Daily News related to the Foreclosure Crisis

The biggest unpunished heist in human history - Max Keiser

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

 Date

Article

Articles are added weekly 

Source

  Comment

10/17/25

New York court makes it harder for lenders to restart foreclosure clock
A New York appeals court clarified that lenders can’t reset foreclosure deadlines by dropping and refiling cases, tightening timelines for mortgage professionals. On October 15, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, issued its decision in GITSIT Solutions, LLC v Azcuy, a case focused on the statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions. The case began in 2005, when Christopher Azcuy and Susan Gayle Cohen executed a note in favor of HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), secured by a mortgage on their Haverstraw, New York property. In 2012, HSBC started a foreclosure action and elected to accelerate the entire mortgage debt.

10/17/25

Consumer Financial Services Bites of the Month - October 2025 - "October Road with the CFPB"
In this month's article, we share some of our top "bites" covered during the October 2025 webinar. Bite 13: CFPB Hires Attorney-Advisors On October 10, 2025, media outlets reported that the CFPB is hiring attorneys to defend the CFPB in appellate litigation.

10/10/25

ATTOM: Foreclosures Continued to Rise in the Third Quarter
There were 72,317 foreclosure starts nationwide in the third quarter, an increase of 2% compared with the second quarter and up 16% compared with year ago, according to ATTOM’s latest U.S. Foreclosure Market Report. States that had the greatest number of foreclosure starts in third quarter included Texas (9,736), Florida (8,909), California (7,862), Illinois (3,515) and New York (3,234). Major cities with a population of 200,000 or more that had the greatest number of foreclosure starts for the quarter included Houston (3,763); New York (3,452), Chicago (3,144), Miami (2,502); and Los Angeles (2,321).

10/09/25

New California Law on Servicing of Second Mortgages Causes Confusion Among Lenders and Servicers
On June 30, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 130, which includes a new provision to the California Civil Code, Section 2924.13. The new law (previously discussed here) became effective on July 1. The purpose of the law was purportedly to make it more difficult for loan servicers to non-judicially foreclose on so-called “zombie mortgages.” The section of AB 130 that created the new Civil Code provision was an add-on to a lengthy budget trailer bill, and there is no legislative history to fall back on with respect to certain vague or confusing provisions in the new law. After three months of attempting to service junior liens under the new law, loan servicers are discovering that there are problems associated with servicing loans under the new law. For example:

10/08/25

Nation’s largest mortgage lenders, service providers hit with allegations of price-fixing
A class action lawsuit alleging a “nationwide conspiracy” designed to “artificially inflate residential mortgage rates and fees” has been filed against one of the largest mortgage service providers in the U.S., Optimal Blue, and 26 of the largest U.S. mortgage lenders. Filed on Oct. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the lawsuit claims these entities have operated a “data-sharing network” since at least 2019 that enables them “to orchestrate a price-fixing scheme.” Optimal Blue offers pricing software embedded in loan origination systems (LOSs) used by lenders to price home mortgages.

10/03/25

Class Action Alleging Deceptive Mortgage Acceleration Notice Language Proceeds
A North Carolina federal court has allowed a putative class case to proceed on a theory that a residential mortgage servicer’s notice that it “may” accelerate is deceptive under the FDCPA and state law. On September, 16, 2025, a judge for the US District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina issued a memorandum opinion and order in the class action proceeding captioned Christel England et al. v. Selene Finance, LP, case number 23-cv-00847, denying the defendant servicer’s motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint. The putative class plaintiffs alleged that the servicer’s default notice is deceptive under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and the North Carolina Collection Agencies Act. The language of the notice at issue is familiar to the residential mortgage servicing industry. Titled Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate, the notice states that:

10/02/25

On September 22, 2025, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Mortgage Forbearance Act into law, with an immediate effective date. The law, designed to provide emergency relief to California mortgage loan borrowers impacted by the various wildfires that occurred earlier in 2025, is in many ways reminiscent of the CARES Act forbearance framework from 2020. However, given that it is a state law, it has limitations compared to its predecessor. On the other hand, in situations where it does apply, the Mortgage Forbearance Act imposes additional burdens that will create compliance challenges for servicers.

copyright MSFraud.org