In a case we have posted on before, plaintiffs lost the battle over whether their RESPA claims alleging a kickback scheme against private mortgage insurers and mortgage lenders’ captive insurers were equitably tolled. The court concluded, in a summary judgment setting, that plaintiffs did not diligently pursue their claims because they did not decide to engage in litigation until they were approached by attorneys who believed they had claims. Additionally, there was no reason plaintiffs could not have earlier discovered their claims because there were a number of cases alleging identical schemes filed years prior to plaintiffs’ closings. The court also concluded that defendants did not actively mislead plaintiffs because “[p]laintiffs’ argument – that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because Defendants failed to disclose they were violating RESPA – is unpersuasive” and “circular.” Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 12-1740 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2013).
This post written by Abigail Kortz.
See our disclaimer.