Complaint

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.

This is an FDCPA second amended complaint filed by M. Stan Herring of Watts and Herring in Birmingham, Alabama, alleging FDCPA violations under 15 USC ss. 1692c(a)(1), 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692e(11), 1692f , 1692f(1), based on abusive phone calls and threats made before 8:00 AM, false threats of garnishment without a court judgment, and engaging in numerous other misrepresentations. The complaint alleges the defendant's liability under respondeat superior and alter ego.

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.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills and John Steinkamp of Indianapolis, Indiana, on October 13, 2023,  in the Southern District of Indiana alleging FDCPA violations involving demanding a debt not owed (1692e), failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), communicating with a consumer represented by counsel (1692c(a)(2)), and harassment or abuse (692d(2). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps and other attorneys of Philipps and Philipps of Palos Hills on August 31, 2023,  in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging FDCPA violations involving failure to cease communications and collections (1692c(c)), and communicating with a consumer represented by counsel (1692c(a)(2)). The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This is a federal court complaint and various attachments filed by David Philipps or Palos Hills, Illinois, and Bradform Botes of Birmingham, Alabama on September 22, 2023,  in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging FDCPA violations involving failure to report that a debt is disputed (1692e(8)), and unfair or unconscionable collection actions (1692f).  The complaint also addresses federal court standing.

This session will discuss legal claims and strategies for dealing with long-dormant second mortgages that are suddenly back from the dead. We will discuss bringing claims in bankruptcy court and focus on FDCPA and UDAAP claims both in and out of bankruptcy court.

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 2018 complaint brought by Atlanta Legal Aid against HUD in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia involving an APA challenge involving a pre-2014 HECM reverse mortgage.  The claim is that HECM regulations do not sufficiently protect surviving spouses who are not listed on a reverse mortgage, so as to allow the surviving spouse to stay in the home.