The US District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued an Order today partially denying Chase and Fannie Mae's Motion to Dismiss claims the Dionnes brought against them for failure to timely evaluate a complete loan modification application. The Dionne's alleged in their complaint that this failure resulted in Chase and Fannie Mae foreclosing on the Dionne's home before they had a right to do so. The Court found the Dionnes had alleged sufficient facts to sustain claims for RESPA, ECOA, FDCPA, and NH consumer protection statutes.
The case name is: Jason Dionne, et al v. Fannie Mae and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , Civil No. 15-cv-056-LM
- RESPA (providing all documents requested = complete application and allegations support Chase violated RESPA by not acting on application; Chase did not exercise reasonable diligence by repeatedly requesting documents and asking for documents when it previously stated nothing was needed);
- ECOA—“The plain language of 1691(d)(1) does not require an adverse action; rather it requires a creditor to notify the applicant within 30 days of ‘its action’ on ‘a completed application for credit…’”
- FDCPA-foreclosing on a mortgage is a debt collection activity for purposes of 1692f(6); “The violation of RESPA prohibited Chase from foreclosing on the property before notifying them of action taken on their loss mitigation application…this is sufficient to satisfy the “prohibited” act element of the FDCPA”
- UDUCPA (NH FDCPA): the RESPA violations are sufficient to show that the defendants had no right to possess the property. “Under the UDUCPA; “Even if Fannie Mae and Chase are not themselves debt collectors under the FDCPA, they may be vicariously liable for Harmon’s action on their behalf under the UDUCPA
- NH Consumer Protection Act: ***Fannie Mae is not exempt. The FHFA regulations do not provide power to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair practices