Blogs

When a person files for bankruptcy in Florida and owes a gambling debt in Nevada, which state's law apply in determining the various issues about the claim for gambling debt? In the bankruptcy case there may be issues as to the allowability of the claim or whether the claim should be dischargeable or nondischargeable?  A 2006 Florida bankruptcy ruling dealt with this issue.

The Bankruptcy Court reviewed that normally a federal court hearing a matter pursuant to diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the state in which it sits, but that such rule does not apply to a bankruptcy court as it is not sitting as a federal court with jurisdiction based on diversity. The bankruptcy court reviewed that the choice of which state's law applies should in part be based on which state's law more logically relates to the claim and the "significant relationship" test.

Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com

A 2013 Florida case dealt with the issue of whether a mortgage remained enforceable after a the dismissal of a foreclosure case and more than five years has passed from the date of the first default in mortgage payments.  The homeowner argued that the five year Florida statute of limitations applied to render the mortgage no longer enforceable.

In agreement  with a number of recent decisions,  the District Court in the case of Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5944075 (S.D. Fla. 2013) held  that after the dismissal of a foreclosure case, with or without prejudice,  a mortgage remains a valid and enforceable lien on the property and a lender is not barred from filing a second foreclosure action if the second foreclosure action is based on payment defaults different from and subsequent to those that formed the basis for the first  foreclosure case. As have other courts recently, the Court based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004).
Quiet Title Action DismissedThe Court dismissed the homeowner's "quiet title" action in which he sought to obtain a court order determining that the mortgage was no longer enforceable after the dismissal of the foreclosure case as more than the fiver year period had passed. The Court dismissed the homeowner's quiet title action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), holding that as a "matter of law," the homeowner could not state a claim based on plausible facts "actual, apparent, or potential", that his title to the land was at issue or show that a cloud on the title to his home existed as despite the dismissal of the foreclosure case and the passage of five years since his first default in payment, the mortgage note remained valid and the mortgage remained  a valid and enforceable lien against the property.

Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com

A 2013 Florida case dealt with the issue of whether a mortgage remained enforceable after a the dismissal of a foreclosure case and more than five years has passed from the date of the first default in mortgage payments.  The homeowner argued that the five year Florida statute of limitations applied to render the mortgage no longer enforceable.

In agreement  with a number of recent decisions,  the District Court in the case of Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5944075 (S.D. Fla. 2013) held  that after the dismissal of a foreclosure case, with or without prejudice,  a mortgage remains a valid and enforceable lien on the property and a lender is not barred from filing a second foreclosure action if the second foreclosure action is based on payment defaults different from and subsequent to those that formed the basis for the first  foreclosure case. As have other courts recently, the Court based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004).
Quiet Title Action DismissedThe Court dismissed the homeowner's "quiet title" action in which he sought to obtain a court order determining that the mortgage was no longer enforceable after the dismissal of the foreclosure case as more than the fiver year period had passed. The Court dismissed the homeowner's quiet title action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), holding that as a "matter of law," the homeowner could not state a claim based on plausible facts "actual, apparent, or potential", that his title to the land was at issue or show that a cloud on the title to his home existed as despite the dismissal of the foreclosure case and the passage of five years since his first default in payment, the mortgage note remained valid and the mortgage remained  a valid and enforceable lien against the property.

Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) “Discover created student debt stress for borrowers by inflating their bills and misleading them about important benefits,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Illegal servicing and debt collection practices add insult to injury for borrowers struggling to pay back their loans. Today’s action is an important step in the Bureau’s work to clean up the student loan servicing market.”
Discover Bank is an Illinois-based depository institution. Its student loan affiliates – The Student Loan Corporation and Discover Products, Inc. – are also charged in today’s action. Beginning in 2010, Discover expanded its private student loan portfolio by acquiring more than 800,000 accounts from Citibank. As a loan servicer, Discover is responsible for providing basic services to borrowers, including accurate periodic account statements, supplying year-end tax information, and contacting borrowers regarding overdue amounts.

• • Overstated the minimum amount due in billing statements.
• Misrepresented on its website the amount of student loan interest paid.
• Illegally called consumers early in the morning and late at night, often excessively.
• Engaged in illegal debt collection tactics by failure to comply with the consumer notices required by federal law.

Copy of the Consent Order

The post Discover Bank to Pay $18.5 M for Illegal Student Loan Servicing Practices appeared first on Diane L. Drain - Phoenix Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Attorney.