Advanced Pleadings Search

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.

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 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.