Advanced Pleadings Search

This is a jury instruction in a federal case in the Northern District of California concerning a homeowner's challenge to foreclosure practices, including violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA, the California debt collection statute, and breach of fiduciary duty.  The instructions include a number of general items of relevance to most consumer litigation and then instructions related to the homeowner's specific legal claims.  These instructions are mentioned in a decision favoring the homeowner in Drakeford v. Cap. Benefit, Inc., 2022 WL 2643984 (N.D. Cal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is one of three complaints illustrating the use of photographs and images inserted directly into a complaint to visually emphasize facts in a used car case.  The complaints were submitted by Matthew Osborne, a consumer attorney in Northglenn, Colorado.  This complaint is before an arbitrator in an action administered by the American Arbitration Association and involves breach of warranty, undisclosed defects, and misrepresentations concerning repairs performed, and replacement parts inserted into, a used car prior to its sale.

This is one of three complaints illustrating the use of photographs and images inserted directly into a complaint to visually emphasize facts in a used car case.  The complaints were submitted by Matthew Osborne, a consumer attorney in Northglenn, Colorado.  This complaint involves undisclosed wreck damage, failure to properly brand the title, and odometer tampering.

This is one of three complaints illustrating the use of photographs and images inserted directly into a complaint to visually emphasize facts in a used car case.  The complaints were submitted by Matthew Osborne, a consumer attorney in Northglenn, Colorado.  This complaint involves undisclosed wreck damage and undisclosed major vehicle repair problems. 

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.

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 case about federal overreach. States have long used interest-rate caps to protect consumers, business owners, and scrupulous creditors from the harms of predatory lending. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) exempts federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (“FDIC Banks”) from these caps.

1. Elevate is on online lender that operates through several websites, including www.risecredit.com, www.elastic.com, and www.elevate.com, to provide predatory, high-interest, short-term loans to consumers that it describes as individuals “with little to no savings, urgent credit needs and limited options.”

This is a class action against the City of Cleveland for various discriminatory and abusive practices concerning water pricing, termination of service, and turning water delinquencies into tax liens and tax takings, including claims under the FHA, due process, and state law.

This is a class action complaint against a debt settlement organization that used the attorney model. It alleges common law fraud, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (for attorneys), and the Illinois Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the complaint provide an extensive description of how debt settlement operators attempt to evade laws regulating debt relief services by attempting to use attorneys as a front for their operations.

Defendants’ Consolidated Opposition to Motions for Intervention

This class action lawsuit presents a dispute between student loan borrowers and the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) regarding the Department’s process for reviewing and adjudicating borrowers’ applications for the Department to relieve them of their loan repayment obligations based on the alleged misconduct of the schools they attended.

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 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.

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 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 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.