CRL's amicus briefs in support of a class of North Carolina borrowers in Bumpers v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia, along with the North Carolina Justice Center, argues that North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act prohibits lenders from charging redundant, duplicative, and excessive fees for closing a home mortgage loan in this appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

CRL’s amicus reply brief in support of bankrupt homeowners in 18 cases appealed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), in which the Nevada bankruptcy court determined that loan owners must disclose their identity, rather than using MERS’ name, when seeking the bankruptcy court’s permission to foreclose on homeowners who have filed for bankruptcy. MERS is a company created by the mortgage industry to electronically track the ownership of loans, as a way of avoiding the need to report loan ownership changes in official local government records. The existence of MERS makes it difficult for homeowners to know who owns their loan, which can be essential information to borrowers seeking modifications or with legal claims about their loan. The brief argues that MERS, as opposed to the loan owners, lacks the standing and real-party-in-interest status necessary to seek a federal court’s permission to foreclose. It also argues that MERS did not submit sufficient proof in the cases on appeal to entitle it—or anybody else—to deprive homeowners of their fundamental right under bankruptcy laws to stop foreclosure proceedings.

CRL’s amicus brief in support of bankrupt homeowners in 18 cases appealed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), in which the Nevada bankruptcy court determined that loan owners must disclose their identity, rather than using MERS’ name, when seeking the bankruptcy court’s permission to foreclose on homeowners who have filed for bankruptcy. MERS is a company created by the mortgage industry to electronically track the ownership of loans, as a way of avoiding the need to report loan ownership changes in official local government records. The existence of MERS makes it difficult for homeowners to know who owns their loan, which can be essential information to borrowers seeking modifications or with legal claims about their loan. The brief argues that MERS, as opposed to the loan owners, lacks the standing and real-party-in-interest status necessary to seek a federal court’s permission to foreclose. It also argues that MERS did not submit sufficient proof in the cases on appeal to entitle it—or anybody else—to deprive homeowners of their fundamental right under bankruptcy laws to stop foreclosure proceedings.

CRL's brief on behalf of the petitioners seeking certiorari from the United States Supreme Court in Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank. CRL represents a Wisconsin couple, who was one of thousands of borrowers who received identical disclosure statements for Chevy Chase Bank payment option adjustment rate mortgages that violated the Truth in Lending Act. CRL asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that lawsuit seeking to rescind their loan based on Truth in Lending Act violations cannot proceed as class actions.

CRL's complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs in Rosa v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co. CRL, co-counseling with Legal Services of Northern Virginia, represents a couple in Fairfax County, Virginia who allege they signed a loan modification offer mailed by their lender and made all the payments the modification required. Nevertheless, their lender auctioned their home at a foreclosure sale and served them with an eviction notice. The case, which alleges the lender breached its contract with the homeowners, committed fraud, engaged in inequitable conduct that voided the foreclosure sale, and committed violated various common-law torts, was filed in Fairfax County Circuit Court and removed to the U.S. District Court.

CRL's brief on behalf of the petitioners seeking certiorari from the United States Supreme Court in Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank. CRL represents a Wisconsin couple, who was one of thousands of borrowers who received identical disclosure statements for Chevy Chase Bank payment option adjustment rate mortgages that violated the Truth in Lending Act. CRL asks the Supreme Court to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that lawsuit seeking to rescind their loan based on Truth in Lending Act violations cannot proceed as class actions.

CRL's amicus briefs in support of the New York Attorney General in Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association, L.L.P. CRL, along with a number of consumer groups, argues that the National Bank Act's "visitorial powers" provision does not prohibit the New York Attorney General from enforcing the state's anti-discrimination law against national banks concerning their mortgage lending practices, and that the Office of the Comptroller of Currency's regulation treating this as prohibited is invalid. CRL participated in this case before the U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

CRL's brief on behalf of the appellees in Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Knox. CRL represents Mississippi homeowners whose mortgage lender sought a federal court order staying the homeowners' state court predatory lending lawsuit in this appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The district court refused to order the stay pursuant to the federal Anti-Arbitration Act.

CRL's brief on behalf of the appellees in Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Knox. CRL represents Mississippi homeowners whose mortgage lender sought a federal court order staying the homeowners' state court predatory lending lawsuit in this appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The district court refused to order the stay pursuant to the federal Anti-Arbitration Act.

CRL's brief on behalf of the appellee in HSBC Bank, USA v. Dammond. CRL represents a New York homeowner who sought relief from a foreclosure judgment because the mortgage assignment filed by the bank showed it lacked standing at the time it filed the foreclosure action in this appeal in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department. The trial court granted the relief.