By John Kennedy
Law360, New York (August 15, 2016, 9:02 PM ET) — The Tenth Circuit reversed a Colorado federal court’s dismissal of class claims against Bank of America Corp. and others involving the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, finding Monday that homeowners sufficiently proved a possible Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act enterprise.
In a published opinion, a three-judge panel disagreed with the lower court’s finding that the homeowners did not sufficiently plead a case for their RICO claims against BofA and Urban Settlement Services or for their promissory estoppel claim against BofA. The homeowners had alleged that…
PAYWALL
Bank of America, led by Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan, faced more than 15,000 complaints in 2010 from its role in the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program. Urban Lending, one of the vendors brought in to handle grievances from lawmakers and regulators on behalf of borrowers, also operated a mail-processing center for HAMP documents.
Paperwork Requests
Instead of helping homeowners as promised under agreements with the U.S. Treasury Department, Bank of America stalled them with repeated requests for paperwork and incorrect income calculations, according to nine former Urban Lending employees. Some borrowers were sent into foreclosure or pricier loan modifications padded with fees resulting from the delays, according to the people, all but two of whom asked to remain anonymous because they signed confidentiality agreements.
ORDERED that Urban’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint
[Docket No. 13] is GRANTED. ORDERED that BOA’s Motion to Dismiss the …
Dec 16, 2013 – GEORGE vs URBAN SETTLEMENT SERVICES d/b/a URBAN LENDING
SOLUTIONS; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. | Colorado Class Action …
_____________________________________________________________
View original: From the court | Our backup
<excerpt>
Richard George, Steven Leavitt, Sandra Leavitt, and Darrell Dalton appeal the district court’s dismissal of their putative class action against Urban Settlement Services, d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions (Urban) and Bank of America, N.A. (BOA). The plaintiffs asserted a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, against BOA and Urban. They also brought a promissory estoppel claim against BOA. Both claims arose from the defendants’ allegedly fraudulent administration of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). …..
. . .
Because we conclude that the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint states a facially plausible RICO claim against BOA and Urban and a facially plausible promissory estoppel claim against BOA,
we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
.
I. The district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ RICO claim.
A. The plaintiffs sufficiently allege the existence of a RICO enterprise that is distinct from BOA.
B. The plaintiffs sufficiently allege Urban’s participation in the conduct of the alleged enterprise.
C. The plaintiffs sufficiently allege that BOA and Urban engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
