||Link to Story
|Chase Home Finance LLC
||Rowles, lead plaintiff for class, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
||United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
||Chase settled with military homeowners after allegedly overcharging them on their mortgages and illegally foreclosing on their homes in violation of the SCRA.
||Rowles v. Chase Home Fin., LLC
|Federal Reserve Board
||National Association of Mortgage Brokers
||U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
||Complaint filed to stop implementation of LO Rule. Case consolidated with NAIHP lawsuit, rule implemented.
|Home Loan Funding, Inc.
||Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six
||A mortgage lender claimed it had no fiduciary responsibility to the borrower on a loan it brokered because it funded its own loans. However, an appellate court upheld a lower court's decision that the lender acted as a loan broker and breached a fiduciary duty to the borrower. Nearly $100,000 in damages was awarded.
||Smith v. Home Loan Funding, Inc. et al.
||2d Civil No. B219372
|Provident Funding Associates, LP and Independent Processing, LLC
||Marlene Westerfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
||Filed in Missouri State Court and removed to Eastern District of Missouri and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
||Marlene Westerfeld filed a class action in Missouri against defendants claiming that a "broker processing fee" and an "administrative fee" charged on loans funded by Provident constituted the unauthorized practice of law and violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
||Westerfeld v. Provident Funding Associates, LP, et al.
|Provident Funding Associates, LP and Provident Funding Group, Inc.
||Daniel C. Silva, Larry Mattison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
||Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo
||Provident Funding Associates, LP and Provident Funding Group, Inc. were sued in this class-action over late charges they were assessing. A $1.2 million settlement has been proposed.
||Silva et al. v. Provident Funding Associates, LP et al.
|Provident Funding Associates, LP, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Mark S. Bosco, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Michael A. Bosco, Jr., and n/a Parties
||AOM Group, LLC
||U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
||In March 2010, a Truth-in-Lending Act lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against, among others, Provident Funding Associates, LP. Ultimately, the court dismissed this lawsuit because the plaintiff did not have standing since it had not been involved in the lending process.
||AOM Group, LLC v. Provident Funding Associates, LP et al.