Advanced Pleadings Search

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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 a first amended complaint in an action in Michigan federal court brought by Legal Aid of Western Michigan against a servicer of the consumer’s land contract, alleging the servicer has failed to properly service the land contract, in violation of the contract, federal law, and Michigan law. Plaintiff files this action to specifically enforce the contract between the parties, and for monetary damages.  This complaint was submitted by John Smith, Legal Aid of Western Michigan.

This is a first amended federal court complaint in the E.D.N.Y. against a foreclosure law firm concerning the collection and threatened foreclosure of a “zombie” second mortgage debt, involving the attempt to collect time-barred debt. The New York homeowners were shocked to find themselves in foreclosure on second mortgage loans that had long disappeared, the servicers having long since ceased to send mortgage statements, sometimes for a decade or more—even though federal regulations required such statements to be sent monthly.

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

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.

This is a second amended complaint by a homeowner against her former mortgage servicer for its refusal to communicate with her after the death of her husband. This frustrated her ability to cure the default on a home mortgage loan in which she is named as a borrower.  The servicer also refused to recognize her assumption of the loan and initiated foreclosure proceedings on her home while her complete application for assistance was pending.

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 Culik Law.

This is a 2010 West Virginia state court complaint against a mortgage lender and servicer for issuing a predatory loan and then advising the homeowner in financial difficulty to fall behind on mortgage payments to obtain a loan modification.  The lender/servicer then refused to process the loan modification.  The servicer while reassuring the homeowner that the modification was being processed, sent the home into foreclosure.  Mountain State Justice brought the action on behalf of the homeowner.

This 2021 complaint filed in the Northern District of Georgia deals with improper conduct in connection with the collection of a dormant second mortgage loan, including attempted wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract and and FDCPA and TILA violations.  The ho

This is a 2021 California state court complaint for a wrongful nonjudicial foreclosure of based on homeowners alleged failure to pay a purchase money junior loan on the property, even though no loan statement had been sent since at least 2015.  The complaint also alleges that the claimed amount in default is inaccurate and unsupported.  This complaint was filed by Evan Livingstone of California Rural Legal Services.

This is a 2017 first amended complaint brought in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning zombie debt. A second mortgage lender improperly assigned the loan to an unlicensed entity which improperly charged an interest rate available only to a licensed entity.

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.

This 2019 New York state court complaint seeks pursuant to New York law to cancel a home equity line of credit (HELC) mortgage and enjoin any action against the homeowner’s property because the statute of limitations has run after the creditor accelerated the HELC payments. In addition, the creditor failed to comply with federal requirements (the 2MP program) concerning modification of the first mortgage that should have extinguished the HELC.  The action is brought by Petroff Amshen LLP.

This is a 2016 first amended complaint in federal court in Connecticut for a mortgage servicer’s conduct in failing to respond properly to a homeowner’s multiple applications for mortgage modifications and multiple requests for information.  Multiple times the servicer would request additional information or request new applications, but never adequately processed the applications.  The pleading was drafted by the Connecticut Fair Housing Center.

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.

This is a 2014 federal court complaint in Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on allegation that mortgage servicer repudiated commitment for HAMP loan modification for which homeowner qualified and provided her false, contradictory and confusing representations concerning the reasons for its actions and omissions.  In response to homeowner’s qualified written request, servicer failed to correct its erroneous handling of her account and failed to provide specified account-related documents servicer was obligated to provide.   The complaint was drafted by Langer, G

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 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.

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 jury instruction in an FDCPA case that includes 29 separate instructions. Many apply to the FDCPA case, such as nature and element of the claims, violations of the act, least sophisticated standard, bona fide error defense, and actual and statutory damages. Others are of a more general nature, such as the province of the jury, burden of proof, objections, stipulations, duty in deliberating, and verdict forms.

This is an opposition to a motion to dismiss in a case complaining that a debt collector disclosed the consumer’s personal and financial information a letter vendor. The consumers argue that a requirement that financial data be kept confidential does not violate the First Amendment, that the debt collector violated the plain language of 15 U.S.C. s. 1692c(b), and that the debt collector’s statutory construction arguments lack merit.

This is a trial brief in a FDCPA case where the collector threatened foreclosure on the wrong house and tried to collect from the wrong person, the collector had no intent to foreclose, and the collector had no authority to collect the debt. The brief was written by Gregory Reichenbach, a Perrysburg, Ohio attorney, and Edward Icove, a Cleveland, Ohio attorney.

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.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellant AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T) on the grounds that its automated text message survey system did not constitute an Automatic Telephone Dialing System as defined by the TCPA.

This complaint (the names have redacted to protect identities) was filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota by Peter F.

These interrogatories (the names have redacted to protect identities) were submitted in a case filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota by Peter F.