The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that, following the confirmation of a foreclosure sale in Illinois, the only remedy available to a borrower under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was damages, and therefore the one-year limitation period under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) applied and his claims were barred despite the fact that he provided rescission notices within three years of the loan closing, and despite the fact that the parties engaged in back-and-forth communications after the demands were first sent.

Following rulings from other appellate courts in other appellate districts, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently reversed a trial court’s order involuntarily dismissing a mortgagee’s foreclosure against a borrower holding that the mortgagee’s witness from its current mortgage servicer laid a sufficient foundation at trial to admit business records from a prior mortgage servicer necessary to prove a default under Florida’s business records exception to hearsay.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held, in a case of first impression, that “the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from the violation of the automatic stay and in defending the damages award on appeal.”

A copy of the opinion is available at:  Link to Opinion.

O BANCO ESPÍRITO SANTO, S.A. – EM LIQUIDAÇÃO anunciou que o prazo para a apresentação das reclamações de créditos no âmbito do seu processo de liquidação terminará no dia 11 de dezembro de 2017.

O termo do prazo para apresentação de reclamações de crédito é estabelecido em função da última citação de credor no estrangeiro, contando-se 60 dias a partir dessa data. De acordo com o referido comunicado, a mais recente citação conhecida foi efetuada no dia 11 de outubro.

BANCO ESPÍRITO SANTO, S.A. – EM LIQUIDAÇÃO has announced that the time limit for the lodgement of claims under its liquidation proceedings ends on 11 December 2017.

The time limit for lodging claims is set with reference to the last service of notice to a creditor abroad and the 60-day period counted from said date. According to the aforementioned announcement, the last known notice was served on 11 October.

The announcement reserves the possibility of extending the time limit in the event of subsequent services.

The District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, recently reversed the dismissal of a mortgage foreclosure action based on res judicata and the statute of limitations, holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association and its progeny controlled.

In so ruling, the Court confirmed that a second foreclosure action is not barred by the statute of limitations or res judicata where continuing payment defaults occurred within the five years preceding the filing of the second foreclosure action. 

Actualidad Normativa Coordinadora: Rosana Hallett Of counsel de GA_P N .º 212017 2 © Gómez-Acebo & Pombo Abogados, 2017. Todos los derechos reservados. Advertencia legal: Este boletín sólo contiene información general y no se refiere a un supuesto en particular. Su contenido no se puede considerar en ningún caso recomendación o asesoramiento legal sobre cuestión alguna. N.

Current Legislation Coordinator: Rosana Hallett Of counsel of GA_P No . 212017 Current Legislation No . 21 | 2017 2 © Gómez-Acebo & Pombo Abogados, 2017. All rights reserved Disclaimer: This digest is provided for general information purposes only and nothing expressed herein should be construed as legal advice or recommendation. Design and layout: José Á. Rodríguez and Ángela Brea • Translation and adaptation: John Woodger Contents I. Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a debtor corporation’s sole shareholder and third parties who sold real property and services to the sole shareholder could be liable for fraudulent transfers. 

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, recently held that where the beneficiary of a land trust filed a motion to intervene in a foreclosure, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to intervene because the beneficiary filed the motion after the trial court had entered the order confirming the foreclosure sale.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to the Opinion.