Advanced Pleadings Search

This session will discuss legal claims and strategies for dealing with long-dormant second mortgages that are suddenly back from the dead. We will discuss bringing claims in bankruptcy court and focus on FDCPA and UDAAP claims both in and out of bankruptcy court.

This is a 2023 FDCPA complaint that pleads facts to support constitutional Article III standing in federal court. The complaint specifies concrete injury from an invasion of privacy and the time and expense of having his attorney send defendants a letter.  The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firm of Philipps & Philipps and the Missouri firm of the Callahan Law Firm.

This is a 2023 FDCPA class class complaint dealing with a consumer disputing a debt and asking for verification.  When the account was collected by a second agency, the consumer's requests were ignored and a new letter was sent. The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firms of Philipps & Philipps and SMITHMARCO.

This is a 2023 FDCPA complaint that takes care to plead facts to support constitutional Article III standing in federal court. The complaint specifies the plaintiff's concrete injury from an invasion of her privacy, seclusion, and the right to counsel; from her emotional distress; and from the cost to her of additional time, money, and effort to assert her rights. The complaint was drafted by the Illinois firm of Philipps & Philipps.

This is motion to set aside a default judgment on a foreclosure action concerning a reverse mortgage and leave to file an answer and defenses. The excusable neglect is based on the homeowner’s age and cognitive difficulties.

This is a notice of taking the Florida deposition of a corporate representative in a case involving an attempt to foreclose on a reverse mortgage based on non-occupancy where the property was in fact occupied, including a list of documents that the deponent should bring and be prepared to describe.

This is a Florida motion to add a claim for punitive damages to existing counterclaims that allege various torts in a case where the lender attempted to foreclose on a reverse mortgage based on non-occupancy where the property was in fact occupied, where the lender should clearly have known the property was occupied.

This is a notice of taking the Florida deposition of a corporate representative in a case involving an attempt to foreclose on a reverse mortgage based on non-occupancy where the property was in fact occupied, including a list of documents that the deponent should bring and be prepared to describe.

This is a request for admissions sent by a Florida homeowner to the reverse mortgage lender seeking the lender’s admission that the home was in fact occupied, despite the lender taking actions as if the home was unoccupied.

This is a sample affidavit stating that the homeowner is occupying a residence. This sample affidavit can be used to verify that the borrower is occupying the home in connection with a mortgagee’s acceleration of the debt or attempted foreclosure based on non-occupancy. It can be helpful to also attach any supporting documents, such as utility bills, to show that the property is occupied. The servicer may also want the borrower to sign their standard occupancy form.

This is a 2019 defense to a foreclosure action on a reverse mortgage and counterclaims by a class of consumers against the reverse mortgage lender, filed by Mehri & Skalet and Legal Counsel for the Elderly in Superior Court for the District of Columbia.  The reverse mortgage lender ignored the provision set out in the deed of trust and federal law that non-borrowing spouses are entitled to a deferral of due and payable status when the borrower spouse dies, as long as they continue living in their homes.  Claims involve breach of contract, bad faith, unclean hands,

This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage.  This is a reply pleading by HUD in support of its motion to dismiss the homeowner’s cross-claim against HUD in the Wilson case.  HUD’s initial brief and the homeowner’s reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary.

This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage.  This is a reply pleading by the HUD in support of its motion to dismiss the homeowner’s cross-claim against HUD in the Wilson case.  HUD’s initial brief and the homeowner’s reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary.

This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage.  This is the consumer’s pleading in Wilson in response to HUD’s motion the homeowner’s crossclaim against HUD. HUD’s brief and reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary and that the crossclaim is moot.

This is a 2018 complaint brought by Atlanta Legal Aid against HUD in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia involving an APA challenge involving a pre-2014 HECM reverse mortgage.  The claim is that HECM regulations do not sufficiently protect surviving spouses who are not listed on a reverse mortgage, so as to allow the surviving spouse to stay in the home.

These two sample allegations could be added to a complaint challenging HUD’s pre 2014 MOE (mortgage option election) requirement that the spouse obtain good, marketable title or legal right to remain in the property within 90 days of the borrower’s death.

This is a 2019 complaint filed by Legal Services of Northern California in California Superior Court involving a reverse mortgage.  Soon after the plaintiff’s husband’s death, the plaintiff applied to the creditor to stay in her home through the MOE (mortgage option election) program. However, defendants erroneously denied her application and instead started the foreclosure process. The complaint seeks to stop the imminent foreclosure sale and compel defendants to honor her MOE application and allow her to remain living in her home.

 This is a 2019 complaint filed by Legal Services of Northern California in California Superior Court involving a reverse mortgage.  Soon after the plaintiff’s husband’s death, the plaintiff applied to the creditor to stay in her home through the MOE (mortgage option election) program. However, defendants erroneously denied her application and instead started the foreclosure process. The complaint seeks to stop the imminent foreclosure sale and compel defendants to honor her MOE application and allow her to remain living in her home.

Sample discovery requests from a case involving failure to properly apply payments and failure to provide a timely and accurate payoff quote. Case litigated by Rachel Scott, Atlanta Legal Aid. 

Sample discovery requests from a case involving failure to properly apply payments and failure to provide a timely and accurate payoff quote. Case litigated by Rachel Scott, Atlanta Legal Aid. 
 

This document contains sections of legal argument for a brief in response to Motion to Dismiss on damages issues including statutory damages, pattern and practice, actual damages, causation. Such issues commonly are raised by defendants in mortgage servicing cases. Additional case citations and explanation on these issues are contained in NCLC's Mortgage Servicing and Loan Modifications.

Brief Regarding Statutory Authority for RESPA loss mitigation rules. Brief explains the statutory authority for the RESPA Regulation X loss mitigation and QWR rules and explains that certain case law predating the CFPB’s 2014 rule is now outdated. Case litigated by Phillip Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC.

Complaint involving RESPA claims for failure to correct a servicing error related to payment application issues. The case was litigated by Phillip Robinson, Consumer Law Center LLC. 

Complaint regarding loss mitigation rule violations; failure to get to a complete application, failure to timely evaluate a complete application. Sample based on a complaint crafted by Legal Services of South Central Michigan.

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 Wisconsin small claims court complaint brought by a consumer against a party to a rent-a-bank scheme demonstrates another approach to challenge rent-a-bank schemes, even where the bank is considered the true lender.  The consumer can assert non-usury claims against the bank's partners.  The company "renting" the bank may be liable as someone who arranges or brokers the loan.  In Wisconsin the company may have to be licensed and comply with the requirements of the state credit services organization act.

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 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 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.