Multi-Celebration Suit Filed By Property owners Against Bank of America et al


Roseville, California (PRWEB) August 24, 2011

On Wednesday August 17, 2011, United Foreclosure Lawyer Network (UFAN) filed suit in Superior Court in Sacramento, CA (case number 34-2011-00109314) on behalf of more than 100 homeowners against Bank of America and other people alleged by Plaintiffs to be involved in a scheme to defraud and otherwise take benefit of American homeowners.

&#13

According to UFANs managing attorney Kristin Crone, This is a chance for home owners to fight for their rights. And, it will be a fight. The complaint particulars how a vast quantity of property owners nationwide are facing mortgage debts far higher than the value of their homes. Some property owners lost what equity investments they had in their houses when the housing marketplace crashed.

&#13

The lawsuit levies blame for the crash of the mortgage market place against large banks and mortgage lenders. According to the complaint, among 2000 and present, mortgages had been packaged up in pools and the pools have been sold to investors. Because a bank could rapidly recoup amounts spent issuing mortgages by the sale of these pools of mortgages (otherwise known as Residential Mortgage Backed Securities, or RMBS), the banks incentivized mortgage brokers and lending institutions with higher fees for origination (yield spread premiums, origination charges, and discount costs). These fee incentives encouraged the origination of hugely predatory loans to men and women who could not afford the loans extended term, the complaint alleges.

&#13

The complaint alleges that the terms of the loans have been complicated and tough to comprehend even for sophisticated borrowers. A lot of of the loans had a two to five year period of a low fixed interest price and interest only payments. Most home owners were promised a refinance prior to the increased payments due at the end of the fixed rate period. But, when the time came to refinance, in spite of the truth that the monetary scenario of the borrower a lot of times remained the same, no refinance was provided. In some instances, refinances or loan mods were granted but they truly improved the borrowers month-to-month payment and/or necessary a huge money payment up front of $ ten,000 or far more.

&#13

Court documents show that the lead Plaintiff in the case, like several others, was told by Bank of America to quit her mortgage payments in order to be considered for a loan modification. The homeowner stopped her payments and started negotiations for far more fair terms with the bank. Smartly, the homeowner saved money so she could bring her loan existing if negotiations had been not fruitful. The complaint alleges that she was promised her home would not be foreclosed even though she was being regarded for a loan modification. She told bank representatives that she could bring her loan current if it was going to sell. Court documents show that the bank promised her the foreclosure would be postponed. It was not. This client has now permanently lost her property to a third party buyer.

&#13

UFAN plans to bring claims against all of the key banks on behalf of property owners within the subsequent handful of months. Our consumers want to fight for their rights and they are just asking for a fair shake, says Ms. Crone. We are attempting to give them the likelihood to be heard and to try to stay in their homes under affordable loan terms. The banks have been providing everyone the runaround by way of loss mitigation departments that repeatedly shed documents and claim to perform with homeowners whilst selling their residences out from beneath them. Filing suit was a last resort for many of our clients, but the bank produced it appear as if it was the only way to truly get their focus.

&#13

Complementary consultations offered.

&#13

ABOUT UNITED FORECLOSURE Attorney NETWORK

&#13

The United Foreclosure Attorney Network (UFAN) is a Roseville, California-based law firm practicing on the cutting edge of mortgage fraud and foreclosure defense. UFAN represents consumers who have been victims of predatory lending and/or wrongful foreclosure. The committed attorneys and employees at UFAN perform tirelessly to seek justice for fraudulent mortgage practices and fight for the rights of American property owners. For far more details contact toll free of charge 1-866-400-4242.

&#13

This release might constitute attorney advertisement. The data in this release and on the United Foreclosure Lawyer Network (TheUFAN.com) internet site is for basic details purposes only. Absolutely nothing in this release or on the United Foreclosure Attorney Network (TheUFAN.com) website ought to be taken as legal advice. Prior successes are no guarantee of future overall performance. Litigation is inherently uncertain and benefits in litigation are in no way assured.

&#13
&#13
&#13
&#13
&#13

Multi-celebration Suit Filed by Borrowers Against Aurora Bank et al


Roseville, California (PRWEB) November 11, 2011

On Tuesday October 25, 2011, United Foreclosure Lawyer Network (UFAN) filed suit in Superior Court in Sacramento (case # 34-2011-00112919) on behalf of borrowers allegedly injured by the lending practices of Aurora Bank and other people believed to have misled borrowers.

&#13

The complaint alleges that Aurora was one particular of the significant players in a scheme to make quickly, easy income at the expense of proper mortgage underwriting procedures. By packing subprime loans into mortgage backed securities that were sold to investors, a bank could recoup the funds lent quickly. The suit argues that this procedure encouraged lenders and mortgage brokers to aggressively push higher-expense subprime loans on any individual they could convince to sign on the dotted line.

&#13

According to court documents, plaintiffs argue that due to the fact of the sale of their loans, they did not obtain the benefit of the contract for which they bargained. Plaintiffs, believing they would be placed into a standard Lender/Borrower connection, later identified that they did not have a lender with whom they could deal. Servicers are restricted in producing alterations to contracts when situations are unforeseeably changed. Furthermore, loan servicers have an incentive to foreclose whereas a lender has the incentive to modify a loan if it would be much more profitable in the extended run. If numerous of the home owners had been still in the traditional lender/borrower relationship, they could have restructured the mortgage for a far more desirable result for both parties. In the present circumstance, the only entity profiting is the loan servicer. The complaint specifics how many Plaintiffs diligently sought modification of their loans but had been denied either because the servicer had no authority to grant a modification or since the servicer chose not to grant a modification.