CRL filed an amicus brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court, advocating for strict compliance with New Jersey’s Fair Foreclosure Act and the federal Truth in Lending Act’s intentional reordering of the common law rescission process to effectuate Congress’s intent that rescission under TILA be a practical tool to save homes from foreclosure. Both statutes play a critical role in preserving homeownership in the face of foreclosure.

CRL and the National Consumer Law Center filed an amicus brief supporting the Federal Reserve's opposition to a TRO and preliminary injunction that would prevent new mortgage rules from going into effect.

A lawsuit highlights possible foreclosure fraud, as loan servicing employees admit they don’t actually review foreclosure documents; instead they do "robo-signing.

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.