chapter 13 cases (cases in which the debtor cures any pre-petition arrearage and maintains monthly post-petition payments on long-term loans) – that mortgage creditors were not providing the debtor with notice
Servicers That Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail, Warns NY AG
In a December 13, 2021 letter to servicers, New York Attorney General Letitia James reminded servicers of their continuing obligations to assist New Yorkers amidst the pandemic and warned of enforcement actions against servicers that fail to do so. According to Attorney General James, “lack of preparedness is no excuse.” Instead, the Office of the
After (Another) Unusual Year, We’re Very Thankful and Wish You a Happy Thanksgiving
Now that the pandemic’s “social distancing” is lessening, we hope you are all able to gather with friends and family this Thanksgiving. As we do the same, we wanted to count our blessings as we review the year. This year, we are thankful for being able to return to our offices, our favorite restaurants, and
Property Insurance Claims and Loss Drafts: Mortgage Servicer Obligations Under the GSE Security Instrument
As homeowners file insurance claims for property damage following Hurricane Ida and with Hurricane Larry threatening the northeast coast, mortgage servicers are facing an influx of insurance proceeds or loss draft funds. To avoid borrower litigation and to protect against potential liability to borrowers and investors, mortgage servicers must ensure that all loss draft activities
The CFPB’s New COVID-19 Procedural Safeguard Rules Pose Significant Compliance Challenges for Mortgage Servicers
Just two short months after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced its COVID-19 mortgage servicing final rule, the effective date of August 31, 2021, is here. As we noted in our detailed breakdown of the final rule and corresponding webinar, the final rule poses new risks and challenges for mortgage servicers attempting to
South Carolina Ruling Gives Lenders Flexibility on When to Foreclose in Face of Borrower Litigation
In a ruling that will provide guidance on when lenders must raise a foreclosure counterclaim in a borrower lawsuit, the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Estate of Patricia Ann Owens Houck has held that foreclosure was not a compulsory counterclaim in a borrower’s suit alleging errors in origination.
Detailed Breakdown of the CFPB’s COVID-19 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule
With the release of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s COVID-19 mortgage servicing final rule and an August 31, 2021, effective date that will be here before we know it, the race is on for servicers to digest the law’s new requirements and prohibitions and then implement them. This will not be an easy task.
As
CFPB Releases COVID-19 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule
On June 28 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its much-anticipated mortgage servicing final rule related to COVID-19. This rulemaking amends Regulation X and, as expected, largely tracks the proposal that the Bureau issued in early April 2021 and that we wrote about shortly thereafter. The new rules will become effective on August 31,
Does the Eleventh Circuit’s Hunstein Decision Mean that the FDCPA Violates the First Amendment?
The Eleventh Circuit’s far-reaching decision in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. — which we previously covered on this blog — continues to raise questions for the wide range of industries that fall within the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collectors.” To put it briefly, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debt collector violates
New Federal Appellate FDCPA Decision Threatens to Upend Debt Collection and Loan Servicing
On April 21, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision that threatens significant consequences for a variety of loan servicing and debt collection industries. The upshot of the court’s holding is that anyone falling within the FDCPA’s broad definition of “debt collector” violates the FDCPA when it communicates with