S.M. v. M.M.-M.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[a] loan modification is a contractual issue, not a servicing matter,” and therefore does not constitute a qualified written request
• rejecting a Section 2605(k)(1)(C) claim because the plaintiff did not raise any dispute as to any particular payment, only the terms of the payments
• distinguishing Naimoli and concluding that “correspondence limited to the dispute of contractual issues that do not relate to the servicing of the loan, such as loan modification applications” were not covered under RESPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).