Florida Federal Court Tightens Lawsuits Over Qualified Written Requests (QWR) for Information under Regulation X/RESPA

In Russell v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 14-61977-CIV, 2015 WL 5029346, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2015), the Southern District of Florida federal court put an end to lawsuits brought by consumers against lenders regarding Regulation X/RESPA requests; here a life of loan accounting.  In such, a borrower would hire a lawyer who sent out an extensive list of requests for loan information.  The lawyer would then send out another later some time later that the answers were not not compliant with Regulation X, and sue for actual damages in the amount of the postage for the follow up letter, and of course, attorney’s fees. 

Nationstar here responded to all letters send by borrower’s attorney, including information it had in its records from 2012 to present; not including the prior servicer records in response to the life of loan accounting request.  


Here, the borrower decided to stop making payments on the loan until the bank complied with the QWR requests to borrower’s satisfaction.  The Court found otherwise; that borrower decided on their own to stop making payments and any resulting damages from ceasing payments were the borrower’s own doing.


The Court further found that there was no systematic noncompliance here as Nationstar responded to every letter borrower and counsel sent.  Further, the loan was current when the QWRs began, and none of the prior accounting was salient to the QWR request as Nationstar was not asking for any money at that time from borrower and no dispute that the account was current.  In other words, the requests were frivolous in nature as they were asking for an accounting for the life of the loan when there was no dispute to begin with to warrant and accounting as the loan was current (and the borrower decided to stop making payments only after that).  It appeared that the Court felt that the accounting would yield no relevant information other than a loophole for borrower to try to sue for alleged damages over.  Borrower also made ludicrous claims of emotional distress and such which the Court quickly rejected.


Moral of the story- don’t try to game the system and use technicalities that some foreclosure defense lawyers spew saying what you want to hear.  This borrower went from current on their loan to behind (and had to pay back the amounts due with penalties/fees/interest); and all they would have won was their attorney being paid and the cost of postage. 


5 Comments

  • jasa pengacara perdata

    Wow, that’s what I was exploring for, what a material!
    present here at this webpage, thanks admin of this site.

  • MRI stereo

    “woh I like your posts , saved to my bookmarks ! .”

  • songspk hindi

    Looking forward to reading more. Great blog.Really looking forward to read more.

  • exotic car rentals

    “I have learn some just right stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you place to create this sort of fantastic informative site.”

  • thajsko

    “Im thankful for the blog.Really thank you! Much obliged.”

  • Write a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *