4th Circuit has foreclosure cases on the docket

Richmond lawyer Henry McLaughlin has a series of cases pending in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that raise issues under the Truth in Lending Act:

• Stuart v. LaSalle Bank N.A., No. 10-1446.
Appeal docketed 4/20/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-068.

Appeal of a Richmond U.S. District Court’s dismissal of Donald Stuart’s TILA claim alleging a $250 notary fee was unreasonable by more than $35 and because the entire notary fee was excluded from the finance charge, more than $35 of the fee constituted a hidden finance charge. The lender contends that, under the Special Rule for closing agent fees, the notary fee is not included in the finance charge unless the fee meets specific, non-applicable, criteria.

• Hudson v. BOA, No. 10-1795
Appeal docketed 7/14/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-310.

Appeal of a Richmond U.S. District Court’s dismissal of a TILA suit alleging the lender failed to list as a finance charge the difference between the $819 the borrower was charged for title insurance and the $500 that was the prevailing local market rate; the district court said the borrower failed to support his claim the allegedly miscategorized title fee was not bona fide, and that he could tender funds to complete the rescission.

• Kaur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 10-1909
Appeal docketed 8/10/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-488.

Appeal of a Norfolk U.S. District Court’s decision that a borrower’s TILA claim about an understated finance charge and annual percentage rate is precluded by the plain terms of the agreement under which defendant purchased the relevant assets that the FDIC had seized from Washington Mutual Bank.

• Watkins v. SunTrust Mtge Co., No. 10-1915
Appeal docketed 8/11/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-384.

Appeal of a Richmond U.S. District Court’s dismissal of a homeowner’s complaint alleging defendant lender failed to meet its TILA disclosure obligations when it provided him with forms for a new credit application instead of a refinancing, which the homeowner says resulted in his not receiving an adequate description of the effect rescission would have on his prior mortgage.

Alexandria lawyer Christopher Brown has several cases on appeal challenging dismissals of borrowers’ claims by judges in the Alexandria U.S. District Court.

• Horvath v. Bank of New York N.A., No. 10-1528
Appeal docketed 5/11/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-058.

This district court opinion has been cited by other state and federal courts to dismiss similar suits filed by Brown’s clients. It’s an appeal of the dismissal of a suit that included a claim that through the “splitting, selling, trading and insuring of pieces of the Notes on the secondary market,” the deed of trust pertaining to those notes have become separated or “split” from the notes, rendering them unenforceable. The appellee contends that under settled Virginia law, a party that obtains the right to enforce a note also obtains the right to enforce the security granted by an associated deed of trust. Appellee argues that by acknowledging that the holder of the obligation secured by a deed of trust has the power to initiate foreclosure, Virginia’s non-judicial foreclosure statute, Va. Code 55-59(9), confirms the rights granted the holder by the UCC and longstanding Virginia common law.

Other appeals filed by Brown’s clients that raise similar issues include:

• Larota-Florez v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co., No. 10-1523
Appeal docketed 5/11/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-491.

• Ruggia v. Washington Mutual, No. 10-1661
Appeal docketed 6/15/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-257.

• Zambrano v. HSBC Bank USA N.A., No. 10-1724
Appeal docketed 6/28/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-275

• Pazmino v. LaSalle Bank N.A., No. 10-1739
Appeal docketed 6//30/10; trial court opinion is VLW 010-3-296.

• Bernardo v. Nat’l City Real Estate Serv., No. 10-1803
Appeal docketed 7/16/10; trial court order is VLW 010-3-492.

Related article: Fighting foreclosure, take two