Padgett Law Group
Menu

PLG NEWS

News + updates + recent press

Categories

All
ALABAMA
Arkansas
Bankruptcy
Case Law
Closings
Compliance
Evictions
FDCPA
FHA
Florida
Foreclosure
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Legislative
Michigan
Moratoriums
New Jersey
Ohio
PANDIFFERENT
Pennsylvania
Personnel
Real Estate
Regulatory
REO
Tennessee
Texas
Title
Trending Cases
USDA
WASHINGTON

Archives

May 2025
April 2025
March 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
October 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
February 2024
August 2023
May 2023
April 2023
January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017

ACT 306 - To Authorize a Mortgagor to Recover Fees in Certain Circumstances Under the Statutory Foreclosure Law

6/16/2025

 
Effective Date: August 4, 2025

​Statute:
18-50-118. Recovery of fees.
  • (a) A mortgagor may recover reasonable attorney's fees under this subchapter if a court sets aside the statutory foreclosure sale due to a mortgagee’s failure to strictly comply with any provision of § 18-50-101 et seq., under § 18-50-116(d)(2)(B)(ii).
  • (b) A mortgagor shall not be awarded attorney's fees under subsection (a) of this section if the:
    1. Mortgagor and mortgagee reach a mutual resolution of the debt and corresponding foreclosure;
    2. Mortgagor files a petition for bankruptcy while the foreclosure or any related litigation is pending;
    3. Mortgagee instituted the statutory foreclosure while in good faith relying on a policy of title insurance that was subsequently found to be in error;
    4. Mortgagee instituted the statutory foreclosure in good faith without knowledge of unrecorded debt on the subject property;
    5. Mortgagee instituted the statutory foreclosure in good faith without knowledge of assessments, taxes, or liens filed against the subject property subsequent to the final policy of title insurance being issued; or
    6. Mortgage is reinstated under § 18-50-114.

Implications:
The Act 306 amends the Arkansas Code concerning statutory foreclosures by introducing a new section that allows a mortgagor to recover reasonable attorney's fees under specific circumstances. According to the new provision, a mortgagor can seek these fees if a court sets aside a statutory foreclosure sale due to the mortgagee's failure to comply with relevant legal provisions.

The new legal language added to the Arkansas Code includes the specific criteria for fee recovery and the exceptions that would prevent such recovery. This amendment aims to clarify the rights of mortgagors in foreclosure situations and provides a means to recover legal costs when appropriate.However, the Act also provides important protections for mortgagees. Attorney’s fees cannot be awarded if the mortgagor and mortgagee reach a mutual resolution, if the mortgagor files for bankruptcy during the foreclosure process, or if the mortgagee acted in good faith—for instance, by relying on title insurance or lacking knowledge of specific liens or debts, or if the mortgagor reinstates.
​

The statute specifically sets out that the fees are permissive, not mandatory, by statute. It would be within a Court’s discretion as to whether to award said fees to the mortgagor(s). We encourage a review of internal and external processes for compliance with the provisions of AR Code § 18-50-101 et seq., AR Code § 18-50-117 to avoid an award of attorney’s fees under the new statute.

​Questions? Contact [email protected]

New Tennessee Law Impacts Foreclosure Publications and Notices in Print and Online, Takes Effect July 1, 2025

5/30/2025

 
PLG’s Tennessee Practice is prepared to launch new post and pub process ahead of new law effective date
On May 21, 2025, Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee signed into law the Tennessee Foreclosure Modernization Act (H.B. 1127/S.B. 0727). The law takes effect on July 1, 2025, and impacts foreclosure publications and notices in the state commencing on or after that date. Foreclosures already in the process of publication under the current rules, prior to July 1, 2025, will not be subject to these requirements. 
After July 1, 2025, the newspaper publication requirements for foreclosures in Tennessee will be reduced from the current three-week requirement to two weeks. All other print publication requirements remain the same, which include that “the foreclosure advertisement must be made at least two times in a newspaper published in the county where the sale is to be made” and that “the initial publication in a newspaper be at least 20 days prior to the sale”.
In an effort to further modernize and increase access to foreclosure notices, newspaper publications must now also “identify the website of the third-party internet posting company that posts the advertisement”. The new law requires an online posting of the foreclosure notice through a third-party internet posting company, which shall generally run concurrently with the newspaper publication, for “at least 20 continuous days” and “be publicly viewable to general internet users.”   

#PADGETTPREPARED
​

PLG is fully equipped to implement the requirements and process changes impacted by the new law. Prior to July 1, 2025, PLG’s Tennessee practice will be fully compliant with the new state requirements.
Review new TN code
​Questions? Contact [email protected]

The Nuances of Notice: A Florida Bankruptcy Court clarifies the notice requirements under Rule 3002.

5/22/2025

 
On April 10, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida held that “the notice” in Rule 3002(c)(7) means the actual notice of the deadline to file a proof of claim and not notice in general of the case. In re Aguilar and Maldonado, 0:24-bk-21304 ECF No. 42 (Bankr S.D. Fla. April 10, 2024).
​
In October 2022, husband Yasmani Figueredo Aguilar and wife Farideth Aimee Maldonado each took out separate unsecured personal loans from Primis Bank—$40,000 for Yasmani and $55,000 for Farideth. Primis assigned both loans to Cadles of West Virginia LLC on June 5, 2024, and Cadles (through its servicing affiliate, The Cadle Company) sent debt-ownership and collection notices to the couple that August and again in September.

Read More

A Day in the Life of a Real Estate Closing Assistant: Meet the Dynamic Duo of Padgett Law Group!

4/8/2025

 
Hello, future homeowners and real estate enthusiasts!

Ever wondered what really goes on behind the scenes of a real estate closing? Spoiler alert: It’s not just a high-five and a handshake! It’s a finely tuned, well-oiled process of paperwork, coordination, and yes, a little bit of magic to make sure everything goes off without a hitch.
Enter me, the Real Estate Closing Assistant and my trusty partner, the Real Estate Closing Officer, here at Padgett Law Group. Together, we’re the dynamic duo of the real estate world. While the world watches closings happen smoothly, we’re the ones working behind the scenes to ensure that when it’s time to sign, everything’s picture-perfect!

Read More

Washington Appellate Court: Bankruptcy Stay Doesn’t Block Rule 11 Sanctions

3/24/2025

 
In the case of Nguyen v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 562 P.3d 384 (attached), the Washington Court of Appeals determined that a debtor's bankruptcy filing does not provide immunity from Rule 11 sanctions. 

Nguyen initiated a baseless lawsuit to prevent foreclosure, despite having previously faced a dismissal with prejudice. In response, the loan servicer requested sanctions, which the court approved, resulting in the award of attorneys' fees. 

On appeal, Nguyen contended that the sanctions infringed upon the automatic bankruptcy stay; however, the court identified an exception under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), which permits the enforcement of regulatory authority. 

This decision underscores that bankruptcy protections do not serve as a defense against bad-faith litigation, at least within the jurisdiction of Washington.

This post was prepared by Hadi Seyed-Ali, Esq.

Enhanced Security Measures for PACER Case Locator: Last Name Now Required for SSN Searches

2/10/2025

 
In a significant move to bolster privacy and security, the U.S. Court system has announced an update to the PACER Case Locator system. Starting December 8th, 2024, users will be required to include a party's last name for all Social Security Number (SSN) searches on the PACER Case Locator. This new requirement is part of the judiciary’s efforts to prevent identity theft and unauthorized access to sensitive information.

Why the Change?
Previously, users could perform searches on the PACER Case Locator system using just a SSN. While this was convenient, it also posed a risk of abuse, enabling bad actors to conduct random SSN searches and potentially access private information. The new requirement to pair the SSN with a last name significantly reduces the likelihood of such misuse, protecting the millions of individuals who have filed for bankruptcy or are otherwise included in the court records.

What is Changing?
  • New Search Requirement: Effective December 8th, 2024, users must input both a last name and a SSN to perform a search on the PACER Case Locator.
  • Enhanced Privacy: This change ensures that even if someone obtains a SSN, they cannot easily use the PACER system to look up associated court records without knowing the individual’s last name.
  • Security Boost: The change reflects a commitment to safeguarding personal information and aligns with broader efforts to improve digital security across government systems.

​Benefits of the Update
  1. Improved Identity Theft Prevention: By eliminating the possibility of random SSN searches, the system becomes more secure against unauthorized access.
  2. Greater Trust in the System: People can feel more confident that their personal information is being handled with enhanced care.
  3. Alignment with Privacy Standards: This update keeps pace with modern expectations for data privacy and responsible information management.

​Conclusion
This security enhancement is a vital step in protecting sensitive information and fostering trust in the PACER Case Locator system. By requiring both a last name and a SSN for searches, the court system is making it harder for identity theft to occur while maintaining access to essential records for authorized users.

This blog post was prepared by attorney Seth Greenhill, Esq.. Seth is a Supervising Attorney of Bankruptcy with PLG. He is based out of the firm’s Tampa, Florida office and oversees the firm’s eleven-state bankruptcy footprint practice and litigated bankruptcy matters.

Questions? Contact [email protected]
<<Previous
    PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
    ​The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog.  Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. 
HOME
ABOUT
PRACTICE AREAS
CAREERS
CONTACT US
Picture
Picture

Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • NEW JERSEY
    • ALABAMA
    • MISSISSIPPI
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US
  • HOME
  • ABOUT PADGETT
    • THE DIFFERENCE
    • AFFILIATIONS
  • STATES OF SERVICE
    • FLORIDA
    • GEORGIA
    • TENNESSEE
    • ARKANSAS
    • TEXAS
    • OHIO
    • INDIANA
    • PENNSYLVANIA
    • NEW JERSEY
    • ALABAMA
    • MISSISSIPPI
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • NATIONAL
    • FORECLOSURE
    • BANKRUPTCY
    • REGULATORY AFFAIRS
    • LITIGATION
    • REO, TITLE, & EVICTIONS
    • CLOSINGS
  • PLG NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CLOSINGS
  • CONTACT US