Thomas-Lawson v. Carrington Mortg. Servs.

3 Citing cases

  1. Lyons v. PNC Bank

    26 F.4th 180 (4th Cir. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    In Lyons, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that "a provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act * * * that amends [the Truth in Lending Act] prohibits consumer agreements related to residential mortgage loans from requiring the arbitration of claims."

    Although few prior courts have interpreted § 1639c(e)(3), two recent district courts have similarly interpreted the provision. See Attix v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC , No. 1:20-cv-22183-UU, 2020 WL 5757624 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2020) ; Thomas-Lawson v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC , No. 2:20-cv-07301-ODW, 2021 WL 1253578 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021). In Attix and Thomas-Lawson , the district courts considered an agreement between a homeowner, his mortgage servicer, and a third-party payment processor, which provided for the homeowner to make mortgage payments by phone.

  2. DeSimone v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

    20-CV-3837 (PKC) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    ion Consultants of Cal., No. 16-CV-2273 (BRO), 2016 WL 11002359, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) (rejecting arguments that convenience fees do not violate the FDCPA because they were optional, considered a separate agreement, and were not connected with the debt), and Lindblom v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 15-CV-990 (LJO) (BAM), 2016 WL 2841495, at *7 (joining the “overwhelming majority of courts” and determining that fees assessed for debt payments made online or via telephone violated Section 1692f(1) of the FDCPA), and Wittman v. CB1, Inc., No. 15-CV-105 (BLG) (SPW) (CSO), 2016 WL 1411348, at *5 (D. Mont. Apr. 8, 2016), R. & R. adopted, No. 15-CV-105 (BLG) (BMM), 2016 WL 3093427 (D. Mont. June 1, 2016) (following “the majority of courts” and holding that a “transaction fee imposed for using a certain payment method” was impermissible under Section 1692f(1) of the FDCPA), with Thomas-Lawson v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 20-CV-7301 (ODW), 2021 WL 1253578, at *3-6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2021) (concluding that plaintiff failed to state a cognizable legal theory that defendant's pay-to-pay fees were unlawful), and Mariscal v. Flagstar Bank, No. 19-CV-2023 (DMG) (SHK), 2021 WL 4260879, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021) (“Because [d]efendant is permitted by law to charge the pay-to-pay fee, the fee does not violate FDCPA [S]ection 1692f.”), and Flores v. Collection Consultants of Cal., No. 14-CV-771 (DOC) (RNB), 2015 WL 4254032, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (holding that defendant did not violate Section 1692f of the FDCPA by imposing a $5 transaction fee because the charge was not “incidental” to the principal obligation).

  3. Williams v. PHH Mortg. Corp.

    4:20-cv-04018 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that Plaintiffs sufficiently identified the means by which defendant "collected" an allegedly unauthorized fee for purposes of stating a TDCA claim

    Sixth, PHH also filed a notice of supplemental authority on the recent decision of Thomas-Lawson v Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, 2021 WL 1253578 (CD Cal). Dkt 69.