Complaint and Demand for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

This is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act for declaratory relief from Gainful Employment (“GE”) regulations of the U.S. Department of Education, 34 C.F.R. Part 668 Subpart Q, as applied to member schools of the American Association of Cosmetology Schools. The GE regulation assesses the outcomes of educational programs based on the ratio of graduates’ educational debt to earnings. Although the Department acknowledges that some graduates of cosmetology programs underreport their incomes, the Department has made no provision for such underreporting in its regulations.

Does the preemption of state usury laws enjoyed by national banks under the National Bank Act extend to non-bank debt buyers where, as here, the national bank retains no interest in or control over the subject accounts, and the national bank and the debt buyer are operationally and legally unrelated entities?

As demonstrated in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and the Administrative Record (“AR”), the FDIC’s rule on the Federal Interest Rate Authority, 85 Fed. Reg. 44,146 (July 22, 2020) (“Final Rule”) represents a reasonable interpretation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831d, and should be upheld under Chevron’s familiar two-step framework. The Final Rule is neither arbitrary or capricious, nor contrary to law, is consistent with the FDIC’s authority, and in compliance with applicable procedural requirements.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Appellate briefs addressing HAMP TPP class action claims under state UDAP and FDCPA statutes, breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Corvello and Lucia v. Wells Fargo
Appellant’s Main Brief  9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2012 and Appellant’s Reply Brief May 23, 2012.  LUCIA and Lucia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Does 1 through 10, Defendants., 2010 WL 4271748 (N.D.Cal.) 9th Cir various HAMP claims, class action
 

Appellate briefs addressing HAMP TPP class action claims under state UDAP and FDCPA statutes, breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Corvello and Lucia v. Wells Fargo
Appellant’s Main Brief  9th Cir. Mar. 22, 2012 and Appellant’s Reply Brief May 23, 2012.  Karen LUCIA and Jeffrey Lucia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Does 1 through 10, Defendants., 2010 WL 4271748 (N.D.Cal.) 9th Cir various HAMP claims, class action
 

Appellate briefs addressing trustee’s duty of good faith in foreclosing, UDAP claims, U.S.  Bank NA v Lyons  Washington Supreme Court, Main Brief Oct. 2013; Amicus Brief of Northwest Consumer Law Center & Northwest Justice Project  filed April 25, 2014.

Second Amended Class Action Complaint to enforce loan modification agreements, raising contract, good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel and UDAP claims. Bosque v Wells Fargo D. Mass.  Aug. 17, 2010  

Similar claims: 
Bosque v Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762 F Supp 2d 342 [D Mass 2011] breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, UDAP Class action, extensive Westlaw pleadings and memos.
 

Class action complaint raising HAMP TPP claims under state UDAP and FDCPA laws, contract, good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Lucia v. Wells Fargo Oct. 2010  (joined with Corvello in 9th Circuit appeal with favorable decision) LUCIA and Lucia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Does 1 through 10, Defendants., 2010 WL 4271748 (N.D.Cal.) 9th Cir various HAMP claims, class action.

Class action complaint involving successor in interest issues, claims of promissory estoppel, negligence, UDAP.

McGarvey v JP Morgan  filed Cal. Super. Court April 2013 later removed, complaint as exhibit in removal motion, needs deletion of exhibits or obtain from firm.  MCGARVEY, An individual, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants., 2013 WL 2479615 (E.D.Cal.)  complaint not on Westlaw, good negligence and UDAP (Letcher, Mercer).

Complaint alleging failure to implement loan modification, raising breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, and UDAP against both servicer and loan owner. D. Mass. Jan. 2014.  Joseph HANNIGAN and Linda Hannigan, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7, Defendant., 2014 WL 8388851 (D.Mass.) detailed facts, perm mod, 93A and negligence, contract.

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

Motion to compel Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (over loan modification review procedures) Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.D. Ill. June 13, 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 request for production of documents, including loan modification data and servicer’s training material, Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D. Ill) Aug. 24, 2012) and Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Documents,  Oct. 2012 WIGOD, Finlinson and Finlinson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Opposition to motion to dismiss Complaint alleging failure to implement loan modification, raising breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, and UDAP against servicer and loan owner. D. Mass. Jan. 2014. Hannigan v Bank of America Feb. 2014 HANNIGAN and Hannigan, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificate holders of Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7, Defendant., 2014 WL 8388851 (D.Mass.) detailed facts, perm mod, 93A and negligence, contract.

Class action compliant enforcement of conversions to permanent modifications, breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and UDAP claims  Cave v. Saxon Mortgage Services  E.D. Pa.  Sept. 2012  CAVE, and Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant., 2012 WL 4718976 (E.D.Pa.) good decision, class action HAMP background breach of contract, UDAP, FDCPA     

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.