As previously reported on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) adopted a burden-shifting approach to assessing claims that housing policies cause disparate impact on minority populations in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (42 U.S.C. § 3601). By adopting that approach, the Court confirmed the availability of this form of lawsuit against government entities that implement housing policies.
Author: David Scheffel
A little over one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), which resolved a circuit court spit regarding how a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”).
A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal held that the practice called “dual tracking” – when a lender forecloses on a property while the borrower’s application for a loan modification is under review – violates California’s Unfair Competition Law.
A recent decision by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals highlights some of the challenges lenders may face when seeking the dismissal of allegations of unfair and deceptive lending practices in connection with a loan that requires a balloon payment at the end of the loan’s term.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. SUMMARY. In Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___, 2015 WL 2473449 (Jun. 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that disparate impact discrimination claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, 82 Stat. 81, as amended,...
Jesinoski was a landmark decision concerning a borrower’s right to rescind a residential mortgage refinance loan. In this Webinar, Dorsey attorneys Joseph T. Lynyak, David A. Scheffel and Eric B. Epstein discuss the implications of this decision for the mortgage industry.