Google+
  • Ocwen3.29-0.02 -0.60%
  • Zillow34.25-0.74 -2.11%
  • Trulia47+0 +0%
  • NationStar15.78-0.32 -1.99%
  • CoreLogic40.02+0.10 +0.25%
  • RE/MAX41.32-0.66 -1.57%
  • Fannie Mae1.90-0.07 -3.55%
  • Freddie Mac1.78-0.07 -3.78%
  • Wells Fargo48.6999+0.2899 +0.5988%
  • CitiMortgage46.65+0.06 +0.13%
  • Bank of America15.44+0.09 +0.59%
  • Fidelity National Financial37.14+0.19 +0.51%
  • First American42.47-0.11 -0.26%
  • AUDUSD=X0.7610-0.0006 -0.0814%
  • USDJPY=X100.4910+0.2930 +0.2924%
  • WP Stock Ticker
Home | Uncategorized

Feed Subscription Uncategorized

Maryland Fiddles With Foreclosure Statute of Limitations (Or Does It)

Statutes of limitations have been a hot topic in the mortgage servicing industry but there has previously been no need for Maryland to be included in that discussion. Now, however, due to a couple of statutes passed by the Maryland General Assembly, it is important for the industry to be aware of these statutory changes and to consider the implications on the time in which a servicer has to institute a foreclosure action regarding owner occupied properties. The author’s opinion is that the applicable statute of limitations is lengthy and unchanged. Nonetheless, for no other purpose than the avoidance of litigation, servicers should act as if a three year statute of limitations is in place.

Read More »

Maryland Fiddles With Foreclosure Statute of Limitations (or does it?)

Statutes of limitations have been a hot topic in the mortgage servicing industry but there has previously been no need for Maryland to be included in that discussion. Now, however, due to a couple of statutes passed by the Maryland General Assembly, it is important for the industry to be aware of these statutory changes and to consider the implications on the time in which a servicer has to institute a foreclosure action regarding owner occupied properties. The author’s opinion is that the applicable statute of limitations is lengthy and unchanged. Nonetheless, for no other purpose than the avoidance of litigation, servicers should act as if a three year statute of limitations is in place.

Read More »

Connecticut Supreme Court Clarifies Condition Precedent for HOA Foreclosure Actions

On April 26, 2016 the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a decision in The Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Jill M Limberger, et al, 321 Conn. 29, which held that pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §47-258(m)(1)(C), prior to any foreclosure action of an homeowners’ association (HOA) commenced on or after July 1, 2010, the HOA must have either (1) had a vote to authorize the individual foreclosure; or (2) had a collection policy adopted as a rule, with notice to unit owners and a minimum ten day comment period as required under the Conn. Gen. Stat. §47-261(b). If neither one of these two criteria are met, the HOA lacks subject matter jurisdiction in its foreclosure action. In Limberger, the HOA’s foreclosure action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction despite the HOA having adopted a “standard collection policy” because the HOA’s Executive Board had not provided notice to the unit owners prior to adopting the policy pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §47-261(b).

Read More »

New Electronic Alerts on Oakland County Properties Could Prevent Loss and Fraud for Mortgage Lenders

Oakland County, the second largest county in the State, has launched a free new online program designed to mitigate the mortgage and deed fraud. The system, called Property Records Notification, or PRN, will inform property owners of recorded activity against their property. PRN is an effort by Oakland County to combat mortgage and property fraud. The unveiling of PRN is the first of its kind in the country, according to Lisa Brown, the Oakland County Register of Deeds. Oakland County was the second in the country to launch Super Index in 2014, an online searchable database within millions of recorded documents maintained by the County.

Read More »

Washington Amends Provisions Regarding Beneficiary Payments Under Foreclosure Fairness Act

The state of Washington amended its statutes addressing the mandatory fees related to foreclosure of deeds of trust, repealing the Revised Code of Washington section 61.24.174 that required certain beneficiaries to remit based on the number of notices of default issued, and including a new section that requires certain beneficiaries to remit based on the number of recorded notices of trustee’s sale. These provisions were effective on July 1, 2016, and the first quarterly report following this effective date was due on or before August 14, 2016.

Read More »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard for Actual Fraud

courtroom-justicescales

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided Husky International Electronics Inc. v. Ritz , holding by a 7-1 vote that the “actual fraud” standard found at 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses fraudulent transfer schemes, even when these schemes do not have a fraudulent representation or any misrepresentation made as part of the scheme.

Read More »

Spokeo v. Robins: The Debate Over Whether Consumers Can Sue Lenders and Servicers for “Nothing”

law BH

Those who have been involved in mortgage servicing at a management level for any period of time are probably familiar with the concept of strict-liability consumer protection laws. Under certain circumstances, these laws provide “consumers” (however that term is defined by the statute in question) with a right of action against lenders and servicers for errors, omissions or procedural missteps. Examples relevant to lenders and servicers include the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Read More »

Redemption After Foreclosure

Foreclosure Three BH

Redemption following a statutory foreclosure is a pretty clear process: a party may pay the amount bid at foreclosure sale, plus allowable interest, costs, and recorded expenses, and save their property. Once the redemption period expires, however, all interest previously held by a mortgagor vests in the holder of the sheriff’s deed. Specifically, unless redemption is made within the statutory period, the sheriff’s “deed shall thereupon become operative, and shall vest in the grantee therein named, his heirs or assigns, all the right, title, and interest which the mortgagor had at the time of the execution of the mortgage…

Read More »

Flat Fee Recording in Michigan

law BH

Michigan’s governor recently signed bills SB-0599 and HB-5165 into law, which amend MCL 600.2567 and MCL 565.412. These amendments, which take effect on October 1, 2016, modify the fees associated with recording mortgages, assignments, judgments and other documents in the majority of counties for the State of Michigan.

Read More »
Scroll To Top