From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Nelson

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 1, 2006
Civil Action No. 02-6558 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2006)

Summary

In Taylor, the court simply held that a letter which fails to request any information regarding the servicing of a loan could not trigger a servicer's obligations to investigate and respond in accordance with the statute.

Summary of this case from Binder v. Weststar Mortg., Inc.

Opinion

Civil Action No. 02-6558.

February 1, 2006


ORDER


AND NOW, this ____ day of January, 2006, upon consideration of (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Vintage Mortgage Corporation (Doc. 70) and Defendant's Response thereto (Doc. 87); (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Meritage Mortgage Corporation (Doc. 75) and Defendant's Response thereto (Doc. 88); (3) Defendant United One Resources's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) and Plaintiff's Response thereto (Docs. 89, 90, 91, 92, 99); (4) Defendant Vintage Mortgage Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) and Plaintiff's Affidavit and Response thereto (Docs. 99, 100); (5) the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Resources Bancshares Mortgage Group and Meritage Mortgage Company ("Meritage Defendants") (Doc. 73) and Plaintiff's Affidavit in Response thereto (Doc. 99); and (6) Defendant Richard S. Blum's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 76) and Plaintiff's Response thereto (Docs. 95, 96, 97, 99), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Vintage Mortgage Corporation is DENIED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Meritage Mortgage Corporation is DENIED;
3. Defendant United One Resources's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all counts. The Clerk of the Court shall mark Defendant United One Resources as TERMINATED;
4. Defendant Vintage Mortgage Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on all counts. The Clerk of the Court shall mark Defendant Vintage Mortgage Corporation as TERMINATED;
5. Meritage Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Count I, Count III, Count IV for ECOA Notice violations, Count V, Count VI, Count VII, and Count VIII for RESPA violations. Count II, Count IV for ECOA Discrimination violations, and Count VIII for FDCPA violations shall remain; and
6. Defendant Richard S. Blum's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. JUDGMENT is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint for common law fraud. Count II of the Complaint alleging unfair and deceptive practices shall remain.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61) is dismissed as MOOT.

Plaintiff and Defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation have voluntarily stipulated to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Wilshire (Doc. 103).


Summaries of

Taylor v. Nelson

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 1, 2006
Civil Action No. 02-6558 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2006)

In Taylor, the court simply held that a letter which fails to request any information regarding the servicing of a loan could not trigger a servicer's obligations to investigate and respond in accordance with the statute.

Summary of this case from Binder v. Weststar Mortg., Inc.
Case details for

Taylor v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:JOAN TAYLOR Plaintiff, v. KIM NELSON ET AL. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 1, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 02-6558 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2006)

Citing Cases

Wallace v. Bank of America

Although "servicing" is clearly if narrowly defined, Congress's use of the phrase "relating to" creates…

Kilbride Invs. Ltd. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Pa., Inc.

Resp. Opp. Mot. Summary J. at 11. Even if the Court concluded that an investor entity like Kilbride's…