Martin Adams APC has filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a Mohave County homeowner, arising out of the servicing of a residential mortgage loan guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The case is Cooper v. loanDepot.com, LLC, No. CV-26-08177-PCT-KML (D. Ariz.), filed July 26, 2026, and assigned to United States District Judge Krissa M. Lanham.
The plaintiff is the confirmed successor in interest to a deceased borrower. The complaint names the loan's originator and prior servicer, its current servicer, and the national bank that holds the loan as trustee of a securitization trust.
What the case is about
When a borrower on a VA-guaranteed loan dies, federal law gives the person who inherits the property a defined set of protections. A servicer must confirm that person's status as a successor in interest, then treat the successor as a borrower for purposes of the mortgage servicing rules under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Those rules govern how the servicer answers a notice of error, how it evaluates a loss mitigation application, and when it may refer a loan to foreclosure.
The complaint alleges that those protections were not honored. It alleges a months-long delay in confirming successor-in-interest status; the loss of access to VA loss mitigation, including the VA Partial Claim Program, while that delay ran; a loan modification that raised the interest rate and that the plaintiff alleges was not authorized under the VA regulations governing the loan, 38 C.F.R. pt. 36; the placement of lender-placed hazard insurance; and conforming payments held in suspense rather than applied, which the complaint alleges manufactured the default that led to foreclosure.
The claims
The complaint asserts claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, and Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35, 1024.41; the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f; the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521 et seq.; breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligent undertaking under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, as applied to mortgage servicers in Steinberger v. McVey, 234 Ariz. 125 (Ct. App. 2014); and rescission. The action seeks damages and equitable relief.
Why it matters
Successor-in-interest cases sit at the intersection of three bodies of law that are usually litigated separately: the federal servicing rules, the VA guaranty regulations that are incorporated into the loan documents themselves, and state foreclosure law, which in Arizona moves on a short and unforgiving timeline. Families who inherit a home subject to a VA loan often discover the problem only when a notice of trustee's sale arrives, by which point the options have narrowed considerably. The firm is handling the matter in that posture.
Status
All defendants have been served and have appeared. The matter is pending before Judge Lanham. The statements above describe allegations in a complaint. They have not been proven, and the defendants dispute them.
About Martin Adams APC
Martin Adams APC is a California law firm practicing municipal and local government law, real estate, litigation, administrative law, and appellate advocacy, with a developing federal appellate practice. The firm represents public agencies, businesses, and individuals in state and federal courts.
Media contact: Joseph M. Adams, Martin Adams APC, 1 Park Plaza, Suite 600, Irvine, California 92614. Direct (714) 602-4266. jadams@martinadamslaw.com.
This post reports on a filed public court record and is offered for general information. It is not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
