Cole v. MidFirst Bank

In December 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled on Cole v. MidFirst Bank. The plaintiff, Cole, faced foreclosure and submitted a loss mitigation application to MidFirst Bank. She alleged the bank engaged in dual tracking by proceeding with a foreclosure sale while her application was still pending, violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). She also raised claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Oklahoma law. The court dismissed the FDCPA claim because MidFirst Bank was acting as a creditor, not a debt collector. On the RESPA claim, the court held that Cole failed to prove actual economic damages, which are required for statutory damages, but permitted her claim for injunctive relief to proceed. The decision highlighted the procedural hurdles homeowners face in seeking damages from mortgage servicers.

The court granted in part and denied in part MidFirst Bank's motion for summary judgment. The FDCPA claim was dismissed with prejudice. The RESPA claim for monetary damages was dismissed due to lack of actual damages, but the request for injunctive relief under RESPA and the related state law claims were allowed to proceed.

Whether a mortgage servicer's failure to comply with RESPA's prohibition on dual tracking entitles a borrower to damages absent proof of actual economic harm; whether a bank originating and servicing its own loan qualifies as a debt collector under the FDCPA.

The ruling reinforced the significant evidentiary burden on borrowers to show actual financial loss to recover statutory damages under RESPA, even when procedural violations like dual tracking occur. It clarified the creditor exemption under the FDCPA for banks collecting their own debts, while acknowledging that non-monetary remedies remain available for servicer misconduct, influencing subsequent foreclosure litigation strategies.