Advanced Pleadings Search

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.

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.

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     

Subpoena for records from DocuSign regarding an electronically executed contract for solar panels.

Complaint alleging that an algorithm-based tenant screening system had a disparate impact in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and Massachusetts General Laws

Statement of Interest of the United States in matter alleging that an algorithm-based tenant screening system had a disparate impact in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and Massachusetts General Laws.

This is a sample of a letter typically sent at the beginning of litigation, or pre-litigation, advising the Defendant to preserve all relevant documents and electronic records. This ESI preservation letter is related to Notices of Error sent to the servicer. Letter drafted by Thomas Cox. 

Sample discovery requests in a case involving failure to respond to a QWR asking for the identity of the loan holder. Case litigated by Sarah Mancini, Atlanta Legal Aid.

Sample discovery requests in a case involving failure to respond to a QWR asking for the identity of the loan holder. Case litigated by Sarah Mancini, Atlanta Legal Aid. 
 

Sample discovery requests in a case involving failure to respond to a QWR asking for the identity of the loan holder. Case litigated by Sarah Mancini, 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. 
 

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 March 2025 amended complaint filed in the New Jersey federal court against a home equity “investment” lender bringing counts under the Truth in Lending Act, the New Jersey Home Ownership Security Act, the New Jersey UDAP statute, the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act, and a related party for aiding and abetting, seeking equitable relief, damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

This is a June 2025 memorandum filed in the New Jersey federal court in opposition to a motion to compel arbitration arguing that the claims against a home equity “investment” lender are not subject to an arbitration requirement.  The Truth in Lending Act prohibits mandatory arbitration for mortgage loans and the memorandum argues the transaction is a mortgage loan covered by the prohibition on mandatory arbitration.  The memorandum also argues that the arbitration provision is unconscionable and does not apply to the claims in the case.

This is a July 2024 reply brief before the Ninth Circuit where a homeowner is appealing a federal district court decision concerning the homeowner’s legal claims against a home equity “investment” lender, and whether the transaction is a reverse mortgage loan under Washington law covered by statutes applicable to reverse mortgage loans. The brief focuses on the lender’s evasion of Washington law and the lender’s deceptive practices.