Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 574 U.S. 259 (2015)
TILA Rescission — Written Notice Is Sufficient
The Supreme Court held unanimously that a borrower exercises the right to rescind a loan under TILA by notifying the creditor in writing — a lawsuit is not required. A timely written notice of rescission is legally effective even if the creditor disputes it.
Relevance: TILA · Rescission Rights · Origination Defects
Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 (2014)
RESPA Dual-Tracking Prohibition
CFPB's implementing regulation for RESPA expressly prohibits servicers from making the first notice or filing for foreclosure if a borrower's complete loss mitigation application is pending. The prohibition applies from the time a complete application is received.
Relevance: Foreclosure Defense · Loss Mitigation · QWR Process
Donovan v. Dialamerica Marketing, 757 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir. 1985)
FLSA Economic Reality Test — Independent Contractor
Established the six-factor economic reality test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA. The test focuses on economic dependence, not contractual labels — a worker can be an employee regardless of what the contract says.
Relevance: FLSA · Contractor Misclassification · Wage Claims
Gentry v. Mangum, 466 S.E.2d 171 (W.Va. 1995)
Robo-Signing and Assignment Validity
Established foundational principles for challenging the validity of mortgage assignments where the signatory lacked authority or the signature was executed in a manner inconsistent with the claimed corporate capacity — influential in subsequent robo-signing litigation.
Relevance: Chain of Title · Robo-Signing · Foreclosure Standing
McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe, 486 U.S. 128 (1988)
FLSA Willful Violation — Three-Year Statute of Limitations
The Supreme Court held that the FLSA's three-year statute of limitations for willful violations applies when the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its conduct violated the Act. Documented misclassification is strong evidence of willfulness.
Relevance: FLSA · Statute of Limitations · Back Wage Claims
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. 224 (2017)
FDCPA and Time-Barred Debt Collection
While holding that filing a proof of claim on time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA in bankruptcy, the decision clarified the importance of statute of limitations analysis in debt collection disputes and the obligation to accurately represent debt status.
Relevance: FDCPA · Statute of Limitations · Zombie Debt
U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011)
Foreclosure Standing and Assignment Chain
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that two major banks lacked standing to foreclose because they could not demonstrate a complete chain of title at the time of foreclosure. The court rejected retroactive assignments as curing the standing defect.
Relevance: Foreclosure Standing · Chain of Title · Securitization
Fegley v. Higgins, 19 F.3d 1126 (6th Cir. 1994)
FLSA — Employer Bears Burden of Proving Exemption
The employer, not the employee, bears the burden of proving that a worker is exempt from FLSA overtime requirements. Exemptions are to be construed narrowly against the employer. An employer who cannot document the basis for an exemption cannot sustain it.
Relevance: FLSA · Exempt Classification · Burden of Proof