Home (page 2)

Tag Archives: mortgage

Many questions, few answers in home lawsuit (access required)

Ignorance of the law is no defense. But how about the facts? How long, for example, can a lender feign ignorance of the facts and collect on a mortgage loan after the underlying debt has been satisfied by a deed in lieu of foreclosure? The answer: As long as the borrower continues to pay, U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr. held recently in Martin v. American General Finance Inc., a case that aptly depicts the confusion resulting when a note and mortgage go their separate ways.

Read More »

Bankruptcy – Real Property – Mortgage – Avoidable Transfer (access required)

Goldman v. Capital City Mortgage Corp. The 4th Circuit upholds a decision for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee who sued appellant mortgage company to avoid transfer of an 11.8-acre parcel of real estate in Maryland pledged by debtor; the court accepts the trial court finding that the mortgage company did not show it was a transferee who took for value, in good faith and without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer, under 11 U.S.C. § 550(b). The transferee, Capital City Mortgage Corporation (CCM), argues that our holding in Smith v. Mixon, 788 F.2d 229 (4th Cir. 1986), requires us to find that the absence of actual knowledge of the voidability of the transfer is all that is needed to find good faith under § 550(b)(1). We do not agree.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Failure to Prosecute – Real Property – Mortgages – Foreclosure – TRO – Lis Pendens (access required)

Dillahunt v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Association. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-16-0004, 25 pp.) (Martha A. Geer, J.) Appealed from Craven County Superior Court. (Benjamin G. Alford, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Click here for the full text of the opinion. ...

Read More »

Coach’s Corner: Politicians, lawyers and ‘protecting the public’

Lawyers nationwide increasingly face state and federal government actions to implement a whole new regulatory structure aimed at what is in fact a growing problem: companies that charge consumers an upfront fee to modify the terms of a mortgage or deed of trust they can no longer afford, then either fail to deliver results or actually abscond with the fee itself. In an early effort, New York banned upfront mortgage-modification fees but explicitly exempted retainers to lawyers. Later, reports that mortgage companies were using relationships with lawyers to get around the fee ban led to passage of another law, this time banning retainer and escrow collections by lawyers unless the fee is collected as part of ongoing, regular legal counsel.

Read More »