Advanced Pleadings Search

This is a 2019 individual complaint filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina that the mobile phone carrier failed to protect customers personal and financial information and that this resulted in a SIM card swapping scam, so that the scammer gained control of the customers’ phone number and phone account without gaining possession of the customer’s phone.  Claims against ATT included negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, the North Carolina Anti-Hacking statute, UDAP, and violations of the Federal Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

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.

Complaint and Demand for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Second Amended Class Action complaint involving HAMP TPP claims, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, UDAP, fraudulent misrepresentation Wigod v Wells Fargo Bank, July 2012  (N.D. Ill.), later favorable Seventh Circuit decision  WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Complaint RESPA loss mitigation, inadequate response to RFI and NOE, negligence, UDAP. TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.) RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed) Case brought by Connecticut Fair Housing Center, attorney Jeff Gentes.

Motion to compel answers to interrogatories, investor guidelines Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012 and motion to compel further answers to interrogatories Nov 12, 2012  WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Motion to compel answers to interrogatories, investor guidelines Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012 and motion to compel further answers to interrogatories Nov 12, 2012  WIGOD, Dan Finlinson and  Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Post-Hearing memorandum, addressing tolling of interest, costs and fees, requesting sanctions against servicer attorney, non-borrower role in FHA loan. NY trial court May 2018 Carrington Mortgage v Morain.  

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint: RESPA loss mitigation, RFI, and NOE rules, negligence, UDAP 

Tanasi v Citimortgage D. Conn.   Oct. 2016 TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.)

RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed) 

Jeff Gentes

Brief in Opposition to motion to dismiss complaint, raising HAMP TPP claims of breach of contract, UDAP. 

Memorandum in opposition to motion to strike counterclaim in judicial foreclosure, arguing misconduct in implementing HAMP, claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and UDAP.  Bank of America v Izzo CT Superior Court April 2015.

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint: RESPA loss mitigation, RFI, and NOE rules, negligence, UDAP Tanasi v Citimortgage D. Conn.   Oct. 2016 TANASI and Tanasi, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and M&T Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson City Savings Bank, N.A., Defendant., 2016 WL 11048311 (D.Conn.)

RESPA, UDAP, negligence (RESPA servicing dismissed) Jeff Gentes

Jury instructions, UDAP and RESPA claims. MD trial court undated  Shankle v Ocwen Servicing

First Amended Complaint filed Oct. 11, 2021, E.D.N.Y., by Rachel Geballe Brooklyn Legal Services.  

Claims against servicer and its law firm. FDCPA and UDAP claims, statute of limitation.

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.

Complaint filed Dec. 17, 2021,  E.D. Va. by Kristi Kelly. 

TILA  §1641(g) class claim against United on behalf of class of all consumers with loans assigned to United in past year who did not receive §1641(g) notice.  FDCPA claims under §§1692e & f  for foreclosing and claiming interest and fees not owed.  Contractual cure notice stated incorrect cure amount.  Breach of contract claim based on non-compliance with condition precedent (service of accurate notice) required by deed of trust.

Complaint filed Dec. 3, 2021 N.D. Ga. by Rachel Scott Atlanta Legal Aid.   

First Amended Complaint dated July 17, 2017, E.D. Pa. by Joanne Werdel Community Legal Services Phila.  

Adversary proceeding objecting to bankruptcy proof of claim, Bankr. D. Mass. 2021 by Roger Bertling Harvard Legal Clinic,  

Claims focused on origination. Seeks recoupment and set off to deny or reduce creditor claim.  2005 80/20 loan. Payments exceeded borrower income, no underwriting. Claims: (1) UDAP; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing focused on foreclosing unconscionable loan without loss mitigation; (3) unconscionability.

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.

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.

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

Class action complaint regarding debits and overdraft fees. Filed June 6, 2014.

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.