Consumer Financial Services

Attorneys in Prince Lobel’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group have extensive experience providing practical, strategic, and tactical advice to guide financial institutions through the many unpredictable changes that affect the country’s economy.

In the last four years, Prince Lobel has represented national and state banks, state and federally chartered mortgage lenders, loan servicers, consumer lenders, asset management companies, investment firms, and insurance companies in more than 350 cases in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. We have defended consumer claims asserted in class actions, individual consumer suits, adversary proceedings in bankruptcy, and counterclaims to foreclosure actions. We routinely represent financial institutions in claims under state and federal laws, including:

• Truth-in-Lending Act
• Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
• Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
• Predatory Home Loan Practices Act
• Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• Fair Credit Reporting Act
• State consumer protection laws
• State unfair or deceptive practices acts
• State interest and usury laws
• State foreclosure laws and rules
• Fraudulent Transfer Acts
• Uniform Commercial Code

We also handle cases involving state contract and tort claims, as well as title issues.

Prince Lobel has been at the forefront of consumer financial services litigation in the aftermath of the recent financial crisis. In fact, we have been actively involved in many recent decisions in New England that are continually shaping and reshaping the law in this area.

We would be pleased to share further details about our services and experience. To find out more, please contact Richard Briansky at rbriansky@PrinceLobel.com or 617 456 8052, or any of the attorneys in the group.

Representative Matters

Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

In a closely-watched case, Prince Lobel represented Fannie Mae and a national loan servicer in an appeal to Massachusetts’ highest court involving an issue of first impression –  whether the holder of a mortgage is required under Massachusetts law to also hold the underlying promissory note in order to conduct a valid foreclosure. In its recent decision, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) concluded that a foreclosing mortgagee must hold the mortgage and either hold the mortgage note or act on behalf of the note holder to foreclose validly. The SJC confirmed that a mortgagee is not required to have physical possession of the promissory note to foreclose. Rather, all that is required is proper authorization from the note holder. Importantly, the decision was given prospective application only and, thus, should not impact past foreclosures. Click here for a summary of the case.

Kessler v. GMAC Mortgage LLC
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts

This was a putative class action filed by a residential mortgagor seeking equitable relief and damages from GMAC Mortgage, LLC (GMAC) as a result of the alleged improper inclusion of a “late fee” in a payoff statement. Prince Lobel represented GMAC and cost effectively disposed of the case on a motion to dismiss.

Peterson v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al.
First Circuit Court of Appeals

After successfully obtaining dismissal of the action from the federal district court, Prince Lobel represented GMAC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) on appeal. The primary issue on appeal, one of first impression, is whether the mortgagor has standing to attack the validity of an assignment of mortgage. If affirmed, the decision will strike a blow to consumer advocates who have brought hundreds of lawsuits in recent years seeking to invalidate foreclosures on the ground that the mortgage was not property assigned.Click here for a summary of the lower court's decision.

Deutsche Bank National Association, as Trustee v. First American Title Insurance Company
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Prince Lobel represents the trustee of a securitized trust in a case of first impression before the SJC in which the court will determine whether a standard form title insurance policy requires a title insurer to defend a mortgagee against claims seeking to void a loan transaction and rescind a mortgage lien as a result of alleged fraud in the inducement. The determination of this case may have widespread significance for mortgagees and title insurers in Massachusetts. Click here for copies of the parties’ briefs.

In re Mortgage Foreclosure Docket
United States District Court, District of Rhode Island

Prince Lobel represents five national servicers (and other defendants) in more than 40 cases involving challenges to the mortgagee’s standing to foreclosure. These actions generally allege that recorded assignments of mortgages from MERS to the foreclosing entities are invalid and requests that the court find that the current holder of the mortgage has no standing to foreclose. These cases are part of a consolidated docket of mortgage foreclosure cases. 

Maroun v. Fremont Investment & Loan
United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Hampshire

Prince Lobel obtained dismissal of a claim against a current holder of a mortgage loan based on allegedly inadequate disclosures. This case was the first decision in New Hampshire that concerned allegations of missing dates on a Notice of Right to Cancel, and is one of the few cases to hold that national banking institutions and loan servicers are not subject to private causes of action under the state’s consumer protection act.

The Bank of New York (BNY) v. Medway Lumber & Home Loan Supply
Massachusetts Superior Court, Norfolk County