Janine Fraser v. Select Portfolio Services Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire considers Select Portfolio Services Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging violations of RESPA and Regulation X. The court concludes that the plaintiff, who obtained title to the mortgaged property through a divorce decree, may qualify as a confirmed successor in interest and therefore may have statutory standing under RESPA. The court grants summary judgment in part and denies it in part, including denying several grounds advanced by SPS while concluding that injunctive relief is unavailable under RESPA.

Holdings

1. A person who acquires ownership of mortgaged property through a divorce decree may qualify as a successor in interest and, once confirmed, is treated as a borrower for purposes of Regulation X and may sue under RESPA. Confirmation depends on whether the servicer has confirmed the person's identity and ownership interest; the regulation does not require a formal confirmation letter or other official pronouncement.
2. SPS was not entitled to summary judgment because material factual disputes remained concerning whether its communications adequately responded to Fraser's requests for information and notices of error.
3. SPS was not entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that SPS failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining the documents and information needed to complete Fraser's applications.
4. Fraser adequately alleged damages because a reasonable jury could find that SPS's alleged violations caused her to incur costs and attorney fees in state-court proceedings undertaken to obtain access to loan information and prevent foreclosure.
5. Equitable relief, including an order requiring SPS to review Fraser's loss-mitigation application, is not available under RESPA.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Fraser had statutory standing to sue under RESPA despite not signing the promissory note.
2. Whether the undisputed facts established that SPS complied with RESPA and Regulation X requirements governing requests for information and notices of error.
3. Whether the undisputed facts established that SPS complied with Regulation X requirements governing loss-mitigation applications and reasonable diligence.
4. Whether Fraser adequately alleged actual damages causally related to SPS's alleged RESPA violations.
5. Whether equitable or injunctive relief is available under RESPA.

Disposition

other