Entries Tagged as 'Class Actions'

Class Actions - An Obvious Part of the Problem

The Washington Post ran a tantalizing article today that all lenders should read. 

It describes a class action lawsuit by a couple allegedly duped by a lender’s advertisement for a loan. 

The article quotes Louis Pizante, Chief Executive Officer of Mavent, Inc., as indicating the case is one of the most important in the mortgage industry at the moment.  In Mr. Pizante’s words, the ”ramifications and impact [of the case] have completely changed given the current environment.”

It also points out that “[d]ozens of class-action homeowner lawsuits have been filed in California and elsewhere against the nation’s largest banks.”

As lenders know, a hypertechnical rule with severe ramifications is a difficult issue to confront.  The Post article notes:

The law states that even a minuscule violation by a lender can lead to a mortgage cancellation, or rescission. For example, if the annual percentage rate calculation is off by one-eighth of a percent between preliminary and final loan documents or if a monthly payment schedule does not conform precisely to federal guidelines, some borrowers could get a refund for all they have paid to live in their homes for years. They would have to pay back the entire amount of the loan, but they could then seek a new mortgage on better terms.

It also points out that, while the ability to receive class action treatment in such cases has been difficult historically, much rides on the Seventh Circuit’s decision expected to be issued soon.

As the Post article notes, there is a possibility of enormous liabilities for lenders and investors alike.  This ”unnerving scenario is a source of optimism for [class action plaintiffs'] lawyers.”

Having read the article, lenders should do two things.  First, they should take all reasonable steps to make sure they eliminate systemic problems that could run them into this minefield.  Second, they should get active in industry efforts to combat these types of problematic laws. 

Other Americans, too, would do well to consider the breathtaking cost of these types of lawsuits against lenders.  It is also important to think where the money comes from.  Lenders are in the business of loaning money to people and earning fees for this service. 

If being in the business costs more because of class action lawyers and a small pool of consumers gaming the system, that means everybody else pays more for their loans. 

That should make people downright mad.

RESPA 8(b) - 11th Circuit Reverses Lower Court on Class Certification

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit yesterday reversed a lower court’s denial of class certification treatment in a Section 8(b) case under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.  The plaintiff alleged that a real estate company had been paid a fee but that no services had been provided.  There were no allegations that the fee had been split with a third party. 

The 11th Circuit noted it had never addressed class treatment for a Section 8(b) case on such facts.   The court pointed out, however, that HUD’s Statement of Policy 2001-1 would find a violation if a fee was charged without any service being provided. 

In HUD’s SOP, the court stated, a fee is unearned and a violation of Section 8(b) if:  (i) a fee is charged but no, nominal or duplicative work is done, or (ii) a fee is charged that is unreasonably excessive in light of the services actually performed. 

Because this case involves a challenge to a denial of class certification, the 11th Circuit did not reach the merits of HUD’s position.  The 11th Circuit upheld the lower court’s finding that the plaintiff satisfied the burden of showing an “issue of law common” to the putative representatives, and the adequacy of the plaintiff as a class representative. 

But the Circuit Court disagreed with the lower court on other requisite issues.  The Circuit Court held that the plaintiff also established that “class issues predominate and a class action is the superior method for dealing with the claims raised.” 

HUD was not party to the case.