Las Vegas Portland San Diego Scottsdale Seattle San Diego CDRS San Diego CDRS San Diego CDRS Benton Albuquerque Centennial

Publications

California Lenders Run the Risk of Having Their Liens Subrogated or Stripped on Properties Creating a Public Nuisance

California Lenders Run the Risk of Having Their Liens Subrogated or Stripped on Properties Creating a Public Nuisance

Two recent California Court of Appeal cases establish that trial courts have broad discretion in issuing orders to a receiver appointed to remediate public nuisances on private property, including orders giving super-priority to a receiver’s certificate, stripping all liens from a property, and approving a receiver’s final report.

​County of Sonoma v. Quail (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 657 involved a property that was described as a makeshift, illegal mobile home park with extensive violations of the Health and Safety Code. After the County was unsuccessful in getting the owner to abate the code violations, it gave notice of its intent to seek appointment of a receiver. After a period of a few months with no objection to the County’s request, the court appointed a receiver pursuant to C.C.P. §17980.7(c) and C.C.P. §568. The receiver was thereafter unable to obtain a loan to ameliorate the nuisance conditions on the property because of the amount of debt secured by the property. As a result, the receiver filed a motion requesting authorization to obtain a receiver’s certificate secured by a super-priority lien. U.S. Bank, the beneficiary of a deed of trust recorded against the property, opposed the motion and requested permission to foreclose on the property or sell it as-is to a buyer who would remediate the existing code violations. The court denied U.S. Bank’s request and granted the receiver’s request for a super-priority lien. The property was then sold to a third-party buyer free and clear of all liens. U.S. Bank filed a petition for a writ of supersedes staying the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the property and an appeal from the sale order. Those matters were consolidated for argument and decision before the First District of the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal issued an opinion holding that trial courts have broad powers to approve a receiver’s actions, including creating super-priority liens and also stripping a property of its liens. In response to U.S. Bank’s assertion that C.C.P. §17980.7 does not authorize the court to issue a super-priority lien to fund a receiver’s remediation efforts, the Court of Appeal held the receiver was appointed under both C.C.P. §17980.7 and C.C.P. §564, the general receivership statute that the Court held gives trial courts “broad discretion in matters subject to a receivership.” In reaching its opinion, the Court held that while the use of super-priority liens should be infrequent because the consequences may be harsh, an order for a receiver’s certificate secured by a super-priority lien may be justified by the circumstances presented, stating often that the analysis will be one of ‘flexibility’ in response to conditions substantially endangering the health and safety of the public. In response to U.S. Bank’s assertion that the trial court’s order confirming the subsequent sale of the property free and clear of all liens was not in compliance with the Enforcements of Judgments Law (EJL) (Code Civ. Proc. §680.010 et seq.), the Court of Appeal stated the language of C.C.P. §568.5 is permissive, stating a receiver may … sell property in the manner prescribed by the EJL, but C.C.P. §568 grants receivers the general power “to do such acts as the Court may authorize,” permitting the court “to tailor the method of sale of receivership property to the circumstances before it.” The Court of Appeal justified its decision based on public health and safety, the existence of multiple liens against the property preventing a lender from funding a receiver’s certificate without being granted priority status, the number of calls to law enforcement and the fire department by occupants of the property, and what it considered to be delays by U.S. Bank in addressing the conditions at the property (the court noted multiple bankruptcy actions had been filed by occupants of the property and did not state the amount of time U.S. Bank would have been able to take action with regard to the property) justifying letting the receiver sell the property. Following the trend of the Court of Appeal in the County of Sonoma v. Quail case, the Third District of the California Court of Appeal ruled in County of Sacramento v. Rawat (2021) 65 Cal. App.5th 858 that whether to approve a receiver’s account is within the trial court’s broad discretion. There two properties owned by the same persons were in violation of multiple building codes and had been deemed public nuisances. The County of Sacramento filed a complaint against the owners and requested appointment of a receiver to take possession and control of both properties and cure the conditions constituting a nuisance. The receiver was appointed. The County dismissed the entire action approximately one year and five months later. The receiver subsequently filed a final account and report and petition for discharge. On appeal, in which the appellant was acting In Propria Persona, he argued among other things that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the receiver’s final account and report because the County had dismissed its complaint. Citing also to C.C.P. §17980.7, the Court of Appeal stated a receiver shall be discharged when the conditions cited in the notice of violation have been remedied and a complete accounting has been delivered to the trial court, and therefore dismissal of the complaint did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to settle the receiver’s account, and that whether to approve a receiver’s account and to grant or deny a motion to discharge the receiver is within the trial court’s broad discretion. These decisions demonstrate that California courts give very broad discretion to a trial court and receiver to resolve a public nuisance, that those circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the decisions of a receiver approved by a court can, unless a lender movies quickly to protect its lien, result in a lender losing its security against a property.​ By Deborah Boyd, Esq., McCarthy Holthus​ Deborah Boyd joined McCarthy and Holthus in 2020 and is an Associate Attorney at the Scottsdale office. Her legal experience is both in litigation and real estate transactions. She is licensed in both Arizona and California and can be reached at dboyd@McCarthyHolthus.com.

Visit Link Read Article



Statutes of Limitation in the Land of Enchantment

Statutes of Limitation in the Land of Enchantment

​Here’s what servicers and industry stakeholders should know about a recent New Mexico Court of Appeals opinion related to foreclosures and forbearance.

​The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently concluded that a foreclosure action was not barred by the statute of limitation where a borrower made good faith payments and acknowledged the underlying debt in a signed affidavit. Although the case was unpublished, the detailed opinion by the appellate court provides an excellent framework for future statute of limitation cases. Notably, the facts of the case involved a borrower’s signed forbearance agreement, something the mortgage default industry will likely see more of in the coming years. Relying upon out-of-state authority well-known to the default mortgage industry (including: Singleton v. Greymar Associates, U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, and Star Funding Sols., LLC v. Krondes), the New Mexico District Court previously rejected arguments that partial payments had reset the statute of limitations and that a voluntary dismissal had decelerated the loan. On appeal, our firm argued that forbearance payments and acknowledgment of the debt revived the statutes of limitation, that a previous lawsuit tolled the statutes of limitation, and that the dismissal of the previous foreclosure decelerated the loan, collectively resetting the statutes of limitation clock. In a detailed opinion wherein the court reviewed statutory construction and application, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ultimately concurred with our firm’s briefing that the payments should have revived the debt and therefore reversed the lower court’s previous dismissal. There were two separate statutes of limitation being argued in the case. The borrower alleged the judicial foreclosure action should be barred by the statutes of limitation in Section 55-3-118, whereas the bank asserted that Section 37-1-3 should govern. After thoroughly dissecting the legislative intent and applicability of both statutes, the Court of Appeals ultimately sided with the bank and followed a recent trend of New Mexico cases that have applied the six-year statutes of limitation provided in Section 37-1-3 to judicial foreclosure actions. This determination was crucial to the outcome of the case since Section 37 has a revival provision. The District Court previously rejected the bank’s arguments that the borrower’s payments made pursuant to a written forbearance agreement along with the borrower’s written acknowledgment of the debt had revived the debt. Having determined that Section 37-1-3 applied to foreclosure actions, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court’s ruling and found that the borrower’s voluntary payment had revived the bank’s cause of action. The revival provision under Section 37-1-16 was previously analyzed by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in Corona v. Corona, where the court discussed how a partial payment of a debt “will renew a barred debt when such payment is made under circumstances that warrant a clear inference that the debtor acknowledges and is willing to pay a further indebtedness.” The bank argued that the series of forbearance payments made along with the borrower’s written acknowledgment of the debt in a signed affidavit revived the debt and therefore the subsequent judicia foreclosure should not have been barred by the statute of limitations. Separately, the borrower argued that the payments made could not have revived the debt since they were made in connection with the forbearance agreement and not the underlying note. Upon review, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was “no material distinction between payments applied to delinquent amounts owed on the debt and payments applied to the principle and interest; in either case the payments were applied to the debt created by the promissory note.” Having concluded that the partial payments reset the statute of limitation, the Court of Appeals chose not to opine on the remaining tolling and deceleration arguments that had been fully briefed since the statutes of limitation were no longer an issue. This case provides further justification for Section 37-1-3 along with the accompanying revival provision under Section 37-1-16 to be used as the controlling statute in New Mexico judicial foreclosure cases dealing with statute of limitation issues. Additionally, it should help to further encourage loss mitigation activity by providing lenders with assurances that certain foreclosure prevention alternatives like forbearance agreements can be tollable and potentially even reset the statute of limitation clock if the loss mitigation efforts are unsuccessful.​

Visit Link Read Article



Larson v. Snohomish County et. al.

Larson v. Snohomish County et. al.

​Published industry win on a Scott Stafne case where Washington State Court of Appeals awarded attorney fees to beneficiary.

​Christopher and Angela Larson appeal adverse rulings in two separate lawsuits related to the nonjudicial foreclosure of their home. The Larsons sought a judicial determination that the 2006 deed of trust they granted to their initial lender, New Century Mortgage Company, was invalid. See attched published opinion

Visit Link Read Article



20-15660 Pablo Castellanos, et al v. MERS, et al

20-15660 Pablo Castellanos, et al v. MERS, et al "Memorandum Filed"

​Another 9th Circuit win.  McCarthy & Holthus represented the foreclosure trustee in this AZ case, in which the borrowers were alleging the foreclosure notices contained material misstatements regarding the identity of the beneficiary.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee, and the 9th Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Pablo Castellanos appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgement for Defendants-Appellees on his claim for wrongful recording. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court properly entered summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees on Castellanos’s wrongful recording claim. See attached Memorandum.                                          

Visit Link Read Article



Appellate Success / TRINITY FINANCIAL v. MERCIER; 1 CA-CV 20-0691

Appellate Success / TRINITY FINANCIAL v. MERCIER; 1 CA-CV 20-0691

​A very contested eviction matter that went on appeal and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Mercier raises two arguments on appeal: (1) the superior court abused its discretion when it continued trial on November 5; and (2) sufficient evidence supports the superior court's judgment because the trustee's sale suffered deliberate notice defects. See attached Arizona Court of Appeals decision.                                                                              

Visit Link Read Article



No Violation of Discharge Injunction - Contempt Power Curbed by Taggart in California Community Property Case

No Violation of Discharge Injunction - Contempt Power Curbed by Taggart in California Community Property Case

In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1799, 204 L.Ed.2d 129 (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for holding a creditor in contempt after attempting to collect a debt from a Debtor who received a Bankruptcy discharge. A discharge injunction forbids a creditor from starting or continuing a collection action on a discharged debt. It may not be apparent to a creditor whether a particular debt has been discharged, and it follows that the creditor may not be certain if debt collection will violate the prohibition.                          

​In Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1799, 204 L.Ed.2d 129 (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for holding a creditor in contempt after attempting to collect a debt from a Debtor who received a Bankruptcy discharge. A discharge injunction forbids a creditor from starting or continuing a collection action on a discharged debt. It may not be apparent to a creditor whether a particular debt has been discharged, and it follows that the creditor may not be certain if debt collection will violate the prohibition. In Taggart, the Court set forth an objective standard for determining whether a party should be held in civil contempt for a violation of the discharge order, rather than a subjective one. Specifically, Taggart held that when a Creditor has an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that enforcement of a judgment lien against Property might be lawful and might not violate the discharge injunction, a contempt citation is not appropriate. Under the “fair ground of doubt” standard, a creditor’s good faith can be analyzed under an objective standard of reasonability. The decision in Taggart applies to situations when a creditor knows about a bankruptcy discharge but takes intentional actions because it believes the discharge doesn’t apply. The facts of In Re Diana R. Beard-Williams, Case No. 2:10-bk-0971-RK (626 B.R. 830 (2021)), a recent case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California, led the Court to deny Debtor’s efforts to hold Creditors in contempt for just such an action. The Beard-Williams case involved several parties owning a certain Property in joint tenancy and two separate bankruptcy cases. Debtor filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause why creditors should not be held in civil contempt for violating her discharge injunction. Debtor alleged that Creditors willfully and knowingly violated the discharge injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) (3) because they sought to enforce a state court judgment against community property that she and her husband jointly owned with a third party. The Court found that Debtor’s assertions of ownership of the Property as community property were not substantiated. Under California Civil Code § 682(a) and (d), formal title to the Property in joint tenancy between Debtor’s husband and a third party is incompatible with the property being community property. The Court’s underlying denial of community property status naturally led the court to deny the Debtor’s Motion for Contempt for violating the discharge injunction. However, the nuances of Taggart are apparent in the Court’s careful review of whether the Debtor made a prima facie showing for issuance of an Order to Show Cause regarding civil contempt pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9020-1. The facts of Beard-Williams combined with the standards of Taggart led the Court to state that the Creditors had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that real property was not protected by community property discharge injunction, and thus the enforcement of a judgment lien against the spouse’s interest in the property did not warrant holding the creditors in civil contempt. The Beard-Williams Court also determined that the Debtor failed to meet her burden of presenting a prima facie argument to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the discharge injunction in this case bars Creditors from taking action to collect the debt. The Beard-Williams case is very fact-specific, but the conclusion is that a creditor who has a rational, objective basis for believing that a certain debt is not protected by the discharge injunction, they may avoid being held in contempt for an alleged violation. Before engaging in any post-discharge contact, creditors should work closely with local counsel to educate themselves on statutory protections and controlling case law, and decide whether an intended action could be construed as a discharge violation. Creditors must tread carefully, but Taggart and its offspring certainly provide a creditor-friendly avenue for avoiding contempt.

Visit Link Read Article



When Is Nine Months, Not Nine Months?

When Is Nine Months, Not Nine Months?

​In the midst of everything else going on in the summer of 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court recalculated nine months to be one year, at least when HOA assessments are due annually.

​In the midst of everything else going on in the summer of 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court recalculated nine months to be one year, at least when HOA assessments are due annually. In the case of Noonan (136 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, Jul. 9, 2020). The Neva- da Supreme Court determined that where assessments are billed annually, as long as that due date was within the nine months preceding the filing of the notice of default by the HOA, the entire amount of that annual assessment is the ninemonth super-priority.In  Noonan,  annual  assessments  became due in January of every year in the sum of $216.00. The homeowners failed to pay the January 2011 assessment and four months later, the HOA recorded a lien, and proceed- ed with a notice of default. The loan servicer requested a ledger, a super-priority and paid nine months of assessment ($216/12*9 = $162). Despite the payment, the HOA continued with oreclosure and eventually went to sale 2014. Litigation followed. The Dis- trict Court determined that the tender of an amount equal to nine months of the entire amount, satisfied the super-priority portion of the lien. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court determined that the plain language of the statute,   “the assessments for common expenses based on the peri- odic budget adopted by the [HOA] . . . which would have become due in the absence of acceleration during the nine months immediately preceding institution of an action to enforce the lien.” NRS 116.3116(2).”   meant that if the assessment becomes due in the nine months pre- ceding the action to enforce the  lien then that entire assessment is due as a super-priority. That is regardless as to whether the assessment is annual, quarterly, or monthly. The Supreme Court found that the plain language of the statute, said that if it was due, regardless of the period it covered, in the nine months preceding an action to enforce, it was the super-priority. As such, any assessments, under current law, that becomes due in the nine months preceding the recording of the Notice of Default is part of the super-priority. It is important to note, that the language “based on the periodic budget adopted by the association pursuant to NRS 116.3115 which would have become due in the absence of acceleration during the nine months im- mediately preceding institution of an action to enforce the lien” on which the Nevada Supreme Court relied, has not changed in NRS 116.3116 since 2009. Notably, Justice Stiglich, disagreed with the majority, finding  that  because the  statute was silent on the treatment of annual assess- ments, that the Supreme Court should have looked further. The  takeaway  here  is  if  the  assessment is due annually, quarterly, or monthly, if the due proceeds the Notice of Default by nine months, it is part of the super-priority lien in Nevada. There may be a lot more annual assessments in Nevada in upcoming developments.        

Visit Link Read Article



NM Court of Appeal Rules on Statutes of Limitation for Notes and Mortgages

NM Court of Appeal Rules on Statutes of Limitation for Notes and Mortgages

​TWO RECENT NEW MEXICO Court of Appeals cases are set to change the landscape for filing foreclosure actions, specifically where the initial default on the note occurred outside the statute of limitation.

Both cases hold that a note and mortgage constitute an installment contract, and consequently the statute of limitation runs from the date of each individual missed payment. LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Moreno, No. A-1-CA-36879 (Ct. App. December 18, 2019) citing LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Sanchez, 2019-NMCA-055, 450 P.2d 413. The effect of these decisions is to potentially allow lenders to foreclose a debt even where the initial default falls beyond six years from the date the complaint is filed.

Visit Link Read Article



Foreclosure Trustee Debt Collection Licensing

Foreclosure Trustee Debt Collection Licensing

LAST YEAR, IN OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP1, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT “BUT FOR [THE LIMITED PURPOSE DEFINITION UNDER] 1692F(6), THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN ONLY NONJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT DEBT COLLECTORS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.” OUR NATION’S HIGHEST COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER FORECLOSURE TRUSTEES WERE DEBT COLLECTORS UNDER THE FDCPA, BUT LEFT OPEN CERTAIN QUESTIONS UNDER STATE LAW, INCLUDING WHETHER ACTING AS A FORECLOSURE TRUSTEE REQUIRES LICENSING AS A COLLECTION AGENCY. IN NEVADA, THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED.  

​IN BENKO V. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE, THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE BROAD DEFINITION OF A COLLECTION AGENCY IN NRS 649.020 INCLUDED FORECLOSURE TRUSTEES. THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT HARMONIZED THE BROAD STROKES IN NRS 649 WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND DUTIES OF NRS 107 AND HELD THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE STATUTORY SCHEME IN NRS 107 TRUMPED THE MORE GENERALIZED APPLICATION OF NRS 649 TO PREVENT TWO DISTINCT AND CONFLICTING SCHEMES FROM ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE THE NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROCESS.

Visit Link Read Article



Potocki v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: The Need for Clarity When Investors Disallow Loan Modifications

Potocki v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: The Need for Clarity When Investors Disallow Loan Modifications

​Even if a lender completes its review and issues a substantive loan modification denial letter, there are still pitfalls lenders should be aware of if the denial is based on investors disalloweing modificaitons.

​Since the enactment of the California Homeowners’ Bill of Rights (the “HOBR”), and specifically the “dual tracking” prohibitions contained therein, borrowers have had increasing success in surviving the pleadings stage of wrongful foreclosure lawsuits. Simple allegations that a lender failed to review a loan modification application before initiating or completing a nonjudicial foreclosure sale can be enough –  whether true or not – for a court to overrule a lender’s demurrer. By Matthew B. Learned, Esq., McCarthy Holthus

Visit Link Read Article



Andrew Boylan Honored with Phil Adleson Award

Andrew Boylan Honored with Phil Adleson Award

​Andrew Boylan is the worthy recipient of the 2019 Phil Adleson Education & Advocacy Award.  The award is presented annually to a member who both educates and advocates on behalf of UTA and its membership.

​The stringent criteria for the award includes being a ‘master teacher’, who has presented and educated members in a clear and informative manner with excellently researched and prepared materials; advocated before public officials on behalf of the association; and drafted legislation on behalf of the association. In presenting the award, UTA President David Dutcher said that Boylan has “drafted legislation on many matters of importance to trustees including the revision and reorganization of trustees fee calculation language as well as drafting the cease and desist exemption for HOBR due diligence phone calls.”   Boylan is currently serving his first term on the Board of Directors.  He has spoken on several dinner topics including the Obduskey decision, the Daniels decision as well as legislative updates.  “Andrew has actively lobbied annually in Sacramento on behalf of UTA”, said Dutcher “and he has provided case law summaries at the last few annual conferences, providing relevant, practical and critical information to trustees.”     “I am extremely honored to receive the Phil Adleson Award,” said Boylan.  “I learned so much from him during his annual conference case law updates and throughout the year as he advocated on behalf of the UTA and shared his industry knowledge. I encourage all UTA members to educate and advocate in Phil’s honor so that we can continue to grow our organization and remain a United Trustees Association.”  

Visit Link Read Article



USFN Announces McCarthy Holthus, LLP as a 2019 Diamond Award of Excellence Recipient

USFN Announces McCarthy Holthus, LLP as a 2019 Diamond Award of Excellence Recipient

Award of Excellence standards evaluate professional activities, industry volunteerism, and community and charitable involvement of the firm.

​Diamond Award of Excellence recipients are USFN members in good standing who, over the past 12 months, have exhibited a high level of engagement and support of the Association’s events, publications, training, and other resources built on the expertise of the USFN members.

Visit Link Read Article



Parts of a Whole in Default Servicing

Parts of a Whole in Default Servicing

​With so much to consider—and so much at stake—how are today’s servicing professionals managing their commitment to excellence, both for their own shops and for all their partners? This month, DS News spoke to an array of industry experts to find out.

​With foreclosure volumes remaining historically low and the cost of servicing a real issue for many companies working within the mortgage sector, it’s more important than ever for servicers to maintain a focus on efficiency, innovation, and streamlining best practices. Perhaps most important of all, however, is one core pillar: communication. Without effective communication between all stakeholders within the mortgage servicing spectrum, none of those other target areas can hope to reach their full potential. However, that communication can be challenging when trying to navigate terrain that includes technological hurdles, the ever-shifting sands of compliance, and the tangled network of banks, nonbanks, law firms, government agencies, and service providers who make up the landscape of modern mortgage servicing.  

Visit Link Read Article



The Future of Financial Service Firms

The Future of Financial Service Firms

​One of the biggest issues for all of us is the continuing change in the legislative environment, nuanced state law requirements, and the need for servicers to have firms that are leveraged to be able to track these legislative updates and provide timely and substantive of updates. Lower inventory is an issue for everybody as well.

​It's an exciting time for the industry. We will see an increased number of cases out there that will, hopefully, be helpful to us following the McCarthy & Holthus decision. The next logical step will be a case where they try to apply the ruling to a judicial foreclosure—in particular, a judicial foreclosure that is not seeking a deficiency. Reading the tea leaves, I would expect a favorable result on that, which I think would be a huge win for the entire industry. There are also other Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) cases out there. There's the Klemm case that's with the Supreme Court, which deals with the statute of limitations. The primary question for the court is whether the SOL begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the alleged error or does the SOL start to run from the date of the occurrence. If it is the later, it could significantly reduce the cost to litigate FDCPA cases. It’s a significant case that would affect everyone from Maine to California. It will also be interesting to watch the evolution of the McCarthy & Holthus case. What will the next challenges be? What will be covered by the case? Where might a state legislature try to amend the state’s debt collection law to provide different relief to borrowers or consumers?

Visit Link Read Article



How the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Will Impact the Mortgage Servicing Industry

How the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Will Impact the Mortgage Servicing Industry

With the change of leadership came visible change in approach. As a Congressman, Mulvaney had criticized what he perceived to be a lack of oversight and accountability in the  structure and operation of the Bureau. Against this backdrop, a change was observed early on in the focus and direction or regulation.

In it's amicus brief, the Bureau made two main policy arguments. First, it argued that nonjudicial foreclosures are not subject to the FDCPA, except in those limited circumstances where the foreclosure is done where "there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest." Section 1692f(6)(A).  In short, the Bureau took the position that the FDCPA is only applicable if you foreclose where there was no right to foreclosure.

Visit Link Read Article



U.S. Supreme Court Issues Highly Anticipated Opinion Affecting the Industry

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Highly Anticipated Opinion Affecting the Industry

The Supreme Court decided last week that default firms and trustees specializing in nonjudicial foreclosures are not "debt collectors."  

​In a great win for the industry, the United States Supreme Court decided last week that default firms and trustees specializing in nonjudicial foreclosures are not “debt collectors” and therefore not subject to the majority of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., (the “FDCPA” or the “Act”). In a unanimous decision issued on March 20, 2019 in the matter of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, the Court considered whether the actions taken by McCarthy & Holthus LLP (“McCarthy”) in connection with a nonjudicial foreclosure in the State of Colorado rendered it a “debt collector” pursuant to the Act.

Visit Link Read Article



Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings

Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings

​Martindale-Hubbell offers a full suite of online products and services that help lawyers enhance their online presence and drive more prospects to their firm. Lawyers showcase their credentials and win new business.

​Countless companies can help lawyers establish an online presence and market their firm, but only Martindale-Hubbell brings 149 years of legal industry experience and digital marketing know-how. Powered by the Martindale-Nolo Legal Marketing Network and more than 15 million visitors monthly, Martindale-Hubbell knows what it takes to successfully promote lawyers and their practice.

Visit Link Read Article



DIAMOND AWARD OF EXCELLENCE 2018 Award Recipients

DIAMOND AWARD OF EXCELLENCE 2018 Award Recipients

​We are pleased to announce the 2018 USFN Diamond Award of Excellence recipients.

​Award recipients demonstrate their commitment to excellence by their active participation and leadership with USFN, other mortgage banking organizations, the legal profession and through significant contributions to industry education, on-going staff development, client relations, and community charitable contributions in 2018.

Visit Link Read Article



The Top 25 Companies to Work For Are …

The Top 25 Companies to Work For Are …

​“MReport is privileged to celebrate these organizations and their leadership in the Top 25 Companies list,” said Rachel Williams, Editor-in-Chief of MReport. “Each of these companies have worked tirelessly to cultivate exemplary workplace cultures, and this list is our way of giving them the recognition they deserve.”

"We are honored to be recognized as a Top 25 company, and consider it our highest responsibility to be a place where employees want to work," said Chad Neel, Chief Executive Business Officer at McCarthy & Holthus. "We recognize that people have a choice of where they spend their day and so we are appreciative of our dedicated team who comes to work every day with the goal of providing “Service Second to None” to our clients."

Visit Link or Read Article



My “Counsel’s Corner”

My “Counsel’s Corner”

​Andrew Boylan Interview

​“Our firm is part of manydifferent groups where we attend advocacy days, work with lobbyists, and even meet face-to-face with legislators to discuss the industry. It’s a chance to educate them on what we do, what issues we see, and to help prevent legislation from passing that could have an adverse impact.”

Visit Link Read Article



Untangling the Web of Foreclosure Complications

Untangling the Web of Foreclosure Complications

​Article by Lance Olsen in the DS News Daily Dose

​Under the new law, a county, city, or town may notify a mortgage servicer that a property has been determined to be abandoned, in mid-foreclosure, and a nuisance. Upon receipt of this notice, a mortgage servicer or its designee may enter the property. Entry on to the property will be only for the purposes of abating the identified nuisance, preserving property, or preventing waste, but the servicer may take steps to secure the property.

Visit Link Read Article



Bettering Mortgage Link By Link

Bettering Mortgage Link By Link

​Article Katie Jo Keeling wrote for the DS News March 2018

​Unearthing the potential of blockchain technology to revolutionize the mortgage industry. You have to look no further than the front page of the Wall Street Journal to learn about Bitcoin these days. Its exponential rise in price has captured the attention of both Wall Street and Main Street alike, but because of its price volatility, its questionable source of value, and the security breaches resulting in theft from exchanges, many people continue to view Bitcoin as a house of cards built on thin air headed for an inevitable collapse. If you dismiss Bitcoin as just noise, you’re overlooking the most important thing about Bitcoin—it utilizes blockchain technology, the most revolutionary technology that has entered the marketplace in decades.    

Visit Link Read Article



UTA Mention of Our Firm and Lance Olsen's Legislative Efforts.

UTA Mention of Our Firm and Lance Olsen's Legislative Efforts.

When One Bill Becomes the Solution for Four Issues  

As of this writing, the Washington State Legislature is one vote away from resolving four long-standing issues in foreclosure and DOTA law: Resolution of the Jordan vs. NationStar case. No judicial process for homes with deceased borrowers. Fix to statutory language for owner/holder/actual holder. Process to file non-monetary interest in Washington state for trustees.   UTA members were instrumental in the writing of this legislation.  Specifically, I’d like to thank Michelle Mierzwa with Wright, Finlay, & Zak, and Lance Olsen with McCarthy Holthus for their almost daily involvement in the work on this bill

Visit Link Read Article



Oregon: Proof of Standing Clarified in Appellate Ruling by John Thomas

Oregon: Proof of Standing Clarified in Appellate Ruling by John Thomas

​Foreclosing Plaintiff's Standing: Proof Requirements

​On February 28, 2018 the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing and remanding the trial court’s summary judgment decision in favor of the foreclosing plaintiff, on the basis that the loan servicer’s declaration in support of its motion for summary judgment did not establish that the plaintiff was the holder of the note at the time that the judicial foreclosure was initiated (as it contained inadmissible hearsay on that point). [U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust, 2005-10 v. McCoy, 290 Or. App. 525 (2018)].

Visit Link Read Article



FDCPA - Tenth Circuit Reviews By Holly Shilliday and Andrew Boylan

FDCPA - Tenth Circuit Reviews By Holly Shilliday and Andrew Boylan

​the Act's Applicability to Nonjudicial Foreclosure in Colorado

​In a published opinion — and adding to the current split among the circuits — the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), set forth in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 – 1692p, does not apply to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings in the state of Colorado. Obduskey v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 1275 (10th Cir., Jan. 19, 2018). In a win for the industry, the court ultimately sided with the Bank (and these authors’ law firm McCarthy & Holthus) in ruling that the enforcement of a security interest, by way of a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding, does not constitute debt collection under the FDCPA.

Visit Link Read Article



Congratulations to Kelly Raftery!

Congratulations to Kelly Raftery!

Kelly M. Raftery, Associate Attorney in the Bankruptcy Department, has accepted a position for a three year term on the Local Bankruptcy Rules Advisory Board for the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California.   

The Local Rules Committee is run by Chief Judge Laura S. Taylor and plays a key role in recommending needed changes to the court’s local rules and practice guidelines.  The Board also assists the court to identify areas where improvements are needed and by acting as a sounding board for proposed changes in clerk’s office policies and procedures that affect the bar.

Visit Link Read Article



Oregon: 2017 Legislative Changes for the Upcoming Year

Oregon: 2017 Legislative Changes for the Upcoming Year

Associate Attorney(OR) Andreanna Smith's article was published in the USFN eUpdates.

​The Oregon 2017 legislative session resulted in significant changes for the industry for the upcoming year.  

Visit Link Read Article



Colorado Statute of Limitation Alert Regarding Consumer Home Loans

Colorado Statute of Limitation Alert Regarding Consumer Home Loans

​SOL Article by Holly Shiliday Published By CBA (Business Law Section)

​Colorado consumers and creditors should be aware of how a withdrawn foreclosure can affect the running of the statute of limitation on a residential note and deed of trust.

Visit Link Read Article



A Book Review of Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

A Book Review of Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

​Article Katie Jo Keeling wrote for the ALFN WILLed Q2 2017 Publication.

​The way of the Essentialist isn’t just about success, it’s’ about living a life of meaning and purpose. When we look back on our careers and our lives, would we rather see a long laundry list of “accomplishments” that don’t really matter or just a few major accomplishments that have real meaning and significance?”

Visit Link Read Article



Congratulations to Managing Partner Andrew Boylan who was recognized in the article from Michael Belote.

Congratulations to Managing Partner Andrew Boylan who was recognized in the article from Michael Belote.

​UTA Bill Signed By Governor

​Thanks to UTA Board member Andrew Boylan for suggesting the clean-up and for drafting the language, simplifying what may have been one of the most confusing statutes in California.

Visit Link or Read Article



How to Lose a Case in the California Court Appeal

How to Lose a Case in the California Court Appeal

​This case highlights the importance of choosing competent appellate counsel to handle matters on appeal, as the requirements of appellate briefing can differ significantly from what may be acceptable in a trial court. If your briefs fail to comport with the necessary requirements, you risk losing your appeal before any true appellate review of the case has even begun.  

​The requirements of appellate briefing can differ significantly from what may be acceptable in a trial court.  

Visit Link Read Article



Congratulations to Managing Partners Katie Jo Keeling and Wendy Walter!

Congratulations to Managing Partners Katie Jo Keeling and Wendy Walter!

McCarthy Holthus, LLP Managing Partners ​Katie Jo Keeling and Wendy Walter are among a short list of distinguished leaders who are being recognized for their leadership and impact on the mortgage/housing industry by the Five Star Institute in the September 2017 MReport magazine featuring Wonder Women of Housing.

​The publication can be found in the link below, with our featured attorneys shown in the article.

Visit Link or Read Article



Congratulations to Melissa Robbins Coutts!

Congratulations to Melissa Robbins Coutts!

Melissa Robbins Coutts, Associate Attorney of McCarthy Holthus, LLP was selected as part of the 4th Annual Junior Professional Executive Group: Picture the Future Awards and was honored at this year's American Legal Financial Network ("ALFN") conference that took place earlier this month in Austin.  

​Ms. Robbins Coutts was one of thirteen young professionals honored "who are making a noteworthy impact in their companies, communities, and the mortgage servicing industry." You can read more about her in the Article below. Additionally, on page 15 of the below Link, Melissa Robbins Coutts co-authored the feature article published in the ALFN’s quarterly magazine along with co-author and Managing Partner for the Southwest, Matthew Podmenik. The article explains the rules around full credit bids.

Visit Link Read Article



Municipalities can bring suit against banks under the FHA

Municipalities can bring suit against banks under the FHA

​Jennifer K. Cruseturner, Associate Attorney of McCarthy Holthus, LLP explains the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling impacting our industry in an article published in the USFN's June 2017 e-Update. She explains how the Supreme Court arrived at the decision that the City of Miami could sue mortgage lenders for predatory lending practices under the Fair Housing Act.  

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (5-3) in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, Florida, together with Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami, Florida, that the City of Miami is an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA or Act), and as such could sue mortgage lenders. Cruseturner explains that while the Supreme Court held that proximate cause under the FHA requires some direct relation between the injury asserted and the discriminatory conduct alleged, it declined to specifically set forth the precise boundaries of proximate cause under the FHA.

Visit Link Read Article



Firm Partners serve as CFPB task force chairs

Firm Partners serve as CFPB task force chairs

On July 10, 2017, both the U.S. Foreclosure Network (USFN) and American Legal & Financial Network (ALFN) submitted comments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regarding the existing mortgage servicing rules. Wendy Walter, McCarthy & Holthus, LLP partner, Pacific Northwest, chaired the task force for the USFN while Andrew Boylan, also a partner and the firm's chief compliance officer, did the same for the ALFN.

Both organizations will highlight the task forces' efforts at their conferences this month.               

Visit Link Read Article



Strict Compliance with California's Homeowner Bills of Rights is Required

Strict Compliance with California's Homeowner Bills of Rights is Required

Partners Andrew Boylan and Katie Jo Keeling of McCarthy Holthus, LLP explain the impact of the California Court of Appeals case Berman v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. in the UTA Quarterly Summer 2017 industry publication. 

​The Court held that the listing of a 15-day appeal period in a denial letter (instead of providing the required 30 days) amounted to a “material violation” of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights. This case reinforces the importance of reviewing notice templates and business processes at the state level to ensure full legal compliance. Notably, there are many provisions under the California and Nevada Homeowner’s Bill of Rights that go above and beyond the federal CFPB servicing regulations. One of these areas is the consumer/borrower right to appeal. 

Visit Link Read Article



CO Partner Holly Shilliday AV Rated and selected to to chair Financial Institution Subsection for the Colorado Bar Association.

CO Partner Holly Shilliday AV Rated and selected to to chair Financial Institution Subsection for the Colorado Bar Association.

Holly Shilliday, ​Partner and Managing Attorney of the McCarthy Holthus, LLP Colorado office was selected as the Chair for the Financial Institutions Subsection of the Business Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association and also became rated AV Preeminent by Martindale Hubble.  

Ms. Shilliday is also a member of the Executive Council of the Bar Association's Business Law Section. The Financial Institutions Subsection consists of banking and financial services attorneys, in-house counsel to financial institutions, and other lawyers with an interest in financial institutions. It promotes the organization's educational and professional objectives with respect to banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other organizations offering financial services. It also addresses other matters of interest to members.                                                                              

Visit Link Read Article



New Partners Named!

New Partners Named!

​Andrew Boylan and Holly Shilliday were named Partners of the Firm on May 30, 2017. Ms. Shilliday has been the managing attorney in our Colorado office since its inception and Mr. Boylan has lead the firm's Compliance Department for many years. Both Andrew and Holly are published frequently and speak often on panels in our areas of practice, providing great leadership for our clients, staff, and industry.

Mr. Boylan can be reached for assistance on national compliance projects, and for any questions related to state and federal statutes and regulations. Ms. Shilliday can be reached for any Colorado related questions.

Visit Link Read Article



Void or Voidable? That is the Unavoidable Question

Void or Voidable? That is the Unavoidable Question

​Andrew Boylan, Chief Compliance Officer for McCarthy Holthus, explains in the Spring 2017 United Trustee Association Quarterly newsletter the industry favorable California Appellate decision in Mendoza holding that "defects in the securitization of loans can be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trusts established to hold the mortgage-backed securities and, as a result, the assignments are voidable.”

Boylan explains that if the assignment is voidable then only the parties to the agreement have the power to ratify or extinguish it. If a borrower is not a party to the assignment in question, they lack the necessary standing to challenge the foreclosure on the grounds of alleged irregularities pertaining to the assignment.

Visit Link Read Article



Chief Compliance Officer and Associate Attorney Andrew Boylan Featured Speaker at annual California MBA Legal Issues & Regulatory Compliance Conference

Chief Compliance Officer and Associate Attorney Andrew Boylan Featured Speaker at annual California MBA Legal Issues & Regulatory Compliance Conference

​On December 5, 2016, Andrew Boylan, Chief Compliance Officer and Associate Attorney at McCarthy Holthus, LLP spoke on the Mortgage Servicing Panel at the annual California MBA Legal Issues & Regulatory Compliance Conference. He presented on CA SB 1150, the “Survivor Bill of Rights,” that went into effect on January 1, 2017, as well as the recent CFPB amendments dealing with successors-in-interest that are set to go into effect in April 2018.

Andrew Boylan can be found on page 51 of the Spring issue of California Mortgage Finance News.  

Visit Link or Read Article



Colorado Attorneys Shilliday and Cruseturner lead the way

Colorado Attorneys Shilliday and Cruseturner lead the way

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper re-appointed Holly Shilliday, the Managing Attorney of the Colorado Office of McCarthy Holthus, to a second term on the Council of Advisors on Consumer Credit. The Council of Advisors on Consumer Credit advises and consults with the assistant attorney general concerning the attorney general‘s powers under the Consumer Credit Code.  Jennifer Cruseturner, an Associate Attorney in the same office, has been selected as Secretary for the standing Local Rules Committee for the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Colorado. 

​Shilliday and Cruseturner will both serve three year terms in their roles.    

Visit Link Read Article



California's Homeowner Bill of Rights remedies to be narrowly construed

California's Homeowner Bill of Rights remedies to be narrowly construed

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Associate Attorney and Civil Litigation Manager Melissa Robbins Coutts explains that the CA Homeowner Bill of Rights provides no remedy for borrowers seeking to enjoin allegedly unauthorized foreclosures in her featured article in the Winter UTA Quarterly publication. 

​"...[F]or pre-foreclosure challenges, HBOR's provisions will be read narrowly to authorize only the relief explicitly set forth by the Legislature."

Visit Link or Read Article



Favorable Appellate Decisions interpreting Attorney Fee Provision and grounds for injunctive relief in CA Homeowner Bill of Rights

Favorable Appellate Decisions interpreting Attorney Fee Provision and grounds for injunctive relief in CA Homeowner Bill of Rights

​​McCarthy Holthus LLP Associate Attorney Kathy Shakibi explains  how two recent decisions clarify that attorney fees are not awarded upon the grant of a preliminary injunction, and that an injunction cannot be sought for an alleged violation of the "right to commence foreclosure."

​The article was featured in the winter edition of the California Mortgage Finance News.

Visit Link Read Article



All AV Rated at Firm Headquarters!

All AV Rated at Firm Headquarters!

​100% of San Diego McCarthy Holthus, LLP Attorneys have earned an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™.  

  

Visit Link Read Article



Andrew Boylan awarded as UTA New Member of the Year

Andrew Boylan awarded as UTA New Member of the Year

​Andrew Boylan, Associate Attorney and Chief Compliance Officer for McCarthy Holthus, LLP, is named United Trustees Association New Member of the Year at the UTA’s annual meeting, held November 7, 2016 during the Association’s 41st Annual Education Conference.

​Andrew Boylan joins the ranks of UTA award recipients Deborah Brignac (Veteran Member of the Year 2006) and Kathy Shakibi (New Member of the Year 2012), all current members of the firm.

Visit Link Read Article



Favorable outcome in long awaited 9th Circuit decision on FDCPA

Favorable outcome in long awaited 9th Circuit decision on FDCPA

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Partner Wendy Walter explains the Ho vs. ReconTrust Company, N.A. holding that Foreclosure Trustees are not debt collectors despite the CFPB's legal opinion in her latest article for the USFN.

​Walter explains "[i]n coming to its conclusion, the majority in Ho analyzed the notices in the nonjudicial process and found that the act of issuing such notices doesn’t constitute debt collection as defined by the FDCPA." The Ninth circuit's holding on this issue differs from other circuits (including the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth) where it has been held a nonjudicial foreclosure trustee is a debt collector.

Visit Link Read Article



Ninth Circuit rules on bankruptcy stay in lockout case

Ninth Circuit rules on bankruptcy stay in lockout case

​McCarthy Holthus LLP Associate Attorney Kathy Shakibi explains in her USFN article the 9th Circuit ruling that continued physical possession does not amount to an “equitable possessory interest” when a judgment and writ of possession have issued in an eviction action, and the holdover foreclosed debtor files for bankruptcy prior to the lockout.

The sheriff lockout does not violate the automatic stay because continued physical possession does not confer on the debtor a protectable equitable possessory interest in the property. Eden Place, LLC v. Perl (In re Perl), 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 246 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2016).    

Visit Link Read Article



Congratulations are in order!

Congratulations are in order!

McCarthy Holthus, LLP Partner Wendy Walter has been elected to the USFN Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning 11/1/2016. This is a great testament to Walter’s experience and leadership position in our industry.  

​The USFN is recognized by clients, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other key entities as a driver for change and progress in the real estate finance industry.  By serving on the USFN Board, Walter will be in a great position to help this group push activities and initiatives that are beneficial to our clients and the industry as a whole. 

Visit Link Read Article



USFN Award of Excellence 2016 Recipient for Washington

USFN Award of Excellence 2016 Recipient for Washington

McCarthy Holthus, LLP earns the 2016 USFN Diamond Award of Excellence! ​The Award of Excellence is given annually to USFN Member firms who meet rigorous standards that evaluate professional activities, industry volunteerism, and community and charitable involvement by the firm.

Recipients are honored each year at USFN's Annual Member Education Retreat held in the late fall. USFN, founded in 1988, is the nation's oldest ad most prestigious trade association of law firms and trustee companies who focus on creditors' rights. The Award of Excellence program was initiated in 1993 to recognize and encourage Member firms to develop and maintain high standards of excellence in service to industry clients and to their community.

Visit Link Read Article



Are we out of the Woods yet?

Are we out of the Woods yet?

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Partner Wendy Walter explains the 9th Circuit's decision that strict compliance is not required in the Oregon Trustee Deed Act in her featured article of the Fall UTA Quarterly.

​The Woods decision was one of three decided by the 9th Circuit in the same day dismissing lawsuits asserting the strict compliance theory. Regardless, Walter anticipates that an appeal will be taken and the Oregon Supreme Court may be asked to issue the final opinion on this subject.

Visit Link Read Article



Washington Foreclosure Law update

Washington Foreclosure Law update

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Partner Wendy Walter advocates for modernization of laws and asks in the September issue of NW Lawyer  "Is our state ready for the next chapter in real estate finance?"

​Walter addresses four main gaps in the Washington foreclosure law: "neighborhoods dealing with blight, successors-in-interest facing judicial foreclosure, borrowers wanting the process to be expedited, and lenders trying to originate new deals in an electronic age."          

Visit Link or Read Article



Key Foreclosure Provisions of the CFPB-Promulgated Changes to Servicing Rules

Key Foreclosure Provisions of the CFPB-Promulgated Changes to Servicing Rules

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Partner Wendy Walter explains the foreclosure-related provisions of the latest CFPB amendments to the mortgage servicing rules in advance of the effective dates for the new rules.

​Walter explains that the relevant foreclosure-related rules are effective 12 months from the date they are published on the Federal Register; rules relating to successors in interest and periodic statements for borrowers in bankruptcy are effective 18 months from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

Visit Link Read Article



And that makes 29!

And that makes 29!

​​Congratulations to SIXTEEN attorneys for becoming AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ since this last summer. Jo-Ann Goldman, Melissa Coutts, Merdaud Jafarnia, Matt Learned, Rebecca Lang, Joe McIntosh, Seth Harris, Ashley Hennessee, Kelly Raftery, Jennifer Wong, Megan Boyd, Kris Zilberstein, JaVonne Phillips, Casey Pence, Tia Butler, and Rocky McDonald (QWA), join the growing list of McCarthy Holthus, LLP and affiliate Preeminent and Distinguished lawyers.

AV Preeminent: Thomas Holthus Kevin McCarthy David Swartley Kristin Schuler-Hintz Katie Jo Keeling Lance Olsen Wendy Walter Andrew Boylan Julie Molteni (QLS) Matt Podmenik Kris Zilberstein JaVonne Phillips Casey Pence  Rocky McDonald (QWA) Tia Butler Megan Boyd Jennifer Wong Kelly Raftery Melissa Coutts Merdaud Jafarnia Matt Learned Rebecca Lang Joe McIntosh Seth Harris Ashley Hennessee Jo-Ann Goldman; BV Distinguished: Mike Chen Paul Levine Karen Weaver    

Visit Link Read Article



Yes, Gaps Matter

Yes, Gaps Matter

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Wendy Walter tackles the hot topic of gender wage gaps in the ALFN's Summer 2016 Angle publication focused on advocacy.

Wendy Walter is a member of ALFN's Women in Legal Leadership (WILL) and is a partner at McCarthy Holthus, LLP.

Visit Link or Read Article



Proofs of Claim, the Statute of Limitations and the FDCPA

Proofs of Claim, the Statute of Limitations and the FDCPA

McCarthy Holthus, LLP Managing Partner Lance E. Olsen authors an article on these important and evolving topics for the NACTT Academy for Consumer Bankrupty Education Fall 2015 publication.

The article addresses the potential consequences of filing a claim for a debt that is time barred, as well as discusses potential options available to home loan servicers.

Visit Link Read Article



Post-Yvanova Landscape: Appellate Courts Chime In While Supreme Court Punts

Post-Yvanova Landscape: Appellate Courts Chime In While Supreme Court Punts

McCarthy Holthus, LLP Attorney Kathy Shakibi explains the questions left in the wake of Yvanova in her front page article of the Summer UTA Quarterly.

​"The Yvanova gaps are necessarily being filled by appellate opinions, forming a landscape of case law on challenges to authority to foreclose."

Visit Link Read Article



How To Lose The Homestead Exemption

How To Lose The Homestead Exemption

McCarthy Holthus, LLP Attorney Seth Harris explains in the Featured Article of the Summer UTA Quarterly how the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") arrives at the right decision in Elliot v. Weill (In re Elliot) 544 B.R. 421 when holding that the homestead exemption could properly be objected to in specific circumstances of bad faith and fraud.    

​"The BAP is sending a clear message that justice will prevail."

Visit Link Read Article



"Ninth Circuit Rules: TILA's Notice Provision Is Not Retroactive"

​​McCarthy Holthus, LLP Attorney Kathy Shakibi's Featured Article in the Spring 2016 UTA Quarterly explains the recent favorable Ninth Circuit decision interpreting the 2009 TILA amendment requiring written notice to a borrower when a mortgage loan is sold or transferred.

"Kudos to the Ninth Circuit for its discussion of existing laws that provide answers for questions of “Who owns my loan? To whom should I make my payments? Who has the authority to modify my loan?”"                              

Visit Link Read Article



Vendor Management Strategies

Vendor Management Strategies

​In the winter edition of the ALFN ANGLE, Andrew Boylan, Chief Compliance Officer for McCarthy Holthus, LLP, lays out the federal regulatory guidance for vendor management.

​His article, entitled "Your Vendor Management Strategies May Need Some Attention: PLEASE USE EXACT CHANGE" explains why it is important to keep your vendors "In sight, and on your mind."        

Visit Link Read Article



McCarthy Holthus, LLP CCO asked to co-host industry compliance webinar

McCarthy Holthus, LLP CCO asked to co-host industry compliance webinar

McCarthy Holthus, LLP's Chief Compliance Officer Andrew Boylan co-hosted a California Mortgage Bankers Association's webinar entitled "Regulatory Compliance in Servicing" on February 25, 2016.     

Andrew is a member of the CMBA's Mortgage Quality and Compliance Committee. During the webinar, Mr. Boylan discussed UDAAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices) and focused on how mortgage servicers can avoid violations.   The firm's compliance practice group sets the industry standard and can be of assistance to our clients on a national platform for federal compliance issues.

Visit Link Read Article



McCarthy Holthus, LLP partner Wendy Walter published in the Winter 2016 USFN Report

McCarthy Holthus, LLP partner Wendy Walter published in the Winter 2016 USFN Report

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP partner Wendy Walter featured in the Winter 2016 USFN Report entitled Washington -- Two Important Judicial Decisions.

​The article explains recent industry friendly judicial decisions in the state of Washington that help to clarify trustee requirements under the ambiguous deed of trust statutes.

Visit Link Read Article



McCarthy Holthus, LLP Joins the USFN - America's Mortgage Banking Attorneys®

McCarthy Holthus, LLP Joins the USFN - America's Mortgage Banking Attorneys®

​McCarthy Holthus, LLP is now a member of the USFN- America's Mortgage Banking Attorneys® in the state of Washington. The firm is excited to join this prestigious network of Mortgage Banking law firms.

The firm is excited to join this prestigious network of Mortgage Banking law firms. More information about the USFN can be found at www.USFN.org.

Visit Link Read Article



Three McCarthy Holthus, LLP attorneys chosen as Panelists at ALFN ANSWERS Annual Conference

Three McCarthy Holthus, LLP attorneys chosen as Panelists at ALFN ANSWERS Annual Conference

​Andrew Boylan, Kristin Schuler-Hintz, and Kristin Zilberstein shared their knowledge with the attendees of the ALFN ANSWERS Annual Conference that took place this summer in Lake Tahoe.

Andrew Boylan discussed CFPB updates in the panel entitled "New Rules-More Changes," Kristin Schuler-Hintz spoke on the HOA Super Priority Lien Roundtable, and Kristin Zilberstein discussed the Official Form Ch. 13 Plan & Bankruptcy Rule Changes.

Visit Link Read Article



McCarthy Holthus, LLP leads the way in Legal Advocacy

McCarthy Holthus, LLP leads the way in Legal Advocacy

​Andrew Boylan, the firm's Chief Compliance Officer, discusses the importance of legal advocacy and the efforts of McCarthy Holthus.  

The Red tape White & Blue of modern politicking By: Andrew Boylan  

Visit Link Read Article



Legal League Q2 2015 publication

Legal League Q2 2015 publication

Managing Partner, Matthew Podmenik, and Associate, Kelly M. Raftery, featured in Legal League Quarterly

"Does your Agent have your authority to mess up?"  

Visit Link Read Article



Thirty Five Under 35

Thirty Five Under 35

MReport Magazine Special Report 2015

McCarthy & Holthus Partner, Katie Jo Keeling makes Thirty Five Under 35 list.

Visit Link Read Article




Call Us Today Call Us (877) 369-6122

California

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

2763 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 100

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: 619.685.4811

Washington

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

108 1st Avenue South, Ste. 300

Seattle, WA 98104

Fax: 206.596.4856

Arkansas

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

202 North Walton Blvd., Ste. 14

Bentonville, AR 72712

Fax: 214.291.3801

Oregon

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

920 SW 3rd Ave, 1st Floor

Portland, OR 97204

Fax: 971.201.3202

Nevada

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

9510 West Sahara Avenue, Ste. 200

Las Vegas, NV 89117

Fax: 866.339.5691

Idaho

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

702 W. Idaho Street, Ste. 1100

Boise, ID 83702

Fax: 208.947.5910

Texas

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

1255 West 15th Street, Suite 1060

Plano, TX 75075

Fax: 214.291.3801

Privacy Policy

Arizona

McCarthy, Holthus, LLP

8502 E. Via De Ventura, Suite 200

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

Fax 480.302.4101

New Mexico

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

6501 Eagle Rock NE, Ste. A-3

Albuquerque, NM 87113

Fax: 505.750.9803

Colorado

McCarthy & Holthus, LLP

7700 E. Arapahoe Road, Ste. 230

Centennial, CO 80112

Fax: 866.894.7369