Roseville, California (PRWEB) December 16, 2011
In what came as a major improvement in the fight against mortgage fraud, on December 1, 2011, the Massachusetts Lawyer Common filed a suit against five of the major mortgage lenders, the LA Instances reports. The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and GMAC Mortgage used fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure processes, took back properties without showing they owned the actual mortgages, and failed to uphold loan modification promises to borrowers in the state. The suit was filed in Superior Court in Suffolk County, case quantity 11-4363.

The case is a welcome improvement for borrowers, who have frequently bore the brunt of the effects of the mortgage crisis. Much media focus has been centered on lawsuits brought on behalf of investors injured by getting been sold toxic mortgage securities.

The United Foreclosure Attorney Network (UFAN) is one firm currently standing up for borrower rights and has suits pending against some of the significant lenders. The Massachusetts case is a constructive development in raising the collective consciousness that borrowers had been usually as considerably victims of fraud as had been the purchasers of their loans, says Kristin Crone, managing attorney at UFAN. UFAN has suits pending against JP Morgan Chase and Aurora in California Superior Court, and against Bank of America and Wells Fargo in California Federal Court. UFAN’s cases are discussed at length on its media web page.

According to the LA Instances, the Massachusetts Attorney Common is open to settling the case so extended as the interests of Massachusetts borrowers are represented. The 50 state Attorneys General have been at one point on board with settlement negotiations that would see main banks spend a sum of funds in exchange for immunity for previous mortgage fraud, news sources recommend. Over the past year, even so, negotiations have stalled prompting specific Attorneys Common (like Kamala Harris of California) to withdraw from possible settlements. California Attorney General Kamala Harris concluded that what was getting provided by the banks was not good sufficient for residents of the state, media reports indicate.

In 2008, then California Lawyer General Jerry Brown sued Countrywide (Men and women of the State of California v. Countrywide Financial Corp., Los Angeles Superior Court, case # LC083076) over alleged deceptive marketing practices that took advantage of borrowers. The case settled a couple of months later and Countrywide was supposed to provide borrowers principal and interest price reductions, according to The Boston Globe. Jerry Brown named the settlement, the largest loan modification in history and it was intended to offer $ 3.4 billion in relief for California borrowers.

Despite high hopes at the time, that settlement has failed to acquire substantial relief for California homeowners, The New York Instances reports, and foreclosure prices continue to rise. Referring to the 2008 settlement, the spokesman for the present California Attorney Basic mentioned there is a substantial gap among the relief promised to property owners and what was actually delivered to them. And the mechanisms needed to hold the bank accountable just werent there.

Complementary consultations offered.

ABOUT THE UNITED FORECLOSURE Lawyer NETWORK

UFAN Legal Group, Pc dba United Foreclosure Attorney Network (UFAN) is a Roseville, California-primarily based law firm supplying mortgage litigation and other debt associated legal services. The committed attorneys and staff at UFAN operate tirelessly to seek justice and fight for the rights of its customers. For more details call toll free of charge 1-866-400-4242.

This release could constitute attorney advertisement. The information in this release and on the UFAN internet site (ufanlaw.com) is for general info purposes only. Nothing in this release or on the UFAN website must be taken as legal advice. Prior successes are no guarantee of future efficiency. Litigation is inherently uncertain and results in litigation are never ever assured.

# # #