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.
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)
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
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 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.