Advanced Pleadings Search

This is the consumers' reply to the defendant's objection to the consumers' request for attorney fees.  The settled case involved a law firm's use of allegedly unfair debt collection practices when it sought to recover its appointed counsel fees from the indigent defendants it was representing in criminal cases.  Among other reasons why the consumers argued for the court to award them significant attorney fees was the novelty of the case.  The consumers raised claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and civil rights statutes, and the reply goes i

This is a 2021 first amended complaint in a class action involving land contracts, filed against Vision Property Management in federal court in Michigan. This action arises out of Vision’s discriminatory targeting of Black homebuyers for abusive credit terms in home purchase transactions. Promising these prospective home buyers the American dream of homeownership, Vision ensnared residents in predominantly Black Detroit-area communities in predatory and discriminatory contracts that were structured to fail.

This is a 2017 second amended complaint against Harbour Portfolio in an action involving land contracts, filed on behalf of a number of African-Americans in federal court in Georgia. The action arises out of Harbour Portfolio’s discriminatory targeting of African-American consumers for abusive credit terms in home purchase “contract for deed” transactions, both by intentional targeting and by utilizing practices that have a foreseeable disparate impact on African-American consumers.

This is a 2019 first amended complaint in a class action involving land contracts, filed against Vision Property Management in New Jersey state court. It argues that the contract is an illegal combination of a lease and a rent-to-own sale of real estate, in which the lease is illegal and the rent-to-own transaction is illegal, deceptive, fraudulent, predatory, and unconscionable. The single document into which they are combined is confusing and internally inconsistent.

This is the first amended complaint in a federal action in Michigan alleging misrepresentation of the terms of residential home sales and financing agreements, failure to disclose hidden credit charges, and conducting business in an unfair and deceptive manner. The complaint alleges deceptive promises of homeownership that lured unsuspecting home buyers into predatory and abusive loans that were designed to fail.

This is a consumer’s motion directed to a mortgage servicer asking the court to deem the consumer’s requests for admission admitted. A separate Pleading and Discovery file is a reply to the servicer’s objection, and a proposed order. These documents address frivolous objections commonly raised by corporate defendants including: the document speaks for itself, the facts are public record and may be easily verified by the requestor, and the request seeks admission of a legal theory rather than a fact. Although filed in state court (Maine) it applies the Fed. R. Civ. P.

This is a reply to the servicer’s objection to the consumer’s request to deem the consumer’s admission requests admitted, and also a proposed order. Another Pleading and Discovery file is the consumer’s motion directed to a mortgage servicer asking the court to deem the consumer’s requests for admission admitted.

Federal Court Complaint Against Land Contract Servicer (Statebridge Company)

Federal Court Complaint Concerning Zombie Debt (Richland & Falkowski)

This is a 2021 federal class action complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning the collection of zombie mortgage debt.

Michigan State Court Complaint Concerning Mortgage Loan Servicing After Loan Modification (Owen)

This is a Michigan state court complaint brought in 2013 by Legal Aid of Western Michigan against Ocwen, a mortgage servicer, for failing to properly service the mortgage loan after a loan modification, including improperly computing the loan balance, improper debt collection practices, and failing to reply timely to a qualified written request.  This complaint was filed by John Smith of Legal Aid of Western Michigan.

This is a 2021 Wisconsin state court complaint against TAB bank for various terms violating Wisconsin law found in the installment sales agreement.  Prohibited terms included waiver of rights to a class action and injunctive remedies, a requirement that Utah law applied, an attorney fee shifting provision, an excessive bad check charge, shortening of the default provisions, and failing to timely provide the consumer with a contract. This complaint was filed by Eric Crandall of the Crandall Law Firm.

Federal Court Complaint Regarding Servicer’s Refusal to Communicate with Widow (J.P. Morgan Chase)

This is a 2013 Massachusetts state court complaint against a mortgage servicer for advising a homeowner in financial difficulty to fall behind on mortgage payments to obtain a loan modification. After obtaining the modification and making payments, the servicer refused to accept the modification and requested that they apply for a new modification.  When the homeowner reapplied, the servicer lost documents, required repeated submission of the same documents, misrepresented the modification status, and then initiated foreclosure.  The complaint was filed by Kulik Law.

West Virginia State Court Complaint for a Predatory Loan and Servicer Refusal to Process Loan Modification (Wells Fargo)

Georgia Federal Court Complaint Concerning Zombie Debt (United Asset Management)

This is a 2017 federal court complaint in the Maine district court concerning a homeowner who was given an unaffordable loan modification and the servicer subsequently misrepresented the homeowner’s eligibility for a further modification that would have been affordable under HAMP.  The claim is that this conduct by the servicer is fraudulent, and violates RESPA and the state UDAP and state credit statutes, and the conduct is.

Massachusetts Federal Court Complaint for Failure to Offer Permanent Loan Modification (Bank of America)

This is a 2014 federal court complaint against a mortgage servicer for failure to provide a permanent HAMP loan modification even though the homeowner successfully completed the HAMP trial loan modification and where the servicer instead initiated a foreclosure.  The case was brought by Culik Law.

This is a 2020 order by a bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of North Carolina rejecting bank interest rate preemption because the related non-bank lender was the true lender.  The bankruptcy court denied the creditor’s proof of claim because the loan was usurious under North Carolina law and could not be saved because the loan was allegedly initiated by a bank. 

Alabama Federal Court Complaint for Servicer’s Failure to Investigate Servicer Errors (Nationstar)

This is a 2014 federal court complaint in the Southern District of Alabama against a mortgage servicer for failing to properly credit mortgage payments and then failing to investigate such errors or provide requested information. The case was brought by Underwood and Riemer.

Federal Court Complaint Where Assignee of Second Mortgagee Improperly Charged Interest (Interstate TD Investments)

A homeowner, having filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, in 2021 objects to the mortgagee’s proof of claim based on the predatory nature of the loan and that the loan terms were knowingly unaffordable.  The homeowner also uses this proceeding to file various counterclaims for the same mortgagee conduct. The filing was submitted by Roger Bertling of the Legal Services Center.

Connecticut Federal Court Complaint for Servicer’s Inadequate Response to Requests for Information and for Mortgage Modifications (CitiMortgage)

Federal Court Complaint Concerning VA Foreclosure Prior to Modification Decision (Wells Fargo)

This is a 2017 second amended complaint filed in the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to unwind the foreclosure of a home that had a VA mortgage loan and where the loan holders and servicers did not follow VA regulations in foreclosing on the home.  The foreclosure occurred while a mortgage modification application was pending. The pleadings were drafted by the Law Office of Henry McLaughlin.

Federal Court Complaint Concerning Servicer Reneging on Mortgage Loan Modification (Bank of America)

DentalPlans made many thousands of telemarketing robocalls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and tens of thousands of other similarly situated Americans. On June 6, 2024, this Court denied defendant DentalPlans’ summary judgment motion on the issue of whether it had consent to make the calls, and granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

The summary judgment ruling was based upon the Court’s finding that DentalPlans was required to have obtained “prior express written consent” for its robocalls, because that is the standard the FCC set for telemarketing robocalls.

This is an Oct. 21, 2020, answer, special defenses and counterclaims to a judicial foreclosure of a zombie second mortgage filed in Connecticut Superior Court. This is foreclosure of zombie second after twelve years of inaction, defenses focus on state law claims of abandonment and laches. Borrower brings counterclaim of quiet title. Prepared by Christopher G. Brown, Esq.

This is a Dec. 2, 2020, brief opposing the creditor’s motion to strike the homeowner’s answer, special defenses and counterclaims to a judicial foreclosure of a zombie second mortgage filed in Connecticut Superior Court. This is foreclosure of zombie second after twelve years of inaction, defenses focus on state law claims of abandonment and laches. Borrower brings counterclaim of quiet title. Prepared by Christopher G. Brown, Esq.

This is borrower’s memo opposing summary judgment as to the borrower’s Substitute Answer with Special Defenses, filed March 28, 2022, in Connecticut Superior Court to a judicial foreclosure action involving a zombie second mortgage. The borrower raises defenses of laches, abandonment, breach of contract, and TILA (periodic statements). Pleadings prepared by David Lavery of Connecticut Fair Housing Center. Connecticut Superior Court. 

This is a decision denying the creditor’s summary judgment motion to strike the borrower’s Substitute Answer with Special Defenses, filed Sept. 22, 2022, by the Connecticut Superior Court in a judicial foreclosure action involving a zombie second mortgage. The borrower raises defenses of laches, abandonment, breach of contract, and TILA (periodic statements). Homeowner was represented by David Lavery of Connecticut Fair Housing Center. 

This is borrower’s Substitute Answer with Special Defenses filed January 12, 2022, in Connecticut Superior Court to a judicial foreclosure action involving a zombie second mortgage. The borrower raises defenses of laches, abandonment, breach of contract, and TILA (periodic statements). Pleadings prepared by David Lavery of Connecticut Fair Housing Center. 

This brief addresses the applicability of section 227(c)(5) to text messages. 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits sending text messages to phone numbers on the national Do Not Call List, just as it prohibits traditional voice calls. As both the FCC and courts have long recognized, the plain meaning of the word “call” in the TCPA
encompasses any attempt to communicate by phone, “regardless of whether that call is communicated by voice or text.”

This brief addresses the applicability of section 227(c)(5) to text messages. 

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits sending text messages to phone numbers on the national Do Not Call List, just as it prohibits traditional voice calls. As both the FCC and courts have long recognized, the plain meaning of the word “call” in the TCPA
encompasses any attempt to communicate by phone, “regardless of whether that call is communicated by voice or text.”

In its March 2022 updates to a staff manual for its examiners, the CFPB noted that discrimination can satisfy the statutory requirements for unfairness under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau did not determine that any particular discriminatory practice was unfair. 

This June 16, 2025 memorandum of law opposing a motion to compel arbitration was filed in a federal court case in the District of New Jersey.  The case involves a home equity investment (HEI) mortgage, in which homeowners receive a lump sum in exchange for a share of their home's future value, typically upon sale or refinance. Unlike traditional loans, HEIs do not involve monthly payments or interest charges. The investor's return is tied to the appreciation of the home's value.

This is a 2024 state court complaint against a predatory contract for deed seller for violations of TILA and the state Human Rights Act based on the seller’s targeting of Somali Muslims. The seller used religious beliefs related to the prohibition on paying interest as a means of enticing members of the Somali community to pay exorbitant hidden finance charges and large down payments that would be forfeited upon contract failure.