News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Mortgages › Mortgage Lenders

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Troutman Pepper

National Bank Preemption of State Law Following Cantero

Troutman Pepper on

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed...more

Saiber LLC

United States Supreme Court Asked to Resolve Circuit Split Over Whether Federally Chartered Banks Must Comply With State Laws...

Saiber LLC on

In Cantero vs. Bank of America, N.A., mortgage borrowers are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse a Second Circuit ruling that federally-chartered banks need not comply with state laws that require the...more

Goodwin

House Votes to Repeal OCC True Lender Rule

Goodwin on

In This Issue. The House of Representatives voted to pass a Congressional Review Act resolution repealing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) “true lender” rule; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Cities Can Sue Banks for Predatory Lending, U.S. Supreme Court Says

Best Best & Krieger LLP on

While the nationwide economy has steadily improved since the recession, many cities are still clawing their way back to financial stability. California, in particular, was hit hard by the foreclosure crisis, leaving cities in...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Cities, Allowing Lawsuits Against Banks for Fair Housing Act Violations - Bank of America v. City of...

Best Best & Krieger LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has given the City of Miami the go-ahead to sue banks under the Fair Housing Act for alleged racially discriminatory lending practices that resulted in increased foreclosures and fiscal harm to the...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

Supreme Court Rules that Cities Can Sue Banks for Predatory/Discriminatory Lending

Ballard Spahr LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, by a 5-3 majority, that the city of Miami was authorized to bring lawsuits based on allegations that banks engaged in financial-crisis-era discriminatory lending. The city alleged that the...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Beukes Decision: A Helpful Clarification Regarding the Right of Rescission

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Earlier this year, in Jesinoski v. Countrywide, the Supreme Court answered an important question regarding the procedure for rescinding a residential mortgage refinance loan under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). Under...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Course on MERS

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

The Nevada Supreme Court recently reversed – or at least clarified – the impact of MERS in Nevada under the approach set forth in the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages. The Supreme Court had held in 2012 that at the...more

Ballard Spahr LLP

No deference for CFPB amicus brief from Ninth Circuit

Ballard Spahr LLP on

Many readers probably remember Edwards v. First American Financial Corp. for its ill-fated journey to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari to decide the issue of whether a plaintiff who brings a...more

Williams Mullen

Supreme Court Upholds Disparate Impact: What are the Practical Consequences for Mortgage Lenders?

Williams Mullen on

The Supreme Court has held that disparate impact claims are valid under the federal Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”). In essence, this means that liability under the FHA can be proven by showing discriminatory effects of...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Recent Unanimous Supreme Court Decision Holds That Underwater Mortgages in a Chapter 7 Cannot be “Stripped off"

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Issue and Background - Debtors David Caulkett and Edelmiro Toledo-Cardona (“Debtors”) each filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief with “underwater” junior mortgages held by Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank”). In other...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Bank of America v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, together with Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163, holding that a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may...more

Stinson LLP

Supreme Court Issues Significant Decision Interpreting Truth In Lending Act

Stinson LLP on

In a unanimous decision issued on January 13, the Supreme Court held that a borrower exercises its right to rescind under Section 1635 of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), simply by notifying its creditor of its intent to...more

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

Rescission of Home Mortgage Loans

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on

The Truth-in-Lending Act (“Act”) was adopted in 1969. It has spawned dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of administrative rules and interpretations. Recently, the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to address the...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Borrowers Need Not File Suit to Rescind Mortgage Loan Under TILA, U.S. Supreme Court Holds

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

Why it matters - In a victory for consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not require borrowers to file suit to rescind a mortgage loan transaction within the...more

Blank Rome LLP

Supreme Court Rules Written Notice Is Sufficient to Rescind under TILA

Blank Rome LLP on

Action Item: In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski, lenders should be aware that written notice provided by the borrower, within three years of the loan consummation, is sufficient to exercise...more

Bilzin Sumberg

Supreme Court Eases Requirements for Homeowners Rescinding Mortgages

Bilzin Sumberg on

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. that borrowers exercising their right to rescind mortgages under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) only need to provide written notice to...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

State AGs Take Sides as U.S. Supreme Court Hears Housing Discrimination Case

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, on the question of whether disparate impact claims for discrimination are...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

No Lawsuit Required to Rescind: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Mortgage Rescission Notification Requirements for Borrowers under...

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Background of Notice versus Lawsuit Issue - The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as implemented by Regulation Z, provides borrowers with a powerful tool: the right to rescind certain mortgage loan transactions. This...more

Miller & Martin PLLC

High Court Clarifies TILA Rescission Procedure

Miller & Martin PLLC on

In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al. (No. 13-684), the U.S. Supreme Court has eased the process by which a borrower may seek to walk away from his home mortgages, holding that the borrower, in order to avail himself...more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Unanimously Resolves Circuit Split Regarding Notice Requirement for Truth in Lending Act Right of Rescission

Snell & Wilmer on

In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., decided January 13, 2015, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and clarified that borrowers need not file a complaint in order to invoke their right to rescind...more

Holland & Knight LLP

SCOTUS Ruling Makes it Easier for Borrowers to Rescind Home Loan Under Truth in Lending Act

Holland & Knight LLP on

On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that borrowers may reserve and effect their right to rescission by simply notifying creditors of their intent to rescind a loan within three years after receiving...more

Baker Donelson

Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split Over TILA Rescissions Limitations Period

Baker Donelson on

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a borrower relying on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to rescind his mortgage loan need only mail written notice of his intent to his lender within three years of the...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that borrowers exercising their right to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act must provide written notice to their lender within the three-year rescission period but...more

24 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide