Bank that initiated foreclosure action not subject to state debt-collection law

O’Sullivan v. Diamond et al, No. 8:2019cv00818 – Document 10 (D. Md. 2019) case opinion from the District of Maryland US Federal District Court

Salvatore Fuschetto Loan Officer | NMLS # 455049 Ideal Lending Solutions – West Palm Beach American Financial Network, Inc. Mortgage Professional Reviews The claim alleged that New York State was negligent when a State-owned van struck the riding lawn mower claimant was standing on at the side of West Clarkstown Road in New City, resulting in claimant’s injuries. Evidence presented at the liability trial showed that the van driver was using her cell phone at the time of the accident.

“Importantly, the agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt, liability or any form of wrongdoing by me or the asset.

Appeals Court Rules Foreclosures are "Debt Collection" Under FDCPA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit monday handed down an opinion that defined mortgage foreclosure actions as "debt collection" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), reversing a lower court.

Federal debt collection laws not only regulate the collection conduct of traditional collection agencies but attorneys and, in some circumstances, loan servicers. In the name of thin-profit margins, the current mortgage foreclosure crisis has pushed many loan servicers and bank attorneys to limits of these consumer protection laws.

However, the stated premise of the Supreme Court’s holding is that the McCarthy firm’s correspondence was required under state law in order to initiate foreclosure proceedings. And therein.

Showtime: Democratic debates signal beginning of primary campaign  · A big news day makes the click-through worthwhile: The Democrats are prepared for the first debate of the presidential primary tonight; robert mueller agrees to testify before Congress; and NRATV ceases production, with little sense of its long-term fate.It’s the First Democratic Presidential Debate

"In a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff has standing where it is both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage and the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced" (Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 ad3d 274, 279; see Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709).

 · Another Power Play for the Multi-Billion Dollar Banking Industry. The United States Supreme Court has now rendered a unanimous decision in the case of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, finding that law firms who enforce a security interest such as a mortgage (as opposed to directly collecting a debt) are not debt collectors under the fair debt collection practices [.]

The complaint further alleges that Ajax must be licensed as a debt collector in Maryland in order to take action on the defaulted loan; and that, since Ajax is not so licensed, every civil action and or foreclosure it has pursued in Maryland is an unfair and deceptive trade practice under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.

The judge aptly determined that defendants’ allegations of New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act violations were unfounded because the Bank provided certified copies of the NOIs to defendants, in writing, by certified and regular mail, to their last known A-0982-17T1 6 address, and to their Manahawkin residence, which is the subject of the.

^