Three Recent Supreme Court Rulings Will Impact Lenders and Investors

Lowndes
Contact

Three significant opinions issued by the US Supreme Court in the last few months will impact lenders and investors. Below are brief descriptions of each ruling and how you may be affected.

Bank of America v. Caulkett

In a major win for the nation’s mortgage lenders and investors—and reversing controlling precedent of the Eleventh Circuit in Florida—the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in two consolidated cases that wholly unsecured second mortgages cannot be “stripped off” in Chapter 7 cases. This ruling protects mortgage lenders in bankruptcy on underwater second mortgages issued during the housing boom. While this opinion settles once and for all a Chapter 7 debtor’s ability to either strip down or strip off an unsecured mortgage, it is unlikely to affect a Chapter 13 debtor’s ability to strip off wholly unsecured mortgages.

Wellness International Network v. Sharif

The Supreme Court clarified and confirmed  the jurisdiction of US bankruptcy court judges to make final decisions on so-called “Stern claims” that arise in cases, if all involved parties consent. Such consent need not be express.  This opinion is important because it calms the uncertain waters created by the Court’s prior ruling in the Anna Nicole Smith-related case, Stern v. Marshall.

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans

Your borrower may be able to walk away from your mortgage just by sending you a letter within three years of executing the loan documents.  At least that’s what the U.S. Supreme Court recently said. This right is fairly limited, of course.  Under the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”), borrowers on home mortgages generally have a three-day right of rescission after the lender provides certain disclosures that are required by TILA.  If the lender provides the disclosures at or prior to closing, the right of rescission is cut off three days later.  If, however, the mortgage lender fails to provide the borrower with the mandatory disclosures, the TILA three-day period expands … to up to three years after closing (at which point the right of rescission ends, regardless of whether the disclosures were made). Moving forward, lenders need to ensure they make all TILA-required disclosures at or before closing and treat any document executed by the borrower affirming such receipt as carefully as they would the original note.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lowndes | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Lowndes
Contact
more
less

Lowndes on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.