Jaime Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25274
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Medrano plaintiffs allege Flagstar violated RESPA by failing to respond adequately to three letters disputing their loan's increased escrow payments.
- The district court dismissed the RESPA claim, holding that the letters were not qualified written requests triggering a 2605(e) duty to respond.
- The letters claimed the loan documents did not reflect the proper payment schedule and sought revision of documentation to reflect original terms.
- Plaintiffs' escrow deficiency led Flagstar to demand a higher monthly payment or a lump-sum deficiency payment.
- Plaintiffs alleged the servicing of the loan was involved; Flagstar may have not responded to the letters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs' letters constitute qualified written requests under RESPA §2605(e)? | Medrano argues letters seek servicing information and corrections. | Flagstar contends letters challenge loan terms, not servicing, and thus are not qualified requests. | Letters do not qualify; no duty to respond. |
Key Cases Cited
- Catalan v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 629 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2011) (qualified written request need not contain magic words; reasonably identify account and seek servicing information)
- United States v. $493,850 in U.S. Currency, 518 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2008) (statutory interpretation and remedial purposes guide construction)
- Schuetz v. Banc One Mortg. Corp., 292 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2002) (RESPA findings and purpose guiding interpretation)