| Volume 111 Number 3 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
Are you having a dispute with your Homeowner's Association over a small amount of money? Disputing it could cost you a lot in attorney’s fees and interest if you continue to fight. On the other hand, if you pay it “under protest” you can then sue in justice court to get your money back. This is a good way to get your dispute heard by a judge, without adding to your costs. Make sure your payment is clearly marked, paid under protest.
Click here for more.
CFPB and State of Maryland File Suit Against Mortgage Loan Officers and Title Company for Kickbacks
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State of Maryland sued Mortgage Loan Officers and Genuine Title, LLC over illegal kickbacks from the title company to the loan officers for referring mortgage closings to the title company without consumer’s knowledge. CFPB Director Richard Cordray said that “secret and unlawful payments keep consumers in the dark and put honest businesses at a disadvantage, and the Consumer Bureau will continue to take action against them.”
Click here for more.
Your Money
It seems like the modern consumer is flooded with “important” documents. Between financial statements, bills, pay stubs, insurance and medical documentation, how do you know what to keep and what you can discard? This article has some tips on what to keep and what to toss. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the use of “disparate impact” analysis to find violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). Disparate impact analysis does not require proof of an intent to discriminate, but allows statistical proof that an action results in a disparate impact on a protected group to prove a violation of the law. The State of Texas and private parties had argued that the use of “disparate impact” analysis was illegal because it may require housing authorities to use race as a basis for making decisions in housing subsidies. The Supreme Court held that the FHA as amended by congress clearly contemplated and allowed disparate impact analysis. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (U.S.S.C 2015). Click here for more.