Gresham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Gresham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 642 F. App'x 355 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished)
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Decided
- 2016-03-21
- Docket
- 15-40748
What happened
Mr. Gresham claimed his servicer violated the federal "dual tracking" rule by moving toward foreclosure while he sought help.
What the court decided
The Fifth Circuit held that the dual-tracking protection in 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(g) applies only when the servicer receives a complete loss-mitigation application more than 37 days before the sale, and he had not shown that.
In the court's words
“a servicer receives a complete loss mitigation application more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale”
Why it may matter to you
Timing is everything. Send a COMPLETE application early — more than 37 days before the sale — and keep proof of the date it was received.
Why it might not apply
Unpublished. The regulation has other protections (acknowledgment within 5 business days, evaluation within 30 days) that may apply.
Most useful when
- You are counting on a loss-mitigation application to pause a sale
How to cite it
The full citation for the first time you mention it, a short form for later, and a sample sentence you can adapt.
Gresham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 642 F. App'x 355 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished)Short formGresham, 642 F. App'x 355Draft — check it with free legal aid before you file or say it in court.
In Gresham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 642 F. App'x 355 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished), the court held that the federal dual-tracking bar applies only when the servicer receives a complete loss-mitigation application more than 37 days before the foreclosure sale. Here, [say in one sentence what happened in your case]
Ask Techy about this case
Techy explains the case in plain words, why it may matter to you, its limits, and how to prepare. It only uses this case record.
Related cases
- Homeowner lostPersuasive
Lage v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
839 F.3d 1003 · Decided 2016
The borrowers submitted a loss-mitigation application two days before a scheduled sale. The sale was later postponed, and they argued the servicer then had to evaluate it.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding in federal court
Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
594 F. App'x 833 · Decided 2014
The Whittiers sued the bank and servicers after foreclosure, raising RESPA, Texas Debt Collection Act, DTPA and contract claims.
Read the case - Homeowner lostBinding in federal court
Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
722 F.3d 249 · Decided 2013
Mr. Martins refinanced his Texas home, later fell behind, and the servicer foreclosed. He argued the servicer could not foreclose without holding the original note, that he never got notice of the sale, and that the servicer had orally agreed to modify his loan.
Read the case