The Ohio Legislature is currently considering Senate Bill 334, titled (in short) “Grant certain bidders rights – foreclosed residential property,” which seeks to amend section 2329.27 and to enact sections 2329.261 and 2329.313 of the Revised Code to grant tenants and certain other eligible bidders rights relating to the purchase of residential property sold through the process of foreclosure. The Bill applies to foreclosure sales of one to four family residential properties, and requires the selling officer, whether sheriff or private selling officer, to include in its sale advertisement, the following notice:

"NOTICE TO TENANTS AND OTHER ELIGIBLE BIDDERS: You may have a right to purchase this property after the sale pursuant to R.C. 2329.313. If you are an "eligible-tenant buyer," you can purchase the property if you match the successful bid placed at the sale. If you are an "eligible bidder," you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the successful bid placed at the sale. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, two calendar days after the date of the sale, you can call [telephone number for information regarding the sale], or visit this web site [web site address for information regarding the sale], using the file number assigned to this case [case file number] to find the date on which the sale was held, the amount of the successful bid, and the address of the person who conducted the sale. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the person who conducted the sale receives it not more than fifteen days after the date of the sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the person who conducted the sale receives it not more than forty-five days after the date of the sale. If you think you may qualify as an "eligible tenant-buyer" or "eligible bidder," you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase.”

In an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part, Florida's Second District Court of Appeal found that a Trial Judge’s Order went too far when it forbade the borrower in a foreclosure case, who had surrendered the real property at issue in an earlier bankruptcy, to contest the foreclosure “in any manner” due to that bankruptcy surrender.  In reversing in part, the Court of Appeal held that there are circumstances where a borrower may be allowed to challenge some aspects of a foreclosure case; for example, in the amounts due and owing, or other limited circumstances that may have arisen post-bankruptcy.  Importantly, however, in affirming, the Second District Court of Appeal also ruled that surrender in a bankruptcy case means that in a subsequent foreclosure case a borrower is not entitled to challenge the lender’s own entitlement to foreclose.  “Because the debtor’s interest has been surrendered, the debtor is no longer entitled to challenge the entitlement to foreclose the debtor’s former legal interest.”  Note that this opinion is not final yet.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
[Tuesday, March 22, 2022 | Atlanta, GA] Padgett Law Group (PLG) today announced the firm has received its no-objection status from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, clearing the final administrative task in entering the firm’s newest state of full-service creditors’ rights operations, Pennsylvania. The build-out of PLG’s Pennsylvania operations has been led by Jacqueline F. McNally, Esq., Managing Attorney of Judicial Foreclosure. Ms. McNally joined PLG in July of 2021 and shortly thereafter was promoted to her current firm-wide leadership role.  ​

Ms. McNally has a long-standing reputation and legal career in the market. She previously managed the Pennsylvania and New Jersey operations of Schiller, Knapp, Lefkowitz & Hertzel, LLP; prior to that, she served as Chief Compliance Officer for Stern & Eisenberg, P.C., where she oversaw compliance matters across a 13-state footprint with over forty attorneys under her purview. Ms. McNally has over a decade of experience in creditors’ rights and is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Georgia, and the District of Columbia.  

“In addition to Jackie’s firm-wide role leading our multi-state foreclosure practice, we are thrilled to have added a state where she has years of experience, connections, and a deep understanding of the issues. Jackie brings the depth of legal knowledge and breadth of management experience that clients associate with PLG,” said Chief Development Officer Robyn Padgett. 

Other recent notable hires by PLG include the addition of Paul Huntington, Esq., Lead Attorney - Pennsylvania; Heather Griffiths, Esq., Supervising Attorney – Florida; Hadi Seyed-Ali, Esq., Senior Counsel – Legal and Advisory Oversight; Michael J. Burns, Managing Attorney –Non Judicial Foreclosure; along with the creation of nearly 50 other legal, supervisory, processing, and administrative roles across the firm's growing footprint and multi-state practices.  

Questions about this release? Contact us at marketing@padgettlawgroup.com for connection to Ms. McNally or to onboard PLG for Pennsylvania service. ​

Since the ruling in In re Nazario Hernandez, et al v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., et al, 19-35719 (9th Cir. 2020), there have been several attempts to unwind the devastation that the interpretation by the Federal Courts of Edmundson v. Bank of America, 378 P.3d 272, 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) created. This was nearly achieved in Brown v. Deutsch Bank N.A. (In re Plastino), Nos. 17-11760-MLB, 20-01012-MLB, 20-01013-MLB, 20 Bankr. LEXIS 3597, at *6-7 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2020). However, the matter settled prior to a ruling on the appeal.

In Khimmat v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. LPA, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that the transmission of information to a vendor who completes a mailing is deemed a “communication” to a “person” in connection with the “collection of a debt” under section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA.
​
The law firm in this case, considered a debt collector in this circuit, used a third-party vendor to mail correspondence to the Borrower, which included the Borrower’s name, address, and information about the nature of the debt. The Court rejected an argument from the law firm that the mail vendor is an “agent” of the law firm, noting that the FDCPA does not explicitly carve out an exception for agents of debt collectors.

Not all circuits follow this logic in considering whether debt collectors can rely on letter vendors, so it is important to consult with legal counsel in the appropriate jurisdiction to determine whether use of these types of vendors is permissible under the FDCPA. Click here to read the full decision. 

Questions? Contact us.
Contact us regarding this decision or other servicing issues in Pennsylvania. PLG's Managing Attorney of Foreclosure Operations, Jacqueline F. McNally, Esq., is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Georgia, and the District of Columbia. Click the button below to connect with Jackie.