UTA will file a brief as part of a coalition effort in the case of Linza v PHH. The brief will be prepared by Jonathan D. Fink, Esq., Wright, Finlay & Zak.
The claims the borrower is making against the lender include:
– A servicer’s and trustee’s prolonged threat of foreclosure is the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
– Whether a loan servicer has a duty of care to the borrower that is greater than, and independent of, the duty of the institutional lender. The same arguments used by the borrower to expand the loan servicer’s duty of care to the borrower could be applied to trustees.
Courts have resisted adding common law duties in a number of cases where the trustee is performing services within the framework of the comprehensive legislative scheme. A ruling even in dicta involving a loan servicer would be bad for trustees as borrower’s counsel would use the language to attack the trustee’s ability to claim it has a qualified privilege to act.