Munoz v. PHH Corp. Settlement
Up to $875
What happened
PHH and its affiliates allegedly violated laws prohibiting kickback payments in connection with mortgage settlement services. Class members purchased private mortgage insurance that was included in PHH's captive mortgage reinsurance agreements. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing, and the parties agreed to settle to avoid further litigation.
Do you qualify?
Anyone who obtained a residential mortgage loan originated and/or acquired by PHH and its affiliates between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, and purchased private mortgage insurance included within PHH's captive mortgage reinsurance agreements. This includes successors, heirs, and assignees of such persons.
How to file
Complete and submit a valid Claim Form by mail (postmarked by August 11, 2026) or online through the File a Claim page (by August 11, 2026). Download the Claim Form from the Important Documents page and mail it to the Settlement Administrator, or submit it directly online.
New to class actions?
This summary was generated from public settlement documents and may contain errors. Confirm eligibility, deadlines, and payment terms on the official settlement website before filing. ClaimWatch is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Filing a claim is free.
More finance settlements
View all →Robinhood Order Flow Settlement
Robinhood allegedly routed customer market orders for equities in a manner that resulted in execution prices worse than the National Best Bid/Offer. Customers' buy orders were executed at prices higher than the best available offer, and sell orders were executed at prices lower than the best available bid. Robinhood denies all allegations of liability or wrongdoing.
Up to $17.60
80/20 ERISA Settlement
The 80/20 Employee Stock Ownership Plan was allegedly administered and terminated by the Defendants in violation of ERISA (the federal law regulating private retirement plans). The lawsuit also involved claims that certain other defendants knowingly participated in these ERISA violations. Defendants deny all claims and admit no fault or liability.
Surplus Proceeds Settlement
When 27 Michigan counties foreclosed on properties for tax nonpayment, they sold the properties at auction and kept the difference between the taxes owed and the sales proceeds. The lawsuit alleged that the counties violated property owners' rights by retaining these "surplus proceeds" without distributing them to the former owners.
Class members can generally recover 125 percent of their properties' surplus proceeds, minus any attorneys' fees and costs. This number is subject to certain potential adjustments.
Clackamas County Tax Foreclosure Settlement
Clackamas County allegedly failed to provide owners with proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales that exceeded unpaid taxes and fees, or retained foreclosed properties worth more than the tax debt without compensation. The county denies wrongdoing and has settled to avoid costly litigation and address liability from the Supreme Court's Tyler v. Hennepin County decision.
Settlement Payments of "surplus proceeds"