James Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a set of plaintiffs failed to state a § 392.304(a)(8) claim in part because the plaintiffs were “always aware” that they were in default
• holding that plaintiffs did not qualify as consumers because their complaint was based on “a pure loan transaction”— modification of the original loan, “an entirely separate and distinct transaction, sought after the purchase of the house was complete” (citations omitted)
• holding mortgage servicers are debt collectors under Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
• discussing an exception where a plaintiff alleges that the mortgagee “deliberately ‘chilled’ the bidding at the foreclosure sale”
• relying on Fix and Ford to hold that borrowers seeking modification of existing loan did not qualify as consumers who could bring a DTPA cause of action
• finding for purposes of dismissal under federal rule 12(b)(6), home-loan debtors asserting section 392.304(a) claim did not allege they were misled by loan assignee-as loan servicer-as to character, extent, amount, or status of debt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).