Via: ForeclosureBlues

[ipaper docId=45961000 access_key=key-25jetsootin624fmjba1 height=600 width=600 /]

COUNT I:

BREACH OF CONTRACT / BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING

COUNT II:

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, IN THE ALTERNATIVE

COUNT III:

VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
RCW 19.86.010 ET SEQ

[ipaper docId=44324706 access_key=key-2hmeqvhev4ksjp3amyva height=600 width=600 /]

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Estoppel)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Inducing Breach of Contract)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Business & Professional Code 17200, et seq., Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent Business Practices)

WELLS FARGO CA

[ipaper docId=44310085 access_key=key-19a2my72oaghv73lscz0 height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpt:

The Special Process Server in the Mortgage Foreclosure Action was
purportedly appointed pursuant to the Administrative Order. The purported
appointment took place before Defendant initiated the Mortgage Foreclosure
Action. The purported appointment violated Section 2O2 and was, therefore,
ineffective, unlawful and void.

WASHINGTON v Wells Fargo, Bank of America

[ipaper docId=43758409 access_key=key-2k5g1uqi0eqnokeca2ip height=600 width=600 /]

FIRST COUNT

Breach of Contract

SECOND COUNT

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

THIRD COUNT

Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation

FOURTH COUNT

Constructive Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation

FIFTH COUNT

Negligent Processing of Loan Modifications and Foreclosures

SIXTH COUNT

Violation of the New York Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349, et.seq.

SEVENTH COUNT

Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”), N.J.S.A. 56.8-1, et. seq.

EIGHTH COUNT

Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law, 42 U.S.C. 1983

BRIAN COSTIGAN v. Citigroup

[ipaper docId=43749401 access_key=key-2hc2trj9ngfzph1d6b6s height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpt:

According to the Senate Subcommittee […]

“Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis…They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients…The 2009 Goldman Sachs annual report stated that the firm ‘did not generate enormous revenues by betting against residential related products’…These e-mails show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market.”

[ipaper docId=43622622 access_key=key-yvcc5ierinpkgd8wdvp height=600 width=600 /]

JACOB MENASHE

against

STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.

[ipaper docId=42833373 access_key=key-29f1w0r8u44c1vma22ao height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.