Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Financial Services

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The trial court abused its discretion in denying a prevailing plaintiff attorney fees since the defendant’s initial settlement offer (which the plaintiff rejected) did not comply with section 998. Read More

Trial court properly declined to certify a class in putative wage and hour class action brought by property inspectors because even though common questions predominated, the plaintiffs' proposed trial plan of proving liability by means of an expert's testimony based on a double-blind survey he conducted of a random sample of class members was unmanageable, inadequate, and unfair. Read More

When a trial court applies a substantial negative multiplier to a presumptively accurate lodestar attorney fee amount, the court must clearly explain its case-specific reasons for the percentage reduction, and the trial court abuses its discretion if the reasons for the reduction include tying the fee award to some proportion of the buyer’s damages. Read More

The statute of limitations for rescission enforcement actions under the Truth in Lending Act is the state law limitations period for suit on a written contract—six years in Washington, four years in California. Read More

A new owner that succeeds to rights under an existing lease must disclose information about itself within 15 days of succeeding to the prior owner and may not serve a three-day notice to quit based on rent that fell due during any period of noncompliance by the successor owner with that requirement, but this rule does not apply to a… Read More

Plaintiff borrowers declaration that he did not recall receiving thirty or more telephone calls with servicer prior to recordation of a notice of default on his mortgage loan did not suffice to create a triable issue of fact as to whether those contacts had taken place since he did not deny that they happened. Read More

Plaintiff homeowner stated a viable wrongful foreclosure claim against mortgage loan servicer who told plaintiff that it would not accept plaintiff's offer to reinstate the loan, even though the offer was made more than 5 business days before the trustee's sale. Read More

Section 9 of the standard-form deed of trust, which allows the lender to take steps to preserve its interest in the property (including defending litigation) and charge the cost of doing so to the borrower, is in the nature of an indemnity provision under which the lender could add its litigation expenses to the principal debt secured by the deed… Read More

There is no private right of action for a violation of Bus. & Prof. Code 9884.9, which requires car repair facilities to provide the customer a written estimate and obtain written customer approval before beginning repairs on a car. Read More

While a title isn't normally supposed to be an issue in an unlawful detainer action, under the Ellis Act the trial court should have considered relevant evidence of the landlord's phony sale of another unit in considering the landlord's intent to withdraw the building from the rental market (or not). Read More

Washington's unlawful detainer statute violates due process insofar as it permits summary issuance of a writ of restitution without hearing if the landlord claims non-payment of rent and the tenant fails to file a timely, sworn written statement in dispute. Read More

A tenant was entitled to judgment in this unlawful detainer action because the landlord’s 3-day notice to quit included in the sum demanded to cure the rent default a $50 late fee and the landlord failed to prove at trial the fee was not an illegal penalty. Read More

A homeowner should have been allowed to amend his complaint to allege that the party foreclosing on his house lacked any interest in his loan since that the prior owner of the loan had already assigned it to someone else before executing the assignment to the foreclosing party. Read More

In a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, statutory damages are limited to the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the defendant's net worth, and the net worth calculation is the plaintiff’s burden to prove just as all the other elements are. Read More

The Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is not unconstitutionally vague merely because some types of consumer reports fall within its scope as well as within the scope of the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and an employer seeking any information about a consumer other than creditworthiness can easily comply with both statutes simply by complying with the stricter requirements of… Read More

1 3 4 5 6 7 10