PRMI Ordered To Pay $20M For Defaults

Mike Savino

Feb 10, 2023

Lawsuit stems from 2008 financial crisis.

Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. has a legal bill of more than $20 million after losing its fight over defaulted mortgages.

The lawsuit stems from mortgages PRMI sold to Residential Funding Co. (RFC) ahead of the 2008 financial crash.

RFC then securitized the loans, but when they defaulted, the trusts that bought the securities sued.

RFC went bankrupt, filing a Chapter 11 petition to reorganize its finances in 2012, and as part of the reorganization plan, RESCAP liquidating trust was created to go after lenders like PRMI for damages.

In 2020, a judge sided with RESCAP and ruled that PRMI was responsible for $5.4 million for defaulted loans, and another $16.6 million in various legal costs. An appellate judge in Minnesota has now upheld that decision.

PRMI says it did not breach the terms of the sale, but the judge ruled that the contract clearly gave RFC sole power to make that determination. That power then transferred to RESCAP.

PRMI also raised several claims that the court would “[i]nvite unfairness, speculation, and false precision" by accepting RESCAP’s calculation of damages.

The appellate judge disagreed, saying RESCAP followed both Minnesota law and past court rulings in coming up with the number.

Primary Residential Mortgage Inc.

Residential Funding Co.

Link copied

Published

Feb 10, 2023

Analysis and Data

Pending Home Sales Grow For 3rd Straight Month

NAR's Pending Home Sales Index rose 0.8% in February.

Pending home sales grew in February for the third straight month, another sign that the housing sector is rebounding, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) said Wednesday. Pending sales grew month over month in three U.S. regions, while they declined in the West. All f...

Regulation and Compliance

MBA: Proposed Rule Would Stifle Securitizations

In letter to SEC, MBA says proposed rule on conflicts of interest is overly broad.

The Mortgage Bankers Association says a rule proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission to prevent conflicts of interest in securitizations is “overly broad” and could inadvertently stifle securitizations. The SEC proposed the rule in January to essentially prevent ...