|
Defendant
|
Plaintiff
|
Court
|
Amount
|
Overview
|
Case Title |
Case Number
|
Date Filed |
Link to Story |
| ASRC LLC |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Aurora Loan Services, Inc. |
Andrew Weiss-Malik |
United States District Court for the District of Utah |
n/a |
Plaintiff, a vice president for the Texas-based wholesaler 360 Mortgage Group LLC, claims that Aurora violated the Real Estate Settlement Protection Act and the Truth in Lending Act by allegedly overcharging him $20,000 on his adjustable-rate mortgage. |
Weiss-Malik v. Aurora Loan Services, Inc. |
2:2010cv01058 |
10/25/2010 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP and Federal National Mortgage Association |
Patricia Garcia |
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
n/a |
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants wrongfully foreclosed on her homestead before evaluating her HAMP eligibility. |
Garcia v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP et al. |
6:2011cv00013 |
3/18/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/MctLawsuitForeclosureBoa032311.asp |
| Bank of America Home Loan Servicing, Bank of America, NA, U.S. Bank |
Richard and Mary Hlavsa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio |
n/a |
Plaintiffs, who are seeking class action certification, claim that the defendants did not give them permanent loan modifications under the HAMP program, even though they provided all of the required documentation and entered into agreements with the defendants to participate in HAMP. |
Hlavsa v. Bank of America Home Loan Servicing, et al. |
n/a |
2/7/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase, NA |
Dianna Montez |
United States District Court for the Southern District of California |
More than $5 million |
A class of plaintiffs sued Chase Home Finance, and its parent, JPMorgan Chase, alleging that defendants repeatedly misled plaintiffs attempting to modify their mortgages. Chase is accused of engaging in bad faith modification negotiations by leading the plaintiffs to believe that Chase would permanently modify their mortgages upon successful completion of a Home Affordable Mortgage Program modification. Plaintiffs further allege that, although Chase accepted federal funds to administer HAMP, plaintiffs’ mortgages were never modified. |
Montez v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al. |
11CV0530JLSWMC |
3/17/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Christian Hayes |
The State of Massachusetts, through its Attorney General, Martha Coakley |
Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County |
$6,530 |
A former Bank of America loan officer entered into a consent judgment after being accused by the AG of targeting and preying upon homeowners facing foreclosures by demanding $1500 in up-front fees before negotiating loan modifications. |
Massachusetts v. Hayes |
n/a |
4/8/2010 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/MctBoaLo032011.asp |
| CitiMortgage Inc. |
Teri Rounds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
Filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California |
$2,000,000 |
Settlement in class action alleging that Citi charged excessive premiums on its forced-placed insurance premiums on California properties, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. |
Rounds v. CitiMortgage, Inc. |
2:2008cv02451 |
4/14/2008 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationServicing032511.asp |
| Creative Land Marketing Corp. d/b/a CLM Corp. |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| EMC Mortgage Corp., Bear Sterns Co. LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA |
Basilisa Pacheco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington |
n/a |
The class alleges that EMC engaged in bad faith as to home mortgage loan modification negotiations, led mortgagors to reasonably believe and rely on its representations that they would permanently modify their mortgage loans upon successful completion of HAMP agreements, and charged unreasonable fees. |
Pacheco v. EMC Mortgage Corp. et al. |
11-CV-3002-RHW |
1/10/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationServicing032511.asp |
| Excel Loan Modifications of Cherry Hill |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Homeowners First Financial |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Hope Loan Today |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Integrity Plus Financial LLC |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Loan Modification Firm |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Mortgage Foreclosures Experts |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Mortgage Solutions for America |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| National Foreclosure Group |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Phillip A. Flora |
Federal Trade Commission |
United States District Court for the Central District of California |
n/a |
FTC charges that Flora violated the FTC Act by sending unsolicited commercial text messages to consumers, and by misrepresenting that he was affiliated with a government agency. |
FTC v. Flora |
SACV11-00299-AG-(JEMx) |
2/23/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Principal Reduction Group, LLC, Brian Cutright, and Jane Doe Cutright |
State of Arizona ex rel. Terry Goddard, Attorney General |
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County |
$5500 per each deceived consumer settlement |
The Arizona AG sued the defendants for falsely claiming that they had a 92% success rate in reducing consumers’ principal. |
Arizona ex rel. Terry Goddard v. Principal Reduction Group, LLC et al. |
CV2010-033072 |
12/6/2010 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Spiros Chartofillis |
New Jersey Consumer Affairs |
n/a |
$16,455 |
New Jersey’s consumer protection agency claims that the defendants offered mortgage loan modification services without being licensed by the state. The state seeks $55,000 from the defendants, and $126,000 in restitution damages to consumers. |
n/a |
n/a |
3/9/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| U.S. Bank Mortgage, CA |
Goggans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio |
n/a |
Plaintiff claims that the defendant did not give him a permanent loan modifications under the HAMP program, even though he provided all of the required documentation and entered into an agreement with the defendant to participate in HAMP. |
Goggans v. U.S. Bank Mortgage, CA |
n/a |
2/7/2011 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
| Wachovia Bank |
Court-appointed receiver for FHA All Day.Com |
Palm Beach County Circuit Court |
n/a |
Court appointed receiver for FHA All Day.com, a defunct loan modification company, sued Wachovia alleging that loan modification scam cashed checks into Wachovia bank accounts, that Wachovia should have realized the scheme was fraudulent. |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
www.mortgagedaily.com/mctlawsuitwachoviamod021211.asp |
| Wells Fargo and Company, Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, World Savings, Incorporated, John Stumpf, Mark C. Oman, and DOES 1-10 |
California Attorney General, Charles Holmes, Jerry H. Holmes, John D Moller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
$2,032,000,000 |
This class action suit resulted from loans originated by World Savings and Wachovia in which customers were offered adjustable-rate loans with payments that mushroomed into amounts that many borrowers could not afford. Wells Fargo has agreed to a settlement to provide loan modifications worth more than $2 billion to thousands of California homeowners with “pick-a-pay” loans and to pay an additional $32 million to thousands of borrowers who lost their homes through foreclosure. |
In re: Wachovia “Pick-A-Payment” Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation |
M:09-CV-2015-JF |
6/1/2010 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitsCompliance030311.asp |
| Wells Fargo Bank, NA |
Gustavo Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
n/a |
Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit claiming that Wells Fargo extracted payments from borrowers in default on their mortgage by falsely promising them the opportunity to retain their homes through an allegedly illusory forbearance-to-modification program. |
Reyes v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA |
C-10-01667-JCS |
4/19/2010 |
www.mortgagedaily.com/LitigationModifications033111.asp |
