Proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP

Proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP

AP-

LOS ANGELES (AP) —It seemed Maria Campusano’s financial problems were behind her when the mortgage on her Victorian home in a Massachusetts mill town was chopped by hundreds of dollars a month.

She soon learned that her troubles had just begun.

Weeks after making her first payment under the new rate, the school district staffer began receiving past-due notices, documents showing wildly inaccurate loan balances and letters threatening foreclosure. She now fears she’ll lose her home.

“How can they take away what I have worked so hard for?” Campusano said.

Campusano is one of two named plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP.

Continue reading [THE ASSOCIATED PRESS]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8690 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

2 Responses to “Proposed class-action lawsuit alleging breach of contract by Bank of America NA and subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing LP”

  1. Bill McAuliffe says:

    I am willing to participate in any way that may further prosecutiona against BAC Home Loans Servicing, “Recontrust N.A.” , Bank of “America”, or any other subsidiaries or participants with these entities, including, but not limited to: Fidelity Title, and all of it’s subsidiaries, bank of New York Mellon, Countrywide, ReMax Excalibur, et. al. Also Goldman Sachs who has increased it’s lobbying positions, Deutsch Bank. ad infinitum.

  2. Hell No, No More Bail-OUTS says:

    If anyone were to file a class action on the “CountryWide AG Mods” being breached, there would be an immediate class of over 50,000 members.

    The internal name applied to these loan modifications by B of A was a different name. The initial batch had to be offered to at least 50,000 borrowers. These were streamlined-application modifications. The application process was via a phone-interview. That was followed by a written statement of your hardship that was sent in by fax. Upon getting an A/G Mod Fedex package, the borrower was to have their signature notarized (at least in most states) and then include bank statements and pay stubs (if employed). If SELF-EMPLOYED, only the bank statements were required. The entire application process was subject to manipulation by CW/BofA personnel. After the initial batch, this ‘program’ was one that continued to be offered as an ‘internal’ modification program, although without the streamlined processing.

    The initial batch of OFFERED modifications had to be back to CW by 3/31/09 per the STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT with CA AG Jerry Brown. Brown gloated over his supposed stipulated settlement agreement but did not take any action when borrowers who subsequently received the specified PERMANENT modifications were lied to and told the modification that they had received and complied with ‘never happened’ or was ‘canceled’. Only a handful of those modifications have ‘survived’, and those typically did so through legal wrangling.

    Especially for the self-employed borrowers in the ‘streamlined-processing’ group where the sole verification of income was based on bank statements, I suspect that the only ‘AG Mod’ that is still ‘acknowledged’ would be ones where legal wrangling stopped the breach by BofA.

    BofA personnel looked only at the total of deposits. If that bank statement was actually the one for the business, or showed any of the business deposits, the business expenses that had been a part of the verbal application, were not deducted from the ‘deposit’ total.

    The deposit total was PRESUMED to be the borrower’s personal income. No opportunity was afforded to correct how the information on the statements needed to be interpreted in light of expenses paid on that same monthly statement.

    Like I said, ‘Moonbeam’ took credit for the program but side-stepped the mess that his program created. BofA used the modification program as a ‘set-up’ to entrap borrowers into a supposed default that their resources could not cure.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives