Cases

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA,____________________ April 13, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order: A15E0026. TINA MARIE SANDERS v. U.S. BANK, N.A. The Petitioner, Tina Marie Sanders, has moved this Court to stay the “Final Judgment and Writ of Possession” issued by the Superior Court of Gwinnett County on April 8, 2015. For the following reasons, we deny

718 F.Supp.2d 689 (2010) Julio E. TAPIA and Edith M. Tapia, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee for RFMSI 2006-S3 Trust, RFMSI Series 2006-S3 Trust, Homecomings Financial LLC, GMAC Mortgage LLC, Bank of America, N.A., United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina, Residential Funding Company, LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., and Samuel I. White, P.C., Defendants. Case No. 1:09cv102

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julio and Edith Tapia appeal from the district court’s final judgment entered after the district court granted Defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claims for declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duty, and quiet title, as wel

U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer (2021 NY Slip Op 00048) U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer 2021 NY Slip Op 00048 Decided on January 05, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer (2021 NY Slip Op 00048) U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer 2021 NY Slip Op 00048 Decided on January 05, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to

U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer (2020 NY Slip Op 02871) U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer 2020 NY Slip Op 02871 Decided on May 14, 2020 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Jud

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. Pending before the court is defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 48]. The Motion, having been fully briefed by the parties, is now ripe for review. Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. Background In November 2006, the plaintiffs, Lisa and

U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer (2018 NY Slip Op 03600) U.S. Bank N.A. v Beymer 2018 NY Slip Op 03600 Decided on May 17, 2018 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Jud

*66 MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge Plaintiff Harold J. Taylor filed suit against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, and HSBC Bank USA, NA. (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting ten causes of action

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 12, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D22-0185 Lower Tribunal No. 17-19612 ________________ Valeriano Garcia, Appellant,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. In West Virginia, lender liability suits have taken a strange turn that threatens to uproot basic principles of contract law. The plaintiffs in these suits, homeowners tied to mortgages, have concocted a novel theory of injury. That theory is as follows: refinancing a home for more than its fair market value is one-sided and overly harsh against

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge HARRIS wrote the opinion, in which Judge SHEDD and Judge DIAZ joined. PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge: In 2006, at the height of the housing market, Philip McFarland was informed by a mortgage broker that his home’s value had nearly doubled in two years. Acting on that advice, McFarlan

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD A. SCHELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.19) and Plaintiffs’ Response (Dkt.20). Also pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Kassahun Tefera (“Tefera”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on June 7, 2018. Tefera alleges that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”), illegally foreclosed on his home

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge. Before the court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17), filed January 17, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney for findings and recommendation (Doc. 29). The court vacates the order of reference (Doc. 29). A

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 17, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D21-2465 Lower Tribunal No. 13-21158 ________________ Miguel Rodriguez, et al., Appellants,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY IN FAVOR OF ARBITRATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Wachovia Bank, N.A.’s (‘Wachovia”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay in Favor, of Arbitration (DE # 1384), filed ■ April 29, 2011. The Court is fully briefed in the m

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A. JOE FISH, Senior District Judge. Before the court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs claims (docket entry 4). For the' reasons stated below, the motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND A. 'Factual Background This case arises from a pending mortgage foreclosure. In March 2003, the

ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE # 1387) (“Motion”).1 The Court has carefully considered the Motion, response, reply, and the documents attached to them, as well as Plaintiffs’ voluminous evidentiary submissio

MEMORANDUM OPINION LEONIE M. BRINKEMA, District Judge. Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND Since 2009, plaintiff Margaret Murr (“plaintiff’ or “Murr”) has maintained a credit card account with defendant Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“