SE HABLA ESPAÑOL | MAP
312-739-4200
Contact Us

Contact Us

Archives

  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013

  • Areas & Topics

    Frquently Asked Questions

    Our Office Location

    Edelman, Combs, Latturner, & Goodwin, LLC

    20 South Clark Street
    Suite 1500
    Chicago, IL 60603

    info@edcombs.com
    Phone: 312-739-4200
    Fax: 312-419-0379


    E-mail Us  |  Chicago Law Office

    Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's facebook page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Twitter Page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Google Plus Page

    Chicago Daily Law Bulletin story about 7th Cir decision in our Fridman case

    Panel: Online payment valid on day clicked

    Online-Valid-Payment-03-13-15,ph03

    Diane P. Wood
    Online-Valid-Payment-03-13-15,ph04

    Frank H. Easterbrook
    By Patricia Manson
    Law Bulletin staff writer
    Banks and other entities that service mortgages must credit any payment made through their websites at the time the borrower approves the payment, a divided federal appeals court has held.The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the federal Truth in Lending Act allows mortgage servicers to wait until an electronic transfer of funds is completed before crediting a payment.

    Such a holding, the majority wrote, would be contrary to Congress’ intent.

    “The interpretation we adopt promotes an important purpose of TILA: [T]o protect consumers against unwarranted delay by mortgage servicers,” Chief Judge Diane P. Wood wrote in an opinion joined by Judge David F. Hamilton.

    In a dissent, Judge Frank H. Easterbrook contended his colleagues were misinterpreting TILA’s requirement that a mortgage servicer credit a payment “as of the date of receipt.”

    Under Section 1639f(a) of TILA and an implementing regulation, Easterbrook wrote, an instruction to make a payment is not actually a payment.

    “We should read the statute and regulation to mean what they say: [L]enders must give credit when they receive payment,” he wrote.

    Elena Fridman’s mortgage is serviced by NYCB Mortgage Co. LLC. Her payments are due on the first of each month, but she has a 15-day grace period before she is required to pay a late fee.

    Borrowers may authorize payments on their mortgages through NYCB’s website.

    Every business day, NYCB puts all the authorizations it received before 8 p.m. into an Automated Clearing House file.

    The following day, NYCB uses the ACH file to request that funds be transferred from the borrowers’ bank accounts.

    NYCB credits payments made through its website two business days after the payment is authorized.

    Late on Dec. 13, 2012, or early the next morning, Fridman accessed NYCB’s website and authorized a mortgage payment from her account at Bank of America.

    NYCB placed the authorization into an ACH file on Dec. 14 and credited Fridman’s mortgage account for the payment on Tuesday, Dec. 18, which was two business days later. It charged her a late fee of $88.54.

    Fridman sued NYCB, alleging TILA required it to credit her payment on the day she submitted the authorization.

    U.S. District Judge Sara L. Ellis ruled in favor of NYCB, and Fridman appealed.

    In its opinion Wednesday, the 7th Circuit majority wrote that a mortgage servicer decides how quickly to collect a payment when it receives a check or gets authorization on its website or over the phone to transfer funds.

    Without TILA’s requirement that payment be credited on receipt of the “payment instrument,” the majority wrote, “the servicer could decide to collect payment through a slower method in order to rack up late fees.”

    But Easterbrook countered that fear of losing business would prevent a mortgage servicer from engaging in such tactics.

    “Playing games would put its reputation at risk,” he wrote. “Users of the Internet proclaim their grievances loudly, and many sites rate merchants based on users’ observations.”

    The case is Elena Fridman v. NYCB Mortgage Co. LLC, No. 14-2220.

    Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC argued the case before the 7th Circuit on behalf of Fridman.

    “I think Judge Wood got it right,” he said.

    An authorization made through a website, he said “is an electronic form of a paper check.”

    And TILA requires a payment made with a check to be credited when the mortgage servicer receives the check, he said.

    Edelman rejected Easterbrook’s assertion that concern over borrowers’ reaction to underhanded conduct would keep mortgage servicers in line.

    Servicers don’t care what borrowers think of them, he said.

    Instead, he said, servicers have an incentive to collect late fees from borrowers so they can keep their own costs down and attract more business.

    “Where Judge Easterbrook went wrong is thinking market forces constrain bad behavior on the part of mortgage servicers,” Edelman said.

    LeAnn Pedersen Pope of Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella P.C. argued the case on behalf of the bank.

    She is still analyzing the ruling, Pope said.