Loan modification class action lawsuit

This lawsuit challenges GMAC Mortgage’s practice of filing a certificate and affidavit in support of the Maine expropriation falsely claiming that it is based on the petitioner’s “personal knowledge” and that it is signed in front of a notary. GMAC has been sued by courts in other states for this practice. NCLC and our co-lawyer argued that these practices were abuses of the process and were unfair and deceptive. Although the case went to the state court, the defendant took the case to federal court, where the judge ruled that procedural rights precluded at least some of the claims. The judge granted a question about UDAP’s request before the Maine Supreme Court, where it is pending.

Below is an example of NCLC’s class-action lawsuit in the area of ​​mortgage lending and debt restructuring. Information on other NCLC procedures can be found here.

HAMP Trial Period Plan (TPP) contract requirements
The NCLC, along with its Assistant Adviser, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the people of Massachusetts to protest the implementation of the Affordable Home Modification Program by the nation’s major banks and mortgage lenders. The lawsuits relate to violations of Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America, Litton Loan Servicing, CitiMortgage, and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank from its written agreements with homeowners looking for loan modifications. All five cases survived the defendant’s dismissal claims. Several cases have been or will soon be part of a multi-district lawsuit with similar cases that have been filed in other states. Due to the litigation, NCLC and our lawyer were able to obtain permanent changes to some of the plaintiffs mentioned and others were protected from recording until the outcome of the cases is known.

For information on actions taken by state agencies, see the LMSPN’s List of National Procedures against Alleged Fraud.

  • Rush v Save my house
  • Osmanzai v. Save my house
  • Mook vs Homesafe
  • Ocegueda vs. Nathanson
  • Viera v. Bella Homes LLC
  • Masheyeva v. Law Offices with David M. Green
  • Squassoni vs. Blackwell
  • Avilés v. Norton Law Group LLC
  • Cox v. Financial Protection Certification Group
  • Williams v. Performance Loan Services, Inc.
  • Culliver v. Alarcón Legal Group
  • Bates v. Goodrich, Attorney Inc.
  • Sampson v. All American Inc. Home Help Services
  • Baker vs. Platinum
  • Belyea loan service v. Litton: complaint modified; Order to decline a rejection offer
  • Forest v. Wells Fargo: Complaint Amended; Order to decline a rejection offer
  • Calfee v. Citimortgage: complaint modified; MDL command
  • Dermic v. J.P. Morgan Chase: complaint; Order to reject a rejected offer; MDL command
  • Johnson v. Bank of America Home Loan Service – Amended Claim; Order to reject a rejected offer; MDL command; Consolidated complaint (MDL)

Wilborn v. Bank One
This lawsuit challenged the mortgage provisions that allow a loan to be repaid after insolvency only if the homeowner has updated all payments and also pays any legal fees the lender is trying to obtain. NCLC and our Assistant Adviser argued that these provisions were contrary to Ohio public policy that creditors could not collect attorney fees from borrowers in collection transactions. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that because the right of re-employment was contractual, not legal, the obligation to pay a lawyer’s fee was an enforceable part of the contract. However, the court has analyzed recovery from other circumstances such as repayment or payment of a line of credit on family assets, where the borrower pays all the debt and there is no contractual relationship; in such circumstances, your lender will not be able to collect the legal fees. The Ohio Supreme Court returned the portion of the case that is still pending before the Ohio Common Pleas Court.

Class Action Complaint

“Rob signing” – Fraud in the Foreclosure Process

Looking for Mortgage Analysis Services

Archibald v. GMAC Mortgage

Rush v. Save My Home
On March 9, 2011, Davis Polk & Wardwell Bar Association and Employment Consultant filed LLP Rush v. Save My Home, no. 3605/2011 (S. Ct. of NY), on behalf of nine owners in the New York capital area against a group of for-profit exchange companies. The request sought to

Damage the permanently deceptive practices of several closely related parties working in Garden City and also sought criminal damages. In this case, a temporary ban or temporary court order was not requested.

Osmanzai v. save my house
On June 27, 2011, the Legal Committee and Employment Counsel Davis Polk & Wardwell Osmanzai v. Save My Home, no. 009471/11 (S. Ct. Of NY), lists 20 homeowners in the New York metropolitan area as plaintiffs. Most of the for-profit companies cited in this operation were the same operations that were targeting Rush, with the addition of several new defendants who owned or worked for these operations, including vendors and loan processors.

Mook v. Homesafe
On June 27, 2011, the Bar Committee and Attorney Davis Polk & Wardwell presented Mook v. Homesafe, no. 009472/11 (S. Ct. of NY), the third lawsuit filed in Nassau County, NY on behalf of 15 plaintiffs from Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Texas, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Most of these plaintiffs found Homesafe online and paid upfront fees ranging from $ 760 to $ 3,250.

Ocegueda v. Nathanson
The Bar Association, Silicon Valley Law Foundation, and lawyer Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP filed a class-action lawsuit, Ocegueda v. Nathanson, no. 111-CV-202525 (Super. Ct. De Cal., Santa Clara County), June 8, 2011, on behalf of a party of at least 90 homeowners in California who are victims of a multi-faceted credit change system. Defendants, including a lawyer, his law firm, and a fraudulent company called

Viera v. Bella Homes LLC
On March 6, 2012, attorney, attorney K&L Gates, LLP, and Washington civil rights and civil affairs attorney filed suit in the United States District Court for Virginia. A Romanian couple in Northern Virginia were the victims of an alleged “rent-to-own” scam run by Bella Homes LLC (“Bella”), a Georgia-based company.

Baker v. Platinum Law Group
Eight California homeowners sued in the California Supreme Court in Los Angeles County against a network of California-based businesses that changed their credit, as well as their key owners and employees, alleging lawsuits against the defendant, including breach of contract. Deception and violations of various California consumer protection laws.

For information on foreclosure defense call us at (877) 399 2995. We offer litigation document review support, mortgage audit reports, securitization audit reports, affidavit of expert witness notarized, and more.


Obtain the facts & evidence and the litigation support you deserve today! Call or request a free consulation today!

What our clients say

  • Jennifer

Contact Us