” Necak v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2019 WL 13196983, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 25,2019)(Nugent, J.).
To begin, "RESPA is a consumer protection statute that regulates the real estate settlement process." Malcolm v. Seterus, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-01937, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50397, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 24, 2020) (quoting Necak v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 1:17-cv-1473, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71147, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2019)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Although the 'settlement process' targeted by the statute was originally limited to the negotiation and execution of mortgage contracts, the scope of the statute's provisions was expanded in 1990 to encompass loan servicing."
While the state foreclosure action was ongoing, Mrs. Necak filed suit in Northern District of Ohio on July 13, 2017 against Defendant SPS after SPS acquired servicing rights to the mortgage loan, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Necak v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 1:17-cv-1473, 2019 WL 1877174 (N.D. Ohio April 26, 2019). In her response to SPS's motion to dismiss or stay the RESPA litigation, Mrs. Necak argued the actions "must receive independent resolution" because the RESPA suit was "strictly for money damages and cannot affect the ownership or disposition of the subject property at issue in the foreclosure."
"RESPA is a consumer protection statute that regulates the real estate settlement process." Necak v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 1:17 CV 1473, 2019 WL 1877174, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2019) (quoting James v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-0501, 2017 WL 6336760, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1173035 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2018)). Congress enacted RESPA to ensure "that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that have developed in some areas of the country."
"No private cause of action exists under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.40." Necak v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1473, 2019 WL 1877174, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2019); Schmidt v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC, 106 F. Supp. 3d 859, 870 (E.D. Mich. 2015) ("The CFPB crafted 12 C.F.R. § 1024.40 to preclude private causes of action."). To the extent Plaintiff argues Necak provides a cause of action through § 1024.40 under a pattern and practice theory, his claim also fails for failure to allege any facts in support.
Notably, "[a] loss mitigation application is considered 'facially complete' when a borrower submits all additional information as requested even if the servicer later discovers additional information is needed[.]" Necak v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 17-1473, 2019 WL 1877174, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 26, 2019) (citing 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c)(2)(iv)) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff alleges that "on May 21, 2018 and June 1, 2018, [Plaintiff] submitted all of the requested documentation to [Defendant]" per Defendant's response to the First Application.