Seterus PMI Termination Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

Members of the Seterus PMI Termination Class Action Settlement include “all borrowers in Illinois, Indiana, who, between October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2016: (1) had Modified Loans serviced by Seterus; (2) qualified for automatic termination of their PMI based on the Original Value; and (3) paid PMI premiums after they qualified for automatic termination based on the Original Value.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Estimated Award

  • Varies

Class members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement will receive a check for 68% of the PMI premiums they paid between the actual date on which PMI terminated and the date on which PMI would have terminated based on the Original Value.


Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

  • N/A

Seterus PMI Termination Settlement Notes

  • Ciolino v. Seterus, Inc.
  • Case No. 15-cv-9247
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

In October 2015, plaintiff Patrick Ciolino filed this class action lawsuit alleging that Seterus incorrectly calculated the automatic termination date of PMI for homeowners whose loans has previously been modified. Specifically, Ciolino contends that Seterus calculations were based on the value of the property at the later of the loan’s origination, the most recent refinance (Original Value). These actions, the lawsuit claims, are in direct violation of the federal Homeowner’s Protection Act.

According to court documents, Seterus used a computer program which calculated new PMI automatic termination formulas using a modified property value, instead of the original property value, but never disclosed this fact to Ciolino or other impacted borrowers, up until October, 2016, when it changed its practices. In Ciolino’s case, that resulted in the PMI automatic termination date being extended from late 2013 to March, 2023!

The lawsuit goes on to state that Seterus never informed Ciolino of the new PMI automatic termination date, and Seterus never provided him with a new amortization schedule after his loan was modified. When he complained that he was still being charged PMI in the summer of 2015, Seterus informed him he had to wait until the “estimated midpoint” of his loan, or pay a $350 appraisal fee in order to prove Seterus was obligated to terminate his PMI. It did not provide him with any information regarding the new PMI automatic termination date for his loan, nor did it inform him how it was calculating that date.

“On information and belief, based on industry practice, Seterus has a financial incentive to continue the PMI on plaintiff’s loan because it receives a portion of the premium and it desires the protection provided by PMI to lenders,” the complaint reads.

Seterus denies the allegations and says they no longer uses the Modified Value to calculate automatic PMI termination unless the use of the Modified Value is a condition of the applicable loan modification agreement. Complete details are provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and other related documents are available on the Seterus PMI Termination Settlement website.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves or object to the terms of the Seterus PMI Termination Settlement must do so in writing; your request must be postmarked by April 3, 2018 and received by the Settlement Administrator by April 13, 2018. Class members who wish to receive a payment do not need to do anything.


Important Dates

  • 4/3/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 5/10/18: Final Hearing at 9:30 am CT* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.PMITerminationSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.


Contact Information

  • Mail: First Class, Inc./ J13710-Ciolino, 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd., Ste. 222, Chicago, Illinois 60644-1490
  • Phone: 1-844-452-7994
  • Email: info@edcombs.com (Class Counsel)

Class Counsel


Settlement Website

Seterus Accused of Making Thousands of Unsolicited Debt Collection Calls

A Pennsylvania woman has initiated a putative class action lawsuit against loan servicing and debt collection company Seterus made repeated unsolicited debt collection calls to alleged debtors in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from autodialed calls to their cells phones. Specifically, the law prohibits the use of automatic telephone dialing systems and artificial voice messages if the recipient does not give consent to receive such calls, including unsolicited debt collection calls.

But plaintiff Sandra Corrigan says in August 2017, she began receiving unsolicited debt collection calls from Seterus to her cell phone regarding the attempted collection from her of unpaid mortgage payments that her daughter was allegedly behind on. Upon answering the unsolicited debt collection calls, Corrigan noticed a slight pause before being connected to a live agent. This artificially long pause is indicative of the caller using an automatic telephone dialing system or ATDS to place the calls.

According to the TCPA class action lawsuit, Corrigan requested Seterus stop making these unsolicited debt collection calls to her cell phone and explained the caller was calling the wrong person. However, she says that Seterus persisted to make calls to Corrigan’s cell phone at least 25 more times.

Corrigan claims she is not the only consumer who has had to deal with these harassing unsolicited debt collection calls. She asserts that Seterus placed and continues to place repeated and harassing autodialed phone calls for the purpose of debt collection to thousands of consumers’ cell phones for which consumers never provided Seterus with prior express consent to be called. Worse yet, Corrigan says Seterus made these unsolicited debt collection calls to the cell phones of individuals who owed no debt to Seterus whatsoever and who were not delinquent of any of their loan – all in violation of the TCPA.

“Seterus made these calls despite the fact that neither Plaintiff nor the putative members of the Class ever provided Seterus with their prior express written consent to be called,” the lawsuit states.

Instead, the TCPA class action lawsuit contends that Seterus uses skip tracing, a system which reveals that the call recipient has some connection to the actual debtors. These connections could include being a relative or roommate, but also include cell phone numbers once used by the actual debtor, but that no longer belong to that person. Additionally, Seterus’ calls utilized interactive voice recognition technology, known as a predictive dialer, in which a machine places calls, and when a consumer answers the phone, there is a noticeable pause prior to being connected to a live representative of Seterus.

Corrigan is seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who received a telephone call on their cell phone from Seterus from 2013 to the present and for which Seterus had no record of prior express written consent. The TCPA class action lawsuit is requesting actual and statutory damages as well as an injunction requiring Seterus to stop all “unsolicited calling activities”.

Corrigan and the proposed class are represented by David S. Senoff of Anapol Weiss, Benjamin H. Richman of Edelson PC, and Stefan Coleman of The Law Offices of Stefan Coleman PA.

The Seterus Unsolicited Debt Collection Calls Class Action Lawsuit is Sandra Corrigan, et al. v. Seterus, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02348-RDM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.