Ocwen Financial Corporation; Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc.; and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
On April 20, 2017, the Bureau filed a complaint against mortgage loan servicer Ocwen Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. The Bureau alleges that they used inaccurate and incomplete information to service loans, misrepresented to borrowers that their loans had certain amounts due, illegally foreclosed on homeowners that were performing on agreements on loss mitigation options, failed to adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints, and engaged in other conduct in violation of the CFPA, TILA, FDCPA, RESPA, and Homeowners Protection Act (HPA). On September 5, 2019, the district court rejected the majority of Ocwen’s arguments in its motion to dismiss but required the Bureau to re-plead its allegations, which the Bureau did on October 4, 2019. The case was partially consolidated with a related case against Ocwen brought by the Office of the Attorney General and Office of Financial Regulation for the State of Florida, and the Florida plaintiffs settled their claims against Ocwen. On March 4, 2021, the district court granted in part defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts 1-9 of the Bureau’s First Amended Complaint based on res judicata. On April 19, 2021, the Bureau filed a Second Amended Complaint that dropped Count 10 of its First Amended Complaint and limited the claims set forth in Counts 1 through 9 to allegations of violations for the time period of January 2014 through February 26, 2017. On April 21, 2021, in light of the Bureau’s recently filed Second Amended Complaint, the district court entered a Final Judgment in favor of the defendants. The Bureau filed a notice of appeal the same day.
On April 6, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit held that the parties intended to preclude new challenges to conduct covered by the parties’ prior 2013 settlement agreement’s servicing standard, monitoring, and enforcement regime. It vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further analysis of the Bureau’s claims and the parties’ prior 2013 settlement agreement. The case remains pending.