In re: Ditech Holding Corporation v. Tutt
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-02064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Ditech Holding Corporation; Ray v. Tutt: Judge Woods affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded Ray’s disallowed claim for further proceedings.
James Ray’s claims in the Ditech bankruptcy case: some remained disallowed, while other issues were sent back to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.
What happened
In In re Ditech Holding Corporation; James Ray v. Stacey Tutt, James Ray appealed a Bankruptcy Court order disallowing his claim against Stacey Tutt in the Ditech bankruptcy case.
The District Court affirmed the order as to Ray’s claims under HAMP, TILA, the FDCPA, and RESPA concerning his 2012 loan-modification request. It vacated part of the order and sent the case back so the Bankruptcy Court could consider a RESPA loss-mitigation claim concerning alleged 2016 and 2017 loan-modification attempts, decide whether Ray pleaded a claim under SCUTPA, and decide whether he should be allowed to amend his proof of claim. The court also denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.
Judge Gregory Woods’s ruling left some parts of Ray’s claim disallowed while requiring further Bankruptcy Court proceedings on other issues.
The detailed version
- In re: Ditech Holding Corporation v. Tutt · No. 1:25-cv-02064
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
James Ray appealed a Bankruptcy Court order disallowing his claim in the Ditech Holding Corporation bankruptcy case. Stacey Tutt was the appellee.
Ruling
The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order in part and vacated it in part. The court affirmed the disallowance of Ray’s claims under HAMP, TILA, the FDCPA, and RESPA insofar as those claims concerned his 2012 request for a loan modification.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings. It directed the Bankruptcy Court to consider a claim under RESPA’s loss-mitigation rule concerning Ray’s alleged attempts to apply for a loan modification in 2016 and 2017. It also directed the Bankruptcy Court to determine whether Ray pleaded a claim under SCUTPA and whether Ray should be granted permission to amend his proof of claim.
Other Orders
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The court also requested that counsel for Stacey Tutt provide James Ray with copies of unpublished cases cited in the decision, as required by Local Rule 7.2 of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
Judge Gregory Woods’s underlying memorandum opinion and order was dated November 11, 2025; the judgment was dated November 17, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.