Tag Archives: mortgage foreclosure actions

Maurice Wutscher’s Kevin Hudspeth Published in Business Law Today

Nov. 27, 2018 — Maurice Wutscher attorney Kevin Hudspeth has written an article discussing contradicting applications of the statute of limitations in mortgage foreclosure actions in the Ohio courts for the American Bar Association’s news magazine Business Law Today.

In “A Tale of Two Fishers: Unsettling Ohio’s ‘Well-Settled Law’ on the Proper Statute of Limitations for Mortgage Foreclosure Actions,” Mr. Hudspeth writes, “This tale of two Fishers tells the story of how Ohio’s statute of limitations jurisprudence evolved from an accepted legal proposition derived from one Fisher opinion to ‘well-settled law’ stating the complete opposite in another Fisher opinion.”

“A careful examination of the underlying cases shows that the Ohio Supreme Court never intended to create a hard and fast rule that the same statute of limitations governing actions on the note also governs actions to foreclose the mortgage. In fact, it appears the court intended the opposite,” he writes.

Maurice Wutscher’s Brent Yarborough Speaks to Mortgage Banking Industry at Advocacy Day

April 19, 2016 — Maurice Wutscher’s Brent Yarborough was a panel speaker on April 18 at Advocacy Day 2016, a grass roots advocacy event for mortgage servicers and lenders in Washington, D.C.

The panel discussion, “Advocacy Super Session: How We Got Here,” prepared members of ALFN, USFN, NARCA, and REOMAC to meet with their congressmen about issues faced by attorneys representing the mortgage banking industry.

Mr. Yarborough discussed the federal regulation of the practice of law, including the practice-of-law exclusion under Dodd-Frank and the history of attorney regulation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He also discussed CFPB enforcement actions against attorneys and law firms.

Donald Maurice to Discuss Foreclosure Litigation at ACI Forum

Sept. 9, 2015 — Maurice Wutscher attorney Donald Maurice will participate in a panel survey exploring the latest developments in foreclosure litigation in hotbed jurisdictions at ACI’s 18th National Forum on Residential Mortgage Litigation and Regulatory Enforcement in Dallas on Sept. 17.

The panel will examine homeowners bills of rights, statute of limitations issues, HOA liens, state UDAAP claims, and other trends in foreclosure litigation.

The residential mortgage industry’s leading in-house and outside counsel will attend the meeting to gain insight into strategies, government enforcement and regulatory priorities, and judicial perspectives from top federal and state judges.

For more information and to register, click here.

Webinar to Discuss California’s One Form of Action Rule

Aug. 21, 2015 — Maurice Wutscher attorneys will present a webinar on Aug. 25 discussing California’s one form of action rule.

The Supreme Court of California is currently reviewing two significant appellate court rulings involving the “one form of action” rule: Coker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1 (4th Dist. 2013) and First California Bank v. McDonald, 231 Cal. App. 4th 550 (5th Dist. 2014).

In Coker, to resolve a nonjudicial foreclosure, the mortgagee of a purchase-money loan conditioned a short sale on the borrower’s agreement to remain responsible for any deficiency. A copy of the Appellate Court’s ruling in Coker is available here: Link to Opinion.

McDonald involves a judicial foreclosure on a mortgage loan made to a husband and wife, where the husband was deceased, and the mortgagee did not obtain the consent of the deceased husband’s estate prior to liquidating part of the collateral owned exclusively by the wife. A copy of the Appellate Court’s ruling in McDonald is available here: Link to Opinion.

The issues presented for review before the Supreme Court of California in these two cases are:

1. Does a borrower waive the protection of the “security first” rule under California Code of Civil Procedure section 726 by agreeing to a short sale?

2. Can a servicer condition a short sale on waiver by the borrower of the anti-deficiency protections under California Code of Civil Procedure section 580b?

3. Does a servicer violate California Code of Civil Procedure section 726 when it consents to a borrower’s voluntary ″short sale″ of her own property without obtaining the consent of a co-borrower who has no ownership interest in that property?

4. When there is a violation of Section 726, should alternate remedies, short of the servicer losing its right to pursue a deficiency judgment, be available to the courts where the servicer acted in good faith and there has been no prejudice to the co-borrower?

5. Does Pacific Valley Bank v. Schwenke (1987) 189 Cal. App. 3d 134, remain good law after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 991, which bars a loss-of-debt penalty in the absence of evidence of lender bad faith?

For more information and to register, click here.