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 pleadings and briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs in Jackson v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. CRL represents a class of Minnesota homeowners facing foreclosure who allege that MERS' failure to record all transfers in the ownership of their loans before beginning the foreclosure process violates procedural requirements in the state's non-judicial foreclosure statutes...

CRL's briefs on behalf of the appellants in Moua v. Rand. CRL represents Minnesota homeowners who were refinanced into a loan defined as "high cost" by the federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act in this appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The homeowners did not receive warning notices three days before closing as required by that staute, and were told to sign forms inconsistent with their right under the Truth in Lending Act to cancel their loan for up to three days after closing. The Eight Circuit reversed the district court’s refusal to grant rescission of the loan based on these statutory violations in a March 2009 opinion found at 559 F.3d 842.

CRL's briefs on behalf of the appellants in Moua v. Rand. CRL represents Minnesota homeowners who were refinanced into a loan defined as "high cost" by the federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act in this appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The homeowners did not receive warning notices three days before closing as required by that staute, and were told to sign forms inconsistent with their right under the Truth in Lending Act to cancel their loan for up to three days after closing. The Eight Circuit reversed the district court’s refusal to grant rescission of the loan based on these statutory violations in a March 2009 opinion found at 559 F.3d 842.

CRL's complaint on behalf of the plaintiff in Jack v. Golden First Mortgage Corporation. CRL represents a homeowner in New York who alleges his mortgage broker, in order to obtain high compensation (including a yield-spread premium), misrepresented the features of a payment option adjustable rate mortgage funded by American Home Mortgage, and he alleges that he would be unable to afford the loan once he was required to make amortizing payments. The case, which alleges violations of New York's consumer protection laws, common law, the federal Truth in Lending Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.