Below are some of the notable court cases and victories that Consumer Action Law Group has achieved. Through mortgage litigation, and under the recently enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights for California, we have successfully helped our clients save their homes. Our team of dedicated foreclosure attorneys strategically uses the law to support our clients and help them keep their homes out of foreclosure.
This represents a small number of the many cases that Consumer Action Law Group has won for clients. Want to know if we’ve sued your lender? Call us today.
If you are a past client of Consumer Action Law Group and would like to share your story for others to read, please
Mushin v. Bank of America, et al. ($277,549 reduction of principal balance)
Plaintiff alleged that the lender breached a trial loan modification plan. The Plaintiff performed all terms and conditions required on his part, including making payments after the trial period for approximately fifteen months. However, the lender refused to perform their obligations under the trial plan to offer a permanent modification.
The Plaintiffs filed suit and their case was settled out of court. Plaintiffs received a monthly payment reduction from $2,980.65 to $1,409.55. In addition, the Plaintiff received a reduction of their principal balance in the amount of $277,549.98. Without disclosing additional specifics of the settlement, Plaintiff received favorable terms for mortgage payments and a sizable principal reduction moving forward and achieved their goal of staying in the home.
Court Cases: Brizuela v. Ocwen Loan Servicing; et al. ($195,000 reduction of principal balance)
The Plaintiffs were experiencing financial difficulties, and therefore the Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to restructure their debts and become current on their mortgage. The Plaintiffs made their mortgage payments while in bankruptcy, on time, every month to their lender.
Plaintiffs’ loan was sold to Ocwen, however, the Plaintiffs continued to make their mortgage payments on time every month. However, once Ocwen took control of the Plaintiffs’ mortgage, Ocwen sent the Plaintiffs a loan statement indicating that Plaintiffs owed $47,726.68 in arrearages. The Plaintiffs knew that the loan statement was a mistake. The lender accused the Plaintiffs of not making their mortgage payments for ten months even though the Plaintiffs did in fact make their mortgage payments as they had proof of payments via receipts. The Plaintiffs attempted to contact Ocwen regarding the discrepancy; however Ocwen refused to work with Plaintiffs and to clear up the arrearages issue.
The Plaintiffs filed suit in Superior Court of California and as a result, the case was settled out of court. Prior to the litigation, the Plaintiffs had a mortgage payment of $3,262.00. After the lawsuit concluded, the Plaintiffs received a new payment of $2,069.53. Additionally, the Plaintiffs received a reduced principal balance to $335,000.00 from $530,000.00; which was a $195,000.00 reduction in the principal balance of the loan. The Plaintiffs received favorable terms for mortgage payments moving forward as well as received a sizable principal reduction and achieved their goal of staying in the home.
Maghoul v. Southstar Funding, LLC; Quality Loan Service Corp.; et al. ($163,573 reduction of principal balance)
Plaintiffs spent two (2) years trying to qualify for hardship assistance from their lender. Eventually, Plaintiffs received a Making Homes Affordable Agreement (MHA) under the government HAMP program. The terms were not favorable, and were so oppressive, Plaintiffs were concerned that they were being set up to fail and eventually lose their home. Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the assistance offered would harm the Plaintiffs more than help them and as such was not made in good faith by the lender. The harmful terms included a balloon payment of $303,769.96 that would be due at the end of the loan or the house would be foreclosed on again and lose their house after making their payments to the lender.
Plaintiff’s case was settled out of court. The Plaintiff had an original mortgage payment of $2,434.00, however, the Plaintiffs received a reduced mortgage payment of $1,468.00 at a fixed 2% interest rate and achieved their goal of staying in their home.
Shendrya v. Bank Of America N.A.; et al. ($159,479 reduction of principal balance)
The Plaintiff, like many Americans, was suffering economic hardship, so the Plaintiff submitted an application for homeowner’s assistance to their lender. During the application for assistance process the Plaintiff’s lender promised that if the Plaintiff made her payments under the trial homeowner’s assistance agreement, then she would be granted a permanent homeowner’s assistance agreement which would allow her to become current on her loan. The Plaintiff received several packets of documents from her lender, all of which she completed and sent back to the lender as per their request. The Plaintiff did receive an approval of an agreement, and after the Plaintiff made every payment as instructed, the Plaintiff’s lender sent a letter stating that the agreement was cancelled due to not receiving the scheduled payments.
Plaintiff filed suit and their case was settled out of court. Plaintiff received a reduction of monthly mortgage payment from $2,321.75 to $1,127.95. In addition, Plaintiff received a reduction of her principal balance in the amount of $159,479.81. Without disclosing additional specifics of the settlement, Plaintiff received favorable terms for mortgage payments moving forward and achieved her goal of staying in the home.
Sample Court Cases: Baker v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC; Litton Loan Servicing, LP; et al. ($95,207 reduction of principal balance)
The Plaintiffs entered into and received a homeowner’s assistance agreement with their lender. In this agreement, the Plaintiffs submitted their monthly mortgage payment to their servicer Litton Loan Servicing, however, after realizing that Litton had not cashed their payment, the Plaintiffs immediately contacted their servicer, where they were informed that their loan was transferred to Ocwen [defendant]. Defendant later cashed the Plaintiffs mortgage payment, however, during the same month, defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiffs stating that they were in default despite the Plaintiffs having made their mortgage payment. When the Plaintiffs contacted defendant, they were told their account was in default and that they needed to apply for a hardship assistance program, even though they had already been approved for a homeowner’s assistance program. The following month, the Plaintiffs sent another mortgage payment in the amount that was previously agreed to in their homeowner’s assistance agreement, which was processed and accepted. And again, the Plaintiffs received a notice of default from defendant, and again they were told to apply for a hardship assistance program even though they were already in one.
The Plaintiffs filed suit and their case was settled out of court. Plaintiffs received a reduction of the principal balance from $411,207.12 to $316,000.00, which is a $95,207.12 reduction. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ monthly mortgage payments were reduced from $2,608.57 to $1,200.80. Without disclosing additional specifics of the settlement, Plaintiff received favorable terms for mortgage payments moving forward and achieved their goal of staying in the home.
Myers v. Ocwen Financial Services; Litton Loan Services, et al. ($3,804 reduction of monthly payment)
The Plaintiff was experiencing financial hardship due to a reduction of income. The Plaintiff, while attempting to be proactive, requested hardship assistance from the lender. In the initial conversation with the lender, Palintiff was told that he was indeed qualified for home loan assistance. As a result, the lender sent a trail mortgage assistance agreement, which the Plaintiff completed successfully by making all of his payments on time monthly. Upon following up, the lender stated that Plaintiff had missed two payments during their trial period, and would not grant him a loan modification. However, the Plaintiff had not missed any such payments.
The Plaintiff filed suit and the case was settled out of court. Without disclosing the specifics of the settlement, Plaintiff received favorable terms for mortgage payments that included a reduction from $6,621.00 to $2,796.17 moving forward and achieved the goal of staying in the home.
Metzidis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A; et al. (Monthly payment and interest reduced)
Plaintiffs were continuously attempting to contact their lender regarding hardship assistance due to unexpected medical expenses. Once Plaintiffs began falling behind in their payments, they proceeded to complete four separate applications for mortgage assistance and submitted them to defendant.
Plaintiffs filed suit on the basis of misrepresentation; they were denied for a type of hardship assistance for which they did not apply. Their case was settled out of court. The Plaintiff had an original mortgage payment of $2,434.00, however, the Plaintiffs received a reduced mortgage payment of $1,468.00 at a fixed 2% interest rate and achieved their goal of staying in their home.
Sample Court Cases: Carreira v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., et al. (Reduction of interest rate: fixed 2%)
The Plaintiff applied for mortgage assistance due to financial hardship. Upon applying, Plaintiff received a trial mortgage assistance agreement. Approximately seven months into Plaintiff’s trial period, the lender informed the Plaintiff that they had been approved for a permanent mortgage assistance agreement and that a representative from CHASE would be in touch with Plaintiffs as to the specific terms of the agreement. For more than several months, the Plaintiff was told by several lender representatives that the permanent terms were being drafted and that the Plaintiff would receive them in the near future. After waiting many months for the permanent loan mortgage assistance agreement terms, the Plaintiff received a notice of denial of a mortgage assistance agreement despite being promised a permanent loan modification.
Plaintiffs immediately contacted Defendant, whereby a customer assistance specialist informed Plaintiffs that the letter was automatically generated and mailed off to Plaintiffs accidentally. The Plaintiff was again strung along with empty promises of permanent modification terms to be delivered to the Plaintiff in the near future. Fed up with the empty promises, the Plaintiffs sent a demand letter, which was only answered with more empty promises.
Court Cases Example: Black v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, et al. (Reversal of foreclosure sale)
The Plaintiff has owned a rural home in Apache Junction since 1976, however, due to her increasing mortgage payments and her fixed income, as the Plaintiff was only receiving Social Security, she couldn’t afford to pay her mortgage. The Plaintiff submitted a loan modification, which was approved. However, a short time later, despite the mortgage being paid on time every month, the lender foreclosed and an unlawful detainer (eviction proceeding) was filed.
The Plaintiff filed a suit against the lender and servicer for wrongfully and unlawfully foreclosing on her home. The suit filed in Pinal County included exhibits showing on-time payments. The case was settled and a rescission of the sale was recorded. The terms of the settlement included reduced mortgage payments moving forward and a significantly reduced principal balance.