||Link to StoryLink to Story
|Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
||State of Connecticut, Attorney General and Commissioner of Banking
||Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
||Civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation, up to $5,000 per violation of state consumer protection laws, restitution for the borrowers and give back ill-gotten gains.
||The Connecticut Attorney General alleges overcharging, mortgage fraud and poor underwriting by Countrywide.
||State of Connecticut v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al.
||July 28, 2008
|GRP Financial Services Corp., GRP Loan, LLC, and IndyMac Financial Services
||Frank Stoffels and Karen Stoffels
||U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
||A Nevada couple alleges that they are the victims of fraudulent lending practices by IndyMac Financial Services and a scheme to shield IndyMac from liability by transferring the fraudulent mortgage to a knowing purchaser to foreclose on the loan. Lawyers in the case allege compliance violations and seek class action certification.
||Stoffels v. GRP Financial Services Corp., et al.
|Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al
||People of the State of California (by City of San Diego)
||San Diego Superior Court
||San Diego accuses Countrywide of engaging in a "pattern of unlawful, fraudulent or unfair predatory real estate lending practices." The alleged activities have left a number of the city's residents facing foreclosure.
||People v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al.
||July 23, 2008
|Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
||Nevada Supreme Court
||$3 million in actual and punitive damages, reduced to under $1.3 million.
||The Nevada Supreme Court cut in half an award for damages in a wrongful foreclosure case. The court agreed with Countrywide's statutory interpretation arguments, and with its arguments against allowing plaintiffs to recover twice for a single wrong.
||Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener
||124 Nev. 64 (2008).
|Fremont Investment & Loan, Fremont General Corporation, Litton Loan Servicing LP
||Kenter E. Lacet
||U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Suffolk Superior Court
||A Massachusetts borrower claims that although he had insurance on his property, his servicer tacked on its own policy then proceeded to foreclose on him when he didn't pay the premium. The servicer is accused of compliance violations and attempting to extract endless fees and equity.
||Lacet v. Fremont Investment & Loan, et al.
||1:08-cv-11611 (D. Mass.); 08-4090-H (Suffolk Sup.)
|Washington Mutual Bank and Harmon Law Offices, P.C.
||Lori and Mark Pestana
||Massachusetts Superior Court for the County of Suffolk
||In a class-action lawsuit alleging bad faith foreclosure tactics, borrowers Lori and Mark Pestana sued WaMu for negligent misrepresentation. The borrowers also brought individual claims, including wrongful foreclosure, against the thrift and its foreclosure law firm.
||Lori and Mark Pestana v. Washington Mutual Bank and Harmon Law Offices, P.C.
||July 29, 2008
|WMD Capital Markets LLC
||Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Attorney General
||Suffolk Superior Court
||A California-based investment fund that acquired distressed loans originated by Fremont Investment & Loan has agreed to a settlement with the Massachusetts attorney general that will help prevent foreclosure for 200 subprime borrowers. The loans were subject to a preliminary injunction issued against Fremont by Suffolk Superior Court in February restricting foreclosures.
||Massachusetts vs. Fremont Investment & Loan, et al
|| Feb. 25, 2008