Pleadings and Discovery

This is a proposed order of dismissal of a lender foreclosure action on a HECM reverse mortgage relating to non-payment of property charges, where the applied for, and was granted, an “AT RISK” extension of the foreclosure deadlines.  The order sets out that the effect of the AT RISK extension is that the lender will not proceed on the foreclosure for one year and the extension continues thereafter so long as, prior to the expiration of the one-year extension, the homeowner certifies that she continues to meet the criteria for the extension.

This is an answer and affirmative defenses in an foreclosure on a reverse mortgage after the death of one spouse, where the remaining spouse demands proof that the plaintiff is the holder of the reverse mortgage, and alleging that the HECM mortgage was consummated without the required HECM counseling, that the foreclosure was initiated with improper loss mitigation or servicing, and that the plaintiff had unclean hands and initiated foreclosure without complying with a condition precedent.

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.

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.

Plaintiff alleges that it did not agree to Security Procedures of bank sufficient to shift liability for unauthorized wire transfers.

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

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 reply to the servicer’s objection to the consumer’s request to deem the consumer’s admission requests admitted, and also a proposed order. Another Pleading and Discovery file is the consumer’s motion directed to a mortgage servicer asking the court to deem the consumer’s requests for admission admitted.

This is a consumer’s motion directed to a mortgage servicer asking the court to deem the consumer’s requests for admission admitted. A separate Pleading and Discovery file is a reply to the servicer’s objection, and a proposed order. These documents address frivolous objections commonly raised by corporate defendants including: the document speaks for itself, the facts are public record and may be easily verified by the requestor, and the request seeks admission of a legal theory rather than a fact. Although filed in state court (Maine) it applies the Fed. R. Civ. P.

This is the first amended complaint in a federal action in Michigan alleging misrepresentation of the terms of residential home sales and financing agreements, failure to disclose hidden credit charges, and conducting business in an unfair and deceptive manner. The complaint alleges deceptive promises of homeownership that lured unsuspecting home buyers into predatory and abusive loans that were designed to fail.