Overview and explanation of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007

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 urges Congressional action to enable bankruptcy courts to order loan modifications, which would be in the interest of borrowers and investors alike.

CRL discusses five reasons why it feels loan modifications in bankruptcy will not hurt mortgage markets

Martin Eakes testifies before Senate re Evolution of an Economic Crisis? The Subprime Lending Disaster and the Threat to the Broader Economy

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.

Testimony of Michael D. Calhoun before U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs - Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development