Posted by NCBRC - February 10th, 2016
United Bank has appealed to the Sixth Circuit BAP, the issue of whether Caulkett extends to lien stripping in chapter 13. The bankruptcy court held that it does not. In re Travers, No. 15-50844 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2015) on appeal, No. 15-8051 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. filed Dec. 1, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 8th, 2016
The Seventh Circuit found that Illinois’ personal property exemption statute, which provides an exemption for a bible, extended to the debtor’s first edition Book of Mormon notwithstanding its unusually high monetary value. In re Robinson, 14-3585 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 3rd, 2016
“The FAA does not protect the sort of arbitration agreement that unambiguously forbids an arbitrator from even applying the applicable law.” Hayes v. Western Sky Financial, No. 15-1170 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - February 2nd, 2016
A report to Congress by the Special Inspector General Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) examined the reasons for the high percentage of redefaults by homeowners in HAMP. By December 31, 2015, over 500,000 homeowners who had HAMP modifications had missed three payments (“redefaulted”) on their loans. This number represents approximately one third of homeowners in the program. Concern over the high redefault rate and potential misconduct on the part of the servicers caused the Treasury, at SIGTARP’s request, to conduct compliance testing at each of HAMP’s largest servicers; Bank of America, CitiMortgage, JP Morgan Chase, Nationstar, Ocwen, Select Portfolio Servicing, and Wells Fargo. The Treasury looked at samples of 100 homeowners who had redefaulted out of HAMP at each of the targeted servicers. The study found that 6 out of 7 servicers had wrongfully terminated homeowners who were in good standing. (The only large servicer that had not been found to have erred in this way was Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.). These six mortgage servicers account for 673,039 of the 915,699 (74%) HAMP modifications funded solely by TARP since the start of the program.
The improper servicing was so entrenched that 4 out of the 6 servicers continued to commit the termination errors even after the Treasury had repeatedly identified problems in their systems. Errors included miscounting the number of missed payments by a homeowner, misapplication of payments, and mishandling of rolling delinquencies. The report noted that servicers regularly failed to make timely and accurate reports to the Treasury thereby making monitoring difficult.
The Treasury also found that 5 out of 7 servicers failed to offer redefaulting homeowners alternative assistance available through the Making Home Affordable Program. The report concludes with the warning that the number of erroneous terminations from HAMP in the small sample tested is an indication of extensive misconduct on the part of the servicers which must be addressed by further oversight by the Treasury.
SIGTARP report re HAMP
Posted by NCBRC - February 1st, 2016
The CFPB has published its 2016 list of consumer reporting companies. These companies collect financial information and provide consumer reports to other companies. The CFPB list includes the name and contact information from the three largest nationwide consumer reporting companies—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion—as well as dozens of specialty reporting companies that collect information for specific purposes such as employment screening, tenant screening, and bank account screening, utilities, medical, etc. The report gives guidance and contact information for obtaining your free, yearly, credit report from any of the three largest companies. It also explains what information the specialty companies collect and to whom the information is disseminated. It is important to note that with respect to the specialty companies it is possible not to discover a negative credit report until after adverse action has been taken by a potential employer, landlord, etc. The report provides tips on which specialty reports might be important for you to fact-check depending on your specific situation. Contact information for each of the reporting companies is provided in the report and, like the largest consumer reporting companies, most provide free yearly reports. As a consumer, you have the right to see what is in your reports and to dispute any inaccuracies.
CFPB 2016 Consumer Report list
Posted by NCBRC - January 28th, 2016
The Ninth Circuit found that mere possession of property whose title had been fully adjudicated against the debtor in a state unlawful detainer action, was not a property interest protected by the automatic stay. Eden Place v. Perl, No. 14-60049 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 26th, 2016
NACBA has filed an amicus brief arguing that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals should find that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for a time-barred debt is subject to suit under the FDCPA. Nelson v. Midland Credit Management, No. 15-2984 (8th Cir.) (filed January 25, 2016). The brief seeks reversal of the district court’s finding that filing a proof of claim for a time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA. Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 22nd, 2016
Failure to tell the debtor that a down payment toward mortgage arrears was essential to loan modification rendered the loan servicer’s loss mitigation negotiations in bad faith. Rushmore Loan Management Services v. Hosking, No. 15-3999 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 11, 2016). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 18th, 2016
A condominium lien which is wholly unsecured under section 506(a) by virtue of a first mortgage may be treated as unsecured in the chapter 13 plan and may be avoided through the mechanism of either a valuation hearing under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3012 or through a stand-alone adversary proceeding. The court rejected the condo association’s attempt to benefit from the state’s “super lien” law in light of the fact that no judicial sale of the property had taken place. Sligh v. Northpoint I Condominium Assoc., No. 14-14544, Adv. Pro. No. 15-56 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2015). Read More
Posted by NCBRC - January 12th, 2016
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit found that the bankruptcy court erred by failing to follow Ninth Circuit precedent when it held that a late-filed tax return is a “return” for purposes of dischargeability so long as it meets the objective test of proper form and substance. United States v. Martin, No. 14-1180 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2015). Read More