Thanks Cat - that is about some crazy information. Members have doubled, but the guests are what really make up a huge portion of the people using the site. 1300 people don't have anything better to do on Sunday morning than worry about their housing situation and FAMILIES (me included!). That is really sad - but thank goodness we all have this site where we can share information and know that we aren't all total rejects! THANKS Loansafe!
I agree that is sad, Sundays should be spent with family and friends doing something special away from the mess to take ones mind off it for the day. Resting mentally, physically, and emotionally is extremely important during these tough times, even if it is just for a day.
Notice of Mass Tort Lawsuit Against Countrywide and BofA Mailing, re: Real Estate Law Center PC
Received the aforementioned mailing the other day. Called and discovered a Chad Pratt, Esq, is charging $5000 for people who owned either CW or BofA mortgages, to join their "Mass Tort Lawsuit". They have 200 CW/BofA customers already and are looking to add more complainants. I wondered if any of you had heard of this Pratt or Real Estate Law Center PC, 30 N. Raymond Ave., Pasadena, CA 91103. I was also told that by joining the lawsuit and paying the $5000 that they would represent me in any foreclosure actions that BofA may bring against me. They believe they will win their case and stated they are not going after monetary damages, but rather an 80 percent principal reduction, a 2 percent principal and interest payment or less and monetary damages for the complainants but not themselves! Seems a little strange to me that one must pay to join such a planned lawsuit. On the reverse side of their letter they document Superior Court of California Case No. BC463386.
I'm awaiting further details of this litigation and "testimonials" from some of the complainants. I'm very skeptical of this and would love to hear your thoughts on this.
While he currently does not have any disciplinary action against him, it may be only a matter of time. There are at least 3 law firms in California that are under investigation by the AG and the State Bar for deceptive practices as it relates to similar solicitations.
The crux of Plaintiffsâ€™ UDAP claim is that BACâ€™s
actions establish that it was engaged in a scheme in which it
never intended to modify Plaintiffsâ€™ loan. Instead, BAC intended
to keep Plaintiffsâ€™ loan â€œin default and arrears for as long as
possible before ultimately foreclosing to maximize its fees and
the payments it can extract from Plaintiffs.â€ [Complaint at
Â¶ 142.] This Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled
the time, place, and content of the allegedly fraudulent
representations which form the basis of the UDAP claim. Further,
the Court finds that Plaintiffsâ€™ allegations of Defendantâ€™s
scheme to artificially extend the loan modification process to
maximize fees and payments prior to an inevitable foreclosure
sufficiently allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice. As to Plaintiffsâ€™ damages, the Complaint alleges that:
BACâ€™s â€œfalse representations that Plaintiffs would only qualify
for loan modification if they remained delinquent on their mortgage payments has caused Plaintiffs significant damage to
their credit scoresâ€; and, but for BACâ€™s misrepresentations,
â€œPlaintiffs would have sought alternate foreclosure avoidance
This Court FINDS that Plaintiffsâ€™ allegations are plausible
and are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement to allege
the damages suffered as a result of the alleged UDAP violation. This Court therefore FINDS that Plaintiffs have alleged
a plausible UDAP claim, and the Court DENIES Defendantâ€™s Motion
as to Count II.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the other elements of their negligence claim and that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible negligence claim. Defendantâ€™s Motion is therefore DENIED as to Count I.
Thanks for your post. I certainly hope you prevail in your litigation. Although your case won't likely be considered legal precedent, it would nonetheless be a moral victory, and an optimistic sign that some courts are turning the corner and starting to favor borrowers' well argued and pled positions.
Kudos to you for having spent the money and taken the litigation risk.
I recently spoke with someone at an agency listed on TV. Spoke very well, but Pratt is the atty he wants me to speak to. I have always been told not to spend a dime joining these class action suits. Glad I started researching here Thanks for saving me grief!