To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Oh what a year it has been in the mortgage servicing world! In 2020, our COVID-19 Compliance Roundtable met weekly to discuss emerging compliance issues under the CARES Act, federal agency guidance, state laws and orders, and the many operational hurdles regarding residential mortgage loans that servicers are facing. We’ve summarized the key trends and notable differences in approach that we’ve seen to date:
Credit Reporting
As we close 2020, credit reporting continues to be an area fraught with confusion. It is also likely to be a hot spot for regulatory inquiry and potential litigation in 2021, as the guidance on credit reporting is less than clear and operationally difficult. Six months later, the CFPB’s June 16, 2020, FAQ 10 on credit reporting after the accommodation ends has yet to be cleared up, leaving servicers with uncertainty on how to address post-forbearance defaults that are not cured.
Inmates Face Uphill Climb For Virus Outbreak Relief By
Sarah Jarvis | December 20, 2020, 8:02 PM EST
Advocates for inmates across the country say prisons have not taken appropriate measures to protect the incarcerated from the spread of COVID-19. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)
At a Texas prison unit housing mostly elderly inmates, COVID-19 has killed more than 20 men and hospitalized nearly 100 so far. Advocates for the prisoners, who accused the state of failing to implement measures to prevent the spread of the virus, are awaiting a Fifth Circuit ruling they hope will help curb the outbreak.
Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments on an expedited briefing schedule over whether it should reinstate a permanent injunction requiring the prison to implement a COVID-19 containment protocol. The Fifth Circuit had
By
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings issued the following announcement on Dec. 14.
Bradley is pleased to announce that Robert M. Couch has rejoined the firm’s Banking and Financial Services Practice Group following a year-long tenure serving as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Federal Financial Monitor for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Prior to his most recent role with HUD, Mr. Couch was a member of Bradley’s Banking and Financial Services Practice Group from July 2009 to January 2020. Among his many roles in government and industry services, Mr. Couch previously served as General Counsel of HUD, President of Ginnie Mae and Chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. Mr. Couch has also served as a commissioner on the Bipartisan Policy Center s Housing Commission, a member of President George W. Bush s Task Force on the Status of Puerto Rico, President and CEO of New South Federal Savings Bank in Birmingham, and General Counsel and CFO of Fi
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
This post is a continuation of the Top 10 most horrible, terrible, no good, “bang your head against the door” mistakes that I have seen lawyers make before, during, and after arbitrations in which I served as the arbitrator. As stated in the previous posts, there are pros and cons to binding arbitration versus trial in a court that go beyond a series of blog posts. In many instances, representing a party in an arbitration requires more due diligence and work than a trial. Great “arbitration” lawyering is essential, but many times does not happen.
On December 8, 2020, in
Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. v. Kohlmeyer, a Texas Court of Appeals rejected a contractor’s appeal of a trial court order denying the contractor’s motion to compel arbitration in a home construction defect dispute. The appellate court concluded that the theories of direct benefits estoppel and implied assumptions did not permit the contractor to bind a subsequent purchaser to mandatory arbitration required under the original purchase agreement.
In 2013, the contractor, Taylor Morrison, executed a purchase agreement with a homeowner for the construction of a new home in League City, Texas. The purchase agreement included a mandatory arbitration provision and provided that it may not be assigned without the prior written consent of Taylor Morrison. In March 2016, the homeowner sold the house, and, later that year, the property was sold again to the Kohlmeyers. In 2018, the Kohlmeyers sued Taylor Morrison “asserting that the house had a substantial amo