Parker & DuFresne, represented the debtor in this case for those who want to know.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
IN RE:
DARRELL LAYNE CARTER and
PAMELA STRICKLAND CARTER,
Debtors,
ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR’S MOTION FOR CONEMPT AND SANCTIONS
AGAINST HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC.
EXCERPT:
2. Homeward Residential Inc., is in willful contempt of multiple court orders, more specifically, the Court’s mediation order entered on August 22, 2012 and the Court’s Compel Order entered on March 6, 2013.,
3. Debtors are entitled to damages of attorney’s fees and compensatory damages.
Homeward Residential Inc.’s conduct also warrants and award of punitive damages.
IT IS ORDERED
1. The Motion for Contempt and Sanctions is GRANTED.
2. Debtor is awarded $2,140.00 for attorney’s fees; $1,000.00 in sanctions; and $15,000.00 in punitive damages; for a total award of $18,140.00.
[…]
[ipaper docId=148248302 access_key=key-2iovgcud1wzon83wm09z height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Hooray! Finally a small, but significant win for the little guy/gal.
I don’t disagree at all with your position vis a vis BOA’s commission of fraud upon it’s mortgage customers facing foreclosure.
However, I would like to alert you and your readers to the OPPOSITE situation whereby they FAIL to protect the integrity of neighborhoods by REFUSING TO TAKE OTHERWISE LEGITIMATE FORECLOSURE ACTION THEREBY PROTECTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS!
The following is the essence of an email (names/locale removed) sent to BOA “customer relations” folks identified in this wiki post:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_phone_number_of_Bank_of_America_corporate_offices_in_Charlotte_NC
“The reason for this email is to express the consummate frustration that we have been experiencing for one year now as a result of your bank’s consistent refusal to proceed with an entirely warranted and justified foreclosure of a home. We just completed a call to the law firm representing your bank after noticing that this property suddenly disappeared from their list of properties to be auctioned.
Noticing that these debtors had returned to this property in July 2012, after leaving it a year earlier, we called both the local police, searched county records, and obtained whatever information available regarding this property’s status.
It is clear that the buyers of this home fell delinquent in their mortgage payments sometime in 2010 and, in 2011, left the home completely. Having owned our home for 12 years as a part-time resident who visits often, we noted the increasingly poor condition of this home and its unkempt yard. Clearly, these are residents who cannot, or will not, respect either their legal/financial obligations or the integrity of the neighboring properties.
These residents returned in the heat of the summer of 2012 without ensuring that the premises had running water or air conditioning. If not for our efforts with local and state officials where we advocated that they cite this home as uninhabitable, the returning residents would not have paid an outstanding water bill and provided running water to the home. They were using pool water, which had not been filtered/treated for at least a year, to flush their toilets. Because of a serious mosquito problem in the area, the Town had to treat the community with pesticides. We were concerned that the untreated pool was a potential health hazard for West Nile virus and alerted the County accordingly.
We became aware that BOA secured the winterization of this home in 2011 after the default of these property owners on their mortgage. This action must have been taken to protect what the BOA viewed as their legal ownership of these premises. Why then, after the property was vacated by the property owners of record, does BOA continue to treat the occupants as the legal owners?
We are also aware of BOA’s forgiveness of the second, or subordinate, loan that it made to this property owner in the amount of approximately $100,000. As the total amount loaned to these delinquent debtors totaled roughly the sales price, we estimate that at least $500,000.00 remains due BOA. Considering the interest that has accumulated in the ensuing three years, we imagine that a good deal more is left owing.
Due to the significant fall in home values, and especially in light of the deplorable condition in which this home now finds itself, its market value would approximate one half of the outstanding loan amount.
It is clear to us, now more familiar with the “main breadwinners” work record that he appears to have great difficulty finding work and lost his job with the BOA shortly after purchasing this home. His attempts to support a family of five on whatever limited employment is available to him in this remote, seasonal area seem inadequate.
BOA’s hopes of ever securing any responsible payment of the amounts owed it are slim, if they exist at all; and this latest report we received of an attempt to “work out” the loan is ludicrous, if not exceptionally and personally damaging to us as neighbors in this unfortunate situation.
Additionally, the eldest daughter in this family is in frequent trouble with local law enforcement and is, in fact, in court today answering two drug-related charges.
It is clearly false economy for the BOA to believe that the correct remedy for this problem is to wait for an epiphany that will turn these debtors into responsible borrowers or good neighbors. A better approach would be to conduct the auction of this property as scheduled and allow a competent borrower to purchase and rehabilitate the same. We certainly feel that BOA stockholders would appreciate this latter approach as well.
It is perplexing, too, why some hard-working individuals trying to care for and support their homes in this and other communities and who truly suffered hardships for which they were not responsible, were displaced from their homes by BOA in short periods of time and without the same opportunities granted these homeowners. We’re sure these BOA customers would appreciate an explanation for the disparate treatment evidenced here.”