Cases

LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶ 1. In this ■ appeal, we must decide whether the chancellor abused her discretion when, applying the doctrines of equitable estoppel and unjust enrichment, she ordered the divestiture and exchange of certain real property from Kelvin and Carolyn Travis to GMAC Mortgage LLC. Finding no abuse of discretion, we .affirm.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 18, 2013 NO. 03-13-00197-CV Varnel Lee Diggs, Appellant v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC; and Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellees APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN DI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00197-CV Varnel Lee Diggs, Appellant v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC; and Federal National Mortgage Association, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-11-003154, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPIN

OPINION VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge. ¶ 1 In this quiet title action, GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C. and U.S. Bank, N.A. (the GMAC Parties), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment quieting title in favor of appellee William Delo to real property located in Queen Creek.

605 F.Supp.2d 1049 (2009) Maria and Guadalupe VELAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Defendants. Case No. CV 08-05444 DDP (PLAx). United States District Court, C.D. California. December 22, 2008. *1053 David Mills Arbogast

Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Arrigo, 2014 IL App (2d) 130938 Appellate Court GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant- Caption Appellant, v. NICHOLAS A. ARRIGO, LINA ARRIGO, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., LEE STATION MASTER ASSOCIATION, NFP, LEE STATION TOWNHOME ASS

ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge. In recent years, the federal courts have been inundated with lawsuits brought by homeowners challenging the foreclosures of the mortgages on their homes. Some of these lawsuits are meritorious, but many are not, and quite a few are frivolous. The most common type of frivolous lawsuit is premised on what judges often refer to as the “show-me-the-note” theory.

OPINION OF THE COURT C. Stephen Hackeling, J. GMAC Mortgage, LLC petitions this court, pursuant to RPAPL 713 (5), seeking a judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction as against Donald Taylor and his family for the premises located at 15 Bradbury Avenue, Huntington Station, New York, 11746. The respondents interposed a defense that they are statutorily entitled to a 90-day notice to quit prior to co

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. This class action was filed by borrowers in Missouri who took out second mortgages on their homes through Bann-Cor Mortgage, Inc. (Bann-Cor), and allege that Bann-Cor and various .assignees and purchasers violated the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA) by charging or collecting impermissible fees. The district court

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), a subsidiary of MERSCORP, Inc., operates an electronic mortgage registration system (“the MERS System”). MERS is distinct from the MERS System. The MERS System is a private electronic database that records the ownership of and servicing rights in home loans. Various

ORDER The Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Dkt. ## 46, 47, 48.1 Plaintiff opposes the motions. Dkt. ## 49, 50, 51. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motions. I. BACKGROUND This case is about force-plac

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, and Alternatively, Motion for New Trial (Dkt. #89). After considering the relevant pleadings and the relevant trial testimony and evidence, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of la

KELSEY, J. Appellant challenges a final summary judgment holding that the statute of limitations bars appellant’s' action to foreclose the subject mortgage. We agree with' appellant that the statute of limitations did not bar the action. Thus, we' reverse. It is undisputed that appellees have failed to make any mortgage payments since February 2007, the first month in which they defaulted. In April 2007, app

606 F.3d 119 (2010) Douglas A. JONES; Andrea M. Jones, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Appellants v. ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; Citimortgage, Inc.; Citicorp Home Mortgage Services, Inc.; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Fifth Third Mortgage Company; Florida Capital Bank, N.A.; GMAC Mortgage Corporation; HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA); * Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for I

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHARLES A. SHAW, District Judge. This diversity matter is before the Court on defendant South & Associates, P.C.’s (“South”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Petition (“Petition”), and plaintiff Michael W. Simms’ (“plaintiff’) Motion to File Second Amended Complaint. The motions are fully briefed and ready for decision. For the following reasons, the

Per Curiam. John F. Best, Jr. (the “Debtor”) appeals pro se from the bankruptcy court’s February 25, 2015 order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Na-tionstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) on the Debtor’s complaint against Nationstar for alleged violations of the discharge injunction imposed by § 524(a).1 For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. BACK

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Granting in Part Each of the Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and Determining Amount and Classification of the Defendant’s Claim Colleen A. Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge Douglas and Sandy Jones, as husband and wife, own real property in Sharon, Vermont, which they occupy as their homestead. That homestead property is subject to a mort

265 F.Supp.2d 366 (2003) THE MARK ANDREW OF THE PALM BEACHES, LTD., the Mark Andrew Operating Company, Inc., Green Fields & White Doors, Inc., Flagler Life Care, Inc., Loretta Gardner and Robert Gardner Plaintiffs, v. GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 01 CIV. 1812(JGK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 3, 2003.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1248 Doc: 49 Filed: 08/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 39 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1248 MARK ANTHONY GUTHRIE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant –