Hooker v Bank of America Wells Fargo and QLS | WA Supreme Court – Quality’s violations of the Deeds of Trust Act are grounds to sustain Plaintiff’s claim for damages…entitled to a judgment for treble the amount of her injury, along with her costs of suit, including her reasonable attorneys’ fees - FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Hooker v Bank of America Wells Fargo and QLS | WA Supreme Court – Quality’s violations of the Deeds of Trust Act are grounds to sustain Plaintiff’s claim for damages…entitled to a judgment for treble the amount of her injury, along with her costs of suit, including her reasonable attorneys’ fees

Posted on31 January 2016.

Hooker v Bank of America Wells Fargo and QLS | WA Supreme Court – Quality’s violations of the Deeds of Trust Act are grounds to sustain Plaintiff’s claim for damages…entitled to a judgment for treble the amount of her injury, along with her costs of suit, including her reasonable attorneys’ fees

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY

CONNIE L. HOOKER,
Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, INC. and
Doe Defendants 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Counterclaimant,

v.

CONNIE L. HOOKER, CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
and UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE,
Counterclaim
Defendants

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Defendant Quality committed two
violations of the Washington Deeds of Trust Act when it commenced the nonjudicial foreclosure
of the Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust: (1) Quality violated RCW 61.24.010(1)(a), which requires a
corporate Trustee to have at least one corporate officer who is a Washington resident; and/or
(2) Quality violated RCW 61.24.010(2), which requires a Trustee of a deed of trust to have been
appointed by the beneficiary of the deed of trust.

Quality’s violations of the Deeds of Trust Act are grounds to sustain Plaintiff’s claim for
damages against Quality pursuant the Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW. The
Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in her favor and against Quality for treble the amount of her
injury, along with her costs of suit, including her reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Down Load PDF of This Case

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



Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. Wells Fargo Bank v. | FL 2nd DCA – “WF’s notice was ineffective to commence the thirty-day period because the notice was conditional. The court awarded fees and costs totaling $38,017.50” NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,...
  2. SZUMILAS v. Wells Fargo Bank, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2014 | The judgment is reversed with respect to plaintiff’s claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation BOGDAN SZUMILAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK et...
  3. RIJHWANI v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., Dist. Court, ND CA | HBOR Claim – Wells Fargo’s “dual tracking” and failure to provide a “single point of contact; their promissory estoppel claim MANOJ RIJHWANI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,...
  4. USA v. Bank of America et al. | PLAINTIFF NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ENFORCE THE CONSENT JUDGMENT AGAINST WELLS FARGO DEFENDANTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF...
  5. White v. FEIN, SUCH AND CRANE, LLP, Dist. Court, WD New York 2015 | Class Action – Collection of Unearned Legal Fees, Unincurred Costs States Claim Under FDCPA CHRISTOPHER WHITE and WILLIAM SUITOR, individually and on behalf of...

This post was written by:

- who has written 11570 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

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

Contact the author


Leave a Reply


Advert

Archives

Please Support Me!







Write your comment within 199 characters.

All Of These Are Troll Comments

176,424 spam blocked by Akismet