Bank of America Case

This first case filed to test the pro se model was against Bank of America.  It concerns the events leading up to, including, and subsequent to the attempted wrongful foreclosure of the Plaintiffs’ home, which was purchased on January 30, 2007, and financed in part by an Interest Only Fixed Rate Note issued by Pulte Mortgage, LLC.

In early 2010, after experiencing a precipitous drop in their income in the prior years, after depleting their savings to keep their mortgage current, Plaintiffs contacted Bank of America (the apparent loan servicer at the time) seeking relief (as instructed by the Obama administration), informing them that they were experiencing financial distress, and inquiring about options available to them including a mortgage modification, a short sale, and a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

Bank of America responded that no options or relief would be available until Plaintiffs had missed at least two monthly payments.  Plaintiffs then skipped the next two monthly payments and promptly applied for relief under HAMP, as instructed by the Bank, on April 24, 2010.

Because two of the options discussed would have resulted in the Plaintiffs losing their home, and because Plaintiffs had been led to believe that a prompt decision from the Bank would be forthcoming, Plaintiffs decided to make no further payments until a decision was rendered.

Instead of a prompt decision as expected, after more than 15 months of attempting to work with Bank of America, after skipping contractual obligations on the advice of the Bank, after submitting no less than 4 complete applications, after submitting many more supplementary documents, after calling the Bank weekly/monthly, after being subjected to misinformation, harassment, and other forms of abuse, after coming within 24 hours of foreclosure, after asking for options including deed in lieu of foreclosure, a short sale, or a modification, Plaintiffs finally received a modification offer on June 13, 2011, an offer that provided no relief, an offer that would have more than doubled their original monthly payment.

It was during this extended period that Plaintiffs first began to suspect that Bank of America was not being truthful in their exchanges, was not playing fair, was being deceptive, and was taking advantage of their clients.

It was also during this time that Plaintiffs first learned that Bank of America was being investigated by numerous state and federal agencies, and had signed a Consent Order with the Comptroller of the Currency on April 13, 2011 whereby they had agreed to stop many of the egregious practices that the Plaintiffs had experienced to date.

It was during this time that Plaintiffs first began to suspect that Bank of America was servicing a debt from a purported note holder, who likely had no legal authority to collect on the Promissory Note.

As a result of these suspicions, the Plaintiffs sent their first certified letter disputing the debt on April 25, 2011, where they asked for “written documentation that CWALT, Inc. is indeed the current beneficiary, that it is indeed the Holder in Due Course, and that it has Standing to pursue collections and/or foreclosure in this matter.”

In the subsequent months, the Plaintiffs continued to work in good faith to resolve the outstanding dispute with the Bank, to no avail.  To date, no proof has ever been offered showing that CWALT, Inc has any interest in and/or is entitled to collect on the Promissory Note.

Instead, the Bank has attempted to foreclose on the Plaintiffs twice, and CWALT, Inc. continues to pursue these actions without showing any evidence that they have any right to collect the outstanding debt.

In an effort to seek justice and prevent the wrongful foreclosure of their home, Plaintiffs have contacted numerous state and federal agencies, congressmen, and the press, to no avail.  With few options remaining, Plaintiffs decided to file their original lawsuit in state court on October 21st, 2011.  Since they couldn’t afford to hire an attorney, they decided to proceed pro se, relying on their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to property, due process, and justice in the courts.

(you can read the rest here)