Case Index

OPEN CASES

Reverse Mortgages

  • Floyd v Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 16-CV-00835-CRC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Complaint || Press Release
    The National Consumer Law Center, the Consumer Fraud & Financial Abuse Unit of Legal Counsel for the Elderly in Washington, D.C. (AARP) and the law firm of Tycko & Zavareei have filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retha Floyd and other similarly situated homeowners who have Home Equity Conversion (HECM) loans with Nationstar Mortgage d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company. The putative class consists of all U.S. residents who had a HECM loan with Champion Mortgage and whose accounts were assessed fees for property inspections more than once in a 30-day period.

Student Loans

  • Case against the United States Department of Education
    The National Consumer Law Center is co-counsel in a Freedom of Information Act suit requesting public records of the U.S. Department of Education regarding race and debt collection practices of third-party debt collectors hired by the Department. 
    Complaint, Exhibit 1 (FOIA request, May 7, 2015), Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4, and press release

Debt Collection

  • Lannan v. Levy & White, Case No. 14 cv 13866 - Partial summary judgment as to liability and class certification were granted in an FDCPA and MA Ch. 93A suit against an attorney debt collector who misrepresented the amount owed by persons receiving ambulance services when he calculated prejudgment interest from the date the services were provided, rather than from the date a demand for payment was sent to the patient. In addition, as a separate violation, in his small claims complaints, the attorney lumped prejudgment interest that hadn't yet been awarded into the amount claimed to already be due at the time of filing of the complaint. The court found this could be confusing to an unsophisticated consumer deciding how to respond to the complaint. Complaint || Order 
  • Fritz v. Resurgent Capital Services and LVNV, Case No. 11–CV–3300 FB VVP in the Eastern District of New York. Memorandum & Order.
    This case challenges the practice of debt buyer LVNV filing state court collection suits in the name of Resurent Capital, one of its unlicensed subsidiaries, in order to protect itself from liability. In a ruling on July 24, 2013, the court denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss in all respects but one. He held that plaintiffs had stated a viable misrepresentation claim under the FDCPA. The court recognized that misrepresenting the owner of the debt was a material violation even though the true owner was a corporate parent because it could confuse and mislead the least sophisticated consumer. Another FDCPA violation that also passed muster was that defendants falsely reported the amount of the debt to CRAs by including state court costs even when they hadn't yet gotten a judgment in their collection action awarding such costs.

    Affirmative defenses of collateral estoppel (due to state court collection judgments), abstention and Noerr Pennington were rejected too. The only claim that was dismissed related to an individual collection letter that also misrepresented ownership of the debt, but was filed beyond the 1 year statute of limitations for such a claim. The decision is reported at 2013 WL 3821479.
  • Kulig v. Midland Funding, Case No. 13 CV 4715, US District Court (EDNY) - suit for systematically filing time-barred lawsuits against hundreds of New York consumers who fell behind on their credit card payments. The suit covers New York consumers whose credit card was issued by a Delaware bank. Under NY law, these collection suits must be filed within 3 years of default on the account, but Midland routinely sues long after that.
  • Clawson, appellant v. Midland Funding et al - Opinion of Court of Appeals Decision, Feb. 26, 2013
    The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed approval of a nationwide settlement affecting 1.44 million victims of a debt buyer's "predatory practices" in using robosigned affidavits to obtain state court collection judgments. The Court found that the original settlement was unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the nationwide settlement class, and that the notice to prospective class members did not satisfy due process. This step allows all of the other robo-signing cases brought against Midland around the United States to proceed. NCLC represented one of the appellants in the case.
  • Blake v. Riddle & Wood, Second Amended Class Action Complaint
  • Tammaro v. Direct Federal Credit Union, First Amended Class Action Complaint

ERISA

Fair Credit Reporting

  • White v. Experian/TransUnion/Equifax 
    The National Consumer Law Center is co-counsel for the plaintiffs in class action lawsuit against TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services LLC ("Defendants"). The suit claims that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and state laws when reporting debts that had been discharged in bankruptcy as not discharged, failed to conduct proper investigations of consumer disputes regarding such debts and caused damage to consumers as a result. A proposed settlement ("Settlement") has been reached which, if finally approved by the Court, will provide payments of damage awards from a $45 million settlement fund. Notices regarding the Settlement recently have been sent to the members of the Settlement class.

Foreclosure and Mortgage

  • Wilborn v. Bank One, Class Action Complaint

This lawsuit challenged provisions in mortgages that allow reinstatement of a loan after default only if the homeowner brings all payments current and also pays the attorney's fees incurred by the lender attempting to foreclose. NCLC and our co-counsel argued that these provisions were contrary to Ohio's public policy that creditors cannot collect attorney's fees from borrowers in debt collection actions. The Ohio Supreme Court found that because the right to reinstate was contractual, not statutory, the requirement to pay attorney's fees was an enforceable part of the bargain. However, the Court distinguished reinstatement from other circumstances such as redemption or paying off a home equity line of credit, where the borrower pays the entire debt and no contractual relationship remains – in those circumstances, the lender cannot collect its attorney's fees. The Ohio Supreme Court remanded the remaining portion of the case which it distinguished for trial in the Court of Common Pleas, and that the matter remains pending there for those class members who did not have their debts reinstated.

Fraud in the Foreclosure Process

Mortgage Securitization Discrimination

Mortgage Servicing Litigation

High Cost Small Loans

  • In re: Chase Bank USA, N.A. “Check Loan” Contract Litigation, Master Class Action Complaint

Overdraft Loans

  • Yourke v. Bank of America, Complaint
    (Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C-1 and C-2, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendices F-G)

Subprime Mortgage Discrimination

National class action cases brought under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act against certain subprime mortgage lenders:

Military Pensions

  • Henry v. Structured Investments Co. et al ComplaintTrial Decision (Class-action lawsuit regarding assignment of pension rights in exchange for lump sum payments)


***
CLOSED CASES