Advanced Pleadings Search

The complaint asserts causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code §1782 et seq.; the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welf. & Inst. Code §15600, et seq.; the Home Solicitation Sales Act, Civ. Code §1689.5 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code §7150 et seq.; and the Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq. against both Appellants and a cause of action for violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civ. Code §1788 et seq.

Plaintiff alleges that it did not agree to Security Procedures of bank sufficient to shift liability for unauthorized wire transfers.

Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers under California UCC Article 4A. Consumer alleges that bank failed to establish and/or follow a commercially reasonable security procedure.

Consumer liability for unauthorized transfers under Virginia UCC Article 4A. Consumer alleges that it did not agree to any security procedure sufficient to shift liability to consumer.

This is an answer and affirmative defenses in an foreclosure on a reverse mortgage after the death of one spouse, where the remaining spouse demands proof that the plaintiff is the holder of the reverse mortgage, and alleging that the HECM mortgage was consummated without the required HECM counseling, that the foreclosure was initiated with improper loss mitigation or servicing, and that the plaintiff had unclean hands and initiated foreclosure without complying with a condition precedent.

This is a proposed order of dismissal of a lender foreclosure action on a HECM reverse mortgage relating to non-payment of property charges, where the applied for, and was granted, an “AT RISK” extension of the foreclosure deadlines.  The order sets out that the effect of the AT RISK extension is that the lender will not proceed on the foreclosure for one year and the extension continues thereafter so long as, prior to the expiration of the one-year extension, the homeowner certifies that she continues to meet the criteria for the extension.

This is an action in Pennsylvania state court seeking the court clerk to put a residential foreclosure case into deferred status due to the homeowner’s status as an “At Risk” mortgagor under HECM regulations.

This is a 2018 New Jersey state court summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss a judicial foreclosure action concerning a reverse mortgage because HUD had granted an at risk foreclosure extension.  The motion was filed by Legal Services of New Jersey.

This is motion to set aside a default judgment on a Florida foreclosure action and sale concerning unpaid property taxes and insurance on a reverse mortgage. The excusable neglect is based on the homeowner’s age and cognitive difficulties. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is a brief in opposition to a lender’s attempt to strike the homeowner’s defenses and dismiss the homeowner’s UDAP and ECOA counterclaims in a Florida action involving the foreclosure of a reverse mortgage for alleged failure to pay property taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an answer and defenses to a Connecticut action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance where the lender breached the payment plan that had been agreed upon.  The Connecticut Fair Housing Center drafted the pleadings.

This is a homeowner’s first request for documents from a reverse mortgage lender in a Florida action to foreclose on the home for non-payment of taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is a Florida homeowner’s first request for documents from a reverse mortgage lender in a Florida action to foreclose on the home for non-payment of taxes or insurance. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an answer and defenses to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance where the defenses are based on the lender’s failure to comply with servicing requirements and failure to show it has standing to foreclose. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an answer and defenses to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance where the defenses are based on the lender’s failure to comply with servicing requirements and failure to show it has standing to foreclose. Counterclaims include UDAP and ECOA age discrimination and adverse action notice violations. Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

This is an amended answer, defenses and counterclaims to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage where there was confusion as to the amount owed on a separate line of credit that was used to pay insurance.  The defenses are based on estoppel, the lender’s failure to comply with HECM servicing requirements, substantial performance, and unclean hands. Counterclaims include violation the state debt collection, ECOA violations for age discrimination and failure to properly send adverse action notices, malicious prosecution, and slander of title.

This is an amended counterclaims to a Florida action to foreclose on a reverse mortgage for failure to pay property taxes and insurance.  Counterclaims include UDAP and FDCPA claims against the servicer.  Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Legal Aid drafted the pleadings.

These are jury instructions in a 2015 federal case in the Southern District of Florida concerning violations of the federal CROA statute, the Florida credit services organization act, and where the consumer also sought to pierce a corporate veil.

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s Opposed Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal of the borrower-defense and closed-school provisions of a “Rule” governing student loan discharges, 87 Fed. Reg. 65904 (Nov. 1, 2022), is GRANTED.

Maine Attorney Thomas Cox representing the homeowner in a foreclosure case sent discovery to Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, as trustees for a trust holding the consumer's mortgage. The response from the trustee's attorney objected to much of the discovery.

Brief supporting an EFTA claim for an unauthorized transfer between two of the consumer's accounts followed by a wire transfer. The brief rebuts the argument that the internal transfer was not unauthorized under the definition of 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(12) and Reg. E, 12 C.F.R. § 1005.2(m) because the consumer received a benefit and because the wire transfer was a separate transaction that had to be analyzed independently.

This is a 2021 state court complaint alleging that, in a rent-a-bank situation, the credit agreements with an out-of-state bank did not comply with Wisconsin's non-interest rate regulation of consumer credit.  Although not stated in the complaint, the bank could not rely on Riegle-Neal preemption as to Wisconsin non-interest rate regulation because TAB Bank had no branches in Wisconsin.  As a result, it had to comply with Wisconsin non-interest rate regulation and not that of its home state regulation.  The case was removed to federal court and the federal case resulted

Expert Witness report from a case alleging that high-cost closed-end mortgage was disguised as open-end credit (a home equity line of credit, or HELOC) to take advantage of less strenuous TILA disclosure rules. Expert report analyzes the factors for detecting spurious open-end credit. (Note, this expert testimony was not allowed by the trial judge, who deemed it to be an opinion on a conclusion of law rather than a factual issue. However, the analysis applied here may be helpful for attorneys in framing this argument in your cases.)
 

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps or Palos Hills, Illinois, and Bradform Botes of Birmingham, Alabama on September 22, 2023,  in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging FDCPA violations involving failure to report that a debt is disputed (1692e(8)), and unfair or unconscionable collection actions (1692f).  The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills on August 31, 2023,  in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging FDCPA violations involving failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), and communicating with a consumer represented by counsel (1692c(a)(2)). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills and John Steinkamp of Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 13, 2023,  in the Southern District of Indiana alleging FDCPA violations involving demanding a debt not owed (1692e), failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), communicating with a consumer represented by counsel (1692c(a)(2)), and harassment or abuse (692d(2). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint  filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills on August 9, 2023,  in the Northern  District of Illinois alleging FDCPA violations involving  failure to cease collections of a dispute debt without providing validation (1692g(b)), failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), false, misleading and deceptive statements (1692e),, and harassing or abusive practices (1692d). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is an FDCPA second amended complaint filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC ss. 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.

This is an FDCPA case filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.  The verdict is for $1000 statutory damages and $210,000 compensatory damages.

This is a declaration by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia concerning various grounds he has witnessed the American Arbitration Association use to refuse to arbitrate a case based on a business's conduct: failing to pay filing fees, failing to register the arbitration agreement, using an arbitration agreement that does not meet the AAA's due process protocols, and the business's conduct in past AAA arbitrations.

This proposed order by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in 2023 in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia requests that the case be stayed pending arbitration by the American Arbitration Association, that the court retain jurisdiction in the case, and that the parties be required to participate in the arbitration. The attorney was concerned that the defendant would not participate in the arbitration or that for other reasons the AAA would dismiss the case based on the defendant's conduct.

This memorandum by Florida attorney Robert Murphy filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia requests that the case not be dismissed because of an arbitration requirement, but rather that the case be stayed pending arbitration by the American Arbitration Association, and that the court retain jurisdiction. The attorney was concerned that the defendant would not participate in the arbitration or that for other reasons the AAA would dismiss the case based on the defendant's conduct. In that case, the consumer seeks to be able to return to court to

This letter is a formal demand for damages due to violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq., and various North Carolina laws, including, but not limited to, common law negligence and violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices statute (“UDAP”), N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1, et seq.

Motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (over loan modification review procedures) Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. June 13, 2012 WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Motion to compel answers to request for production of documents, including loan modification data and servicer’s training material, Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D. Ill) Aug. 24, 2012) and Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Documents,  Oct. 2012 WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Opposition to motion to dismiss Complaint alleging failure to implement loan modification, raising breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, and UDAP against servicer and loan owner. D. Mass. Jan. 2014. Hannigan v Bank of America Feb. 2014 HANNIGAN and Hannigan, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7, Defendant., 2014 WL 8388851 (D.Mass.) detailed facts, perm mod, 93A and negligence, contract.

Appellate briefs addressing HAMP TPP class action claims under state UDAP and FDCPA statutes, breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Corvello and Lucia v. Wells Fargo
Appellant’s Main Brief  9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2012 and Appellant’s Reply Brief May 23, 2012.  LUCIA and Lucia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Does 1 through 10, Defendants., 2010 WL 4271748 (N.D.Cal.) 9th Cir various HAMP claims, class action
 

Appellate briefs addressing HAMP TPP class action claims under state UDAP and FDCPA statutes, breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Corvello and Lucia v. Wells Fargo
Appellant’s Main Brief  9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2012 and Appellant’s Reply Brief May 23, 2012.  Karen LUCIA and Jeffrey Lucia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Does 1 through 10, Defendants., 2010 WL 4271748 (N.D.Cal.) 9th Cir various HAMP claims, class action
 

Appellate briefs addressing trustee’s duty of good faith in foreclosing, UDAP claims, U.S.  Bank NA v Lyons  Washington Supreme Court, Main Brief Oct. 2013; Amicus Brief of Northwest Consumer Law Center & Northwest Justice Project  filed April 25, 2014.

Second Amended Class Action Complaint to enforce loan modification agreements, raising contract, good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel and UDAP claims. Bosque v Wells Fargo D. Mass.  Aug. 17, 2010  

Similar claims: 
Bosque v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762 F Supp 2d 342 [D Mass 2011] breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, UDAP Class action, extensive Westlaw pleadings and memos.
 

Class action complaint raising HAMP TPP claims under state UDAP and FDCPA laws, contract, good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Lucia v. Wells Fargo Oct. 2010  (joined with Corvello in 9th Circuit appeal with favorable decision) LUCIA and Lucia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Does 1 through 10, Defendants., 2010 WL 4271748 (N.D.Cal.) 9th Cir various HAMP claims, class action.