Class Action Suit Filed Against Bank of America For Abuse in Texas

Case 6:10-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/29/10 Page 1 of 51
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
JOYCE HARRYMAN, §
LETICIA LERMA GONZALEZ, §
KIM YVETTE THOMPSON, §
DIANA GONZALEZ, LEA CORNEJO, §
BRANDON KRAUSKOPF, §
DONNA BATTS, KAREN MATHEWS, §
KIM ARMENDAREZ, §
PETE ARMENDAREZ, SHERRY BIGGS, §
WILLIAM BIGGS, VANESSA JACKSON, §
AGAPITO JALAMOS, §
MARIA DELOURDES JALAMOS, and §
TEXAS HOUSING JUSTICE LEAGUE, § NO.
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and §
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. §
§
Defendants. §
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Plaintiffs are and represent people who purchased their first homes between 1994
and 2006, usually with loan assistance from the Federal Housing Administration and the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs. Their loans were all serviced by Defendant BAC, which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Bank of America, N.A. This lawsuit complains not of
poor customer service by BAC, but of a systematic home loan servicing scheme that includes
hours of telephone runaround, misleading and inconsistent information, lost correspondence,
verbal abuse, and extensive delay, all of which have documented costs not only in terms of
money, but in health. The facts in this case reveal the harsh reality that underlies the loan
1
servicer’s press statements about loan modifications and forbearance agreements following
collapse of the U.S. housing market.
II. JURISDICTION
2. The court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 over the claims
arising under 12 U.S.C. § 2605.
3. The court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 over Plaintiffs’
claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unreasonable collection efforts, and
violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act because Plaintiffs’ claims are so related to the claims
within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
4. The court has diversity jurisdiction over the lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1)
because all Plaintiffs and all Defendants are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.
III. PARTIES
5. Plaintiffs Joyce Harryman (Victoria County, Texas), Leticia Lerma Gonzalez
(Webb County, Texas), Kim Yvette Thompson (Travis County, Texas), Diana Gonzalez
(Hidalgo County, Texas), Lea Cornejo (El Paso County, Texas), Brandon Krauskopf (Gillespie
County, Texas), Donna Batts (Travis County, Texas), Karen Mathews (Bexar County, Texas),
Kim Armendarez (Bastrop County, Texas), Pete Armendarez (Bastrop County, Texas), Sherry
Biggs (Williamson County, Texas), William Biggs (Williamson County, Texas), Vanessa
Jackson (Bastrop County, Texas), Agapito Jalamos (Val Verde County, Texas), and Maria De
Lourdes Jalamos (Val Verde County, Texas) are individuals who are residents of the State of
Texas.
2
6. Plaintiff Texas Housing Justice League (“THJL”) is a nonprofit corporation that is
organized and operated under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act to serve the interests of low-
income Texans seeking the protection of housing rights.
7. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a banking association that has its main office
located in North Carolina. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. may be served with process by
serving its registered agent, CT Corporation, at 350 N. St. Paul St., Dallas, Texas 75201.
8. Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is a limited partnership. BAC has
only two partners: BANA LP, LLC and BAC GP, LLC. Both partners are wholly owned by
Bank of America, N.A, which is a citizen of North Carolina. Therefore, Defendant BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP is a citizen of North Carolina, and may be served with process by serving its
registered agent, CT Corporation, at 350 N. St. Paul St., Dallas, Texas 75201.
IV. BACKGROUND
9. Defendant BAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the well-known banking
institution Bank of America. Defendant BAC performs “servicing” of home loans for various
parties that own the right to receive payments on the loan (holders). These holders are often
investors, securitized trusts, or banking institutions that do not have the infrastructure to collect
payments from borrowers or, in their business judgment, have found it preferable to use a
“servicer,” such as Defendant BAC. The exact type of “servicing” that a “servicer” performs is
often controlled by private contract or government regulation, depending on the type of loan.
However, servicing generally includes such functions as collecting payments, communicating
with borrowers on the holder’s behalf, and in some cases, administering a foreclosure.
10. In some instances, federal and state governments also impose requirements on
loan servicers. Although this lawsuit does not allege a private right of action arises under any of
3
these regulations or programs, in some cases these requirements have been incorporated
contractually in to Plaintiffs’ loan documents, and in addition, these requirements provide helpful
background in understanding the functions that Defendant BAC has agreed to perform on behalf
of loan holders, and demonstrate a clear federal policy in favor of preserving home ownership
when feasible where loans of the type that Plaintiffs have obtained are involved.
11. Twelve of the fifteen individual Plaintiffs had home loans that were insured by
the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). These Plaintiffs pay a monthly premium to the
FHA to insure their mortgages against the risk of default, which provides an incentive to lenders
to offer loans to borrowers that otherwise might not be qualified for the loan. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) releases “mortgagee letters”
describing the obligations of those servicing FHA insured loans. Mortgagee Letter 2000-05
describes a program called “Loss Mitigation” that gives lenders and servicers both “the authority
and the responsibility to utilize actions and strategies to assist borrowers in default in retaining
their homes, and/or in reducing losses to FHA’s insurance funds.” The Mortgagee Letter further
provides in bold capitalized letters, “PARTICIPATION IN THE LOSS MITIGATION
PROGRAM IS NOT OPTIONAL.”
12. In addition, Defendants have agreed to participate in the “Home Affordable
Modification Program” (“HAMP”), which is a federal program introduced by the U.S.
Department of the Treasury to assist at-risk homeowners restructure their mortgages to avoid
foreclosure. See Home Affordable Modification Program, Supplemental Directive 09-01, Apr. 6,
2009, available at https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/docs/hamp_servicer/sd0901.pdf. Under
the terms of the program, the Treasury Department provides financial incentives for banks to
reduce homeowners’ monthly mortgage payments to sustainable levels. See Home Affordable
4
Modification Program Guidelines, March 4, 2009, available at
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/modification_program_guidelines.pdf, (hereinafter
HAMP Guidelines).
13. In order to participate in HAMP, loan servicers must execute a servicer
participation agreement with Fannie Mae as agent for the Treasury Department. HAMP
Supplemental Directive 09-01 at 1. Although, decisions about whether to modify the original
terms of a mortgage (such as by reducing the interest rate or extending the term of the loan) are
generally governed by the private contract between a lender and a borrower, the HAMP
guidelines place heightened requirements on participating servicers to modify the original terms
of mortgage loans in certain circumstances described by the program.
V. FACTS
14. Many of the Plaintiffs were told that they were eligible for loan modifications or
other workout assistance, only to spend months being shuffled through Defendant BAC’s “Home
Retention,” “HOPE”, “Foreclosure,” “Bankruptcy” and “Collections” departments with no
resolution. Others simply wanted to know that they had been reviewed accurately for eligibility
in any available programs, that a denial of assistance was final, and that their arrearage had been
correctly calculated. Instead of providing Plaintiffs with basic information about the servicing of
their loans and providing timely screenings for workout assistance, however, Defendant BAC
misrepresented material information to the Plaintiffs about their loans, and forced them into a
scheme of operation so dysfunctional that the constant barrage of misinformation, misdirection,
and deliberate inactivity amounted to abuse and harassment.
15. Plaintiffs describe feeling “harassed,” “like a yo-yo,” and “blocked at every turn.”
When Plaintiffs called Defendant BAC the information they received over the telephone often
5
conflicted with written statements or prior telephone conversations. In many of the telephone
calls Defendant BAC spun Plaintiffs in a labyrinth of transfers from one department to another
and back again. Plaintiffs spent hundreds of hours on the telephone, explaining their stories to a
different person each time they called; often they were transferred between departments,
knowing they would never speak to the same person again, and wondering if the information
being provided would be contradicted by the next person they spoke with. Often, it was.
16. Requests to speak with supervisors or managers were met with resistance. During
the course of telephone calls to Defendant BAC, Plaintiffs often found themselves disconnected
after waiting on hold to speak to a supervisor, or were told that no supervisors were available.
17. Some Plaintiffs sought out face-to-face interviews by contacting Bank of America
branch offices, but simply found themselves on speakerphones with the same unaccountable
departments that had previously been providing them with misinformation by telephone. Written
communications did not fare better. Plaintiffs’ written submissions were often lost or misplaced.
Plaintiffs were asked to sign the same documents three, four or even five times, and were asked
to provide the same information repeatedly. Many of the Plaintiffs were assigned multiple
“negotiators” who would not return telephone calls, or provide timely information to Plaintiffs.
18. Plaintiffs’ experiences are not isolated incidents, but instead reveal a pattern and
practice by Defendant BAC of deliberately misinforming borrowers in default or at risk of
default, and refusing to respond to Plaintiffs’ legitimate, written and oral requests for
information.
Donna Batts
19. In April 2001, Plaintiff Donna Batts and her niece, Christina Shaw, took out a
federally-insured loan for $95,663.00 from SD Mortgage Services, Ltd. to purchase her home
6
located at 7304 Hillcroft Dr., Austin, TX 78724. A true copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as
Exhibit A. The servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.
20. In 2006 Plaintiff suffered a knee injury, and after two surgeries became unable to
work in her chosen field of child development. In January 2009, Plaintiff received her last
payment for unemployment insurance. She then began having difficulty making her mortgage
payments. Plaintiff made some payments on time, sometimes made partial payments and
sometimes missed payments. Realizing the problem, Plaintiff called BAC to learn if she could
get a modification to lower her payments.
21. At first Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that she was not far enough behind on her
payments to qualify for assistance, but Plaintiff continued to call until in June or July 2009, when
Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that she could apply for a loan modification. Plaintiff filled out
documents that were mailed to her, and returned these documents with supporting
documentation.
22. When Plaintiff did not receive a response, she continued to call until in September
2009, she spoke to a person named Tameka McGee. Plaintiff understood from this conversation
that if she made on time payments for three months, she would be offered a loan modification.
23. Shortly thereafter, she received documents in the mail from Defendant BAC. A
true and correct copy of the September 15, 2009 correspondence is attached as Exhibit B.
Plaintiff received two letters. One of the letters stated that Plaintiff was “‘Pre-Approved’ for
Workout Assistance,” and requested that she sign a number of forms, including a “Negotiation
Agreement” and provide supporting documentation. The second letter, titled “Special
Forbearance Agreement” included a written offer by Defendant BAC to Plaintiff Batts to
consider her for a workout option called a partial claim, if she made her monthly mortgage
7
payments of $1,089.05 per month for three months. The agreement further provided that all
foreclosure actions would be postponed as long as Plaintiff was not in default under the
agreement.
24. Plaintiff believed that she would be given a loan modification after making three
on-time payments under the agreement. Therefore, she completed the paperwork that was sent to
her and returned it with various materials that were requested, including the signed agreement
and a Western Union payment of $1,090.
25. Approximately 2 weeks later, in early October, Plaintiff received a written notice
sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, giving her notice that her house was scheduled to
be sold on November 3, 2009. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached as Exhibit C.
The notice began with this cover page :
IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS
CONTAINED WITHIN THE ATTACHED
NOTICE.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER &

ENGLE, LLP IS A DEBT COLLECTOR
ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY
INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
26. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant on October 7, 2009, but Defendant
initially refused to postpone or cancel the foreclosure sale despite the existence of a forbearance
agreement. After further correspondence, just five days before the sale, on October 29, 2009,
Defendant canceled the foreclosure sale. This event caused Plaintiff a great amount of stress.
Over the course of her dealings with Defendant BAC, Plaintiff suffered two anxiety attacks for
which she sought treatment at an emergency room.
8
27. When Plaintiff imagines the loss of her home, she cannot help but visualize
having to take her six-year-old son to live in a shelter. Her son has severe asthma, and requires
breathing treatments three times per day. She cannot help but imagine having to administer her
son’s breathing treatments at a shelter with strangers looking on and passing by. She knows this
would be detrimental to her son’s health, and feels the full weight of this responsibility. After
her visits to the emergency room, she visited Austin Regional Clinic, where she was prescribed
medication for anxiety. Even with this prescription treatment, however, she frequently feels
anxiety attacks coming on, and must calm herself to keep these at bay.
28. Defendant intentionally took action to post Plaintiff’s home for a foreclosure sale
on November 3, 2009 knowing that a forbearance agreement was in place with Plaintiff.
Moreover, Defendant posts properties for foreclosure sale as a standard practice after
forbearance agreements are entered into with a homeowner, and does so because Defendant
knows that a share of homeowners will not challenge the foreclosure despite their right to do so,
and Defendant will therefore benefit.
29. Meanwhile, Plaintiff Batts made the three payments as required by the
forbearance agreement for the months of September, October, November, 2009. In or around
December 2009, Plaintiff had not received any information about her application for a loan
modification. However, she believed that the term of her three-month forbearance agreement
would expire in December, and therefore began calling Defendant regularly trying to get
information about the status of her modification request. Several times she was told that her
application had been “kicked out of the system” for incomplete information, but no one was able
to tell her what information was missing. Representatives would tell her simply to resubmit
everything from the beginning.
9
30. She received three additional requests in December, February and May from
Defendant BAC that she complete a hardship affidavit, negotiation agreement, and provide
supporting documentation. Copes of the December, February, and May requests for submission
are attached as Exhibit D (social security numbers and birth dates are redacted for privacy). On
each occasion, she submitted the signed hardship affidavit, signed negotiation agreement and
supporting documents.
31. Plaintiff believed that she would be offered a loan modification with a new
payment plan by the end of December 2009, and, because the plan in the forbearance agreement
did not call for a December payment (or mention an amount for future payments), she did not
make a December payment. In one of her calls to Defendant, however, she was told that she
needed to continue making payments. Therefore, she made two payments in January 2010.
32. Strangely, in February 2010 she received a letter from Defendant, canceling the
expired forbearance agreement. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit E.
Follow up calls only further contradicted the information in the letter, and caused greater
confusion.
33. The few times that Plaintiff received letters, the information was vaguely worded,
and contradicted what she was told over the telephone. For example, on or about March 3, 2010
Plaintiff received confirmation over the telephone that Defendant BAC had received the financial
information that she had sent, and did not need any additional information. Subsequently, she
received a letter dated March 2, 2010 stating that her request for a loan modification was
considered incomplete because she had not returned all of the requested financial information. A
true and correct copy of the March 3, 2010 letter is attached as Exhibit F. When she called
Defendant to try to understand the letters, she received more contradictory and confusing
10
information. On some occasions, representatives told her to re-send the paperwork. On other
occasions, she was told that her paperwork was complete and nothing was missing.
34. Often Plaintiff would call, and would spend 20 or 30 minutes being transferred
from the “Home Retention Department” to the “HOPE Division” or on to “Payments in Lieu.”
On several other occasions, she called and was told that their entire system was down, and she
should try to call back another time. No matter how many times she called, however, Plaintiff
could not obtain timely, consistent answers to basic questions such as whether her documentation
had been received, whether any documentation was missing, and for what programs she was
being considered. This confusing system of overlapping departments was intentional or at least
knowing.
35. On or around March 23, 2010 Plaintiff’s February mortgage payment was
returned to her. She called Defendant for an explanation, and learned that her home had been
placed into foreclosure process, and Defendant would no longer accept payments from her. Six
days later she received a letter in the mail from Defendant stating that her application for a loan
modification submitted in September had been received, was under review, and that any failure
to make her monthly payments could jeopardize her chances of receiving workout assistance. A
true and correct copy of the March 22, 2010 letter is attached as Exhibit G.
36. On or around April 8, 2010, however, Plaintiff received a letter titled “Rescission
of Acceleration of Loan Maturity.” The letter stated that Plaintiff would be allowed to continue
to pay the indebtedness. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit H.
Nonetheless Defendant BAC continued to tell Plaintiff over the telephone that her loan was “in
foreclosure,” and that she should not send payments because they would not be accepted.
11
37. In May 2010, Defendant BAC again asked Plaintiff to submit a hardship affidavit,
negotiation agreement, and supporting documentation. A copy of Plaintiff’s May 11, 2010
submission is attached as Exhibit I (Social Security numbers and birth dates have been redacted
for privacy and financial documentation has been removed for privacy). Plaintiff again
submitted these documents. Defendant BAC has made two additional requests that Plaintiff fax
her hardship letter and financial documentation since Plaintiff’s May 11, 2010 submission.
Plaintiff faxed the documents, through counsel, on both occasions.
38. As of the time of filing, Plaintiff is still living in her home, and seeking assistance
to avoid foreclosure. Plaintiff has suffered serious anxiety as a result of these practices.
Leticia Lerma Gonzalez
39. In November 1998, Plaintiff Leticia Lerma Gonzalez took out a federally-insured
loan for $81,442 from Valley Mortgage Company, Inc. to purchase a home for her family located
at 302 Anthony Lane, Laredo, Texas 78046. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit
J. The servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.
40. In 2008 Plaintiff fell behind on her payments. She struggled to get caught up, but
was unable to bring her account current. Her husband, Maximilliano Lerma, did not have health
insurance, and had suffered a heart attack in December 2006. Plaintiff’s family, therefore, was
struggling to pay his medical bills, which caused a hardship. In addition, Plaintiff’s mother was
diagnosed with cancer, and Plaintiff was struggling to care for her mother while supporting a
household of five with only one source of income from her salary as a fifth-grade teacher.
41. Plaintiff therefore contacted Defendant BAC, her loan servicer. The first time
that Plaintiff called, Defendant BAC told her that she did not qualify for any assistance.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff continued to call, and in or around August 2009, Plaintiff and Defendant
12
BAC entered in to a forbearance agreement in which Plaintiff would make regular monthly
payments, plus $421.61 per month towards arrearages and fees. A true and correct copy of the
forbearance agreement and attachments sent to Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit K. The agreement
covered a six-month period, with the first payment under the agreement due September 1, 2009.
The agreement further provided that all foreclosure actions would be postponed as long as
Plaintiff was not in default under the agreement.
42. On or about October 20, 2009 Plaintiff called Defendant BAC to make a partial
payment by telephone. She asked Defendant BAC if she qualified for any other program that
would lower her monthly payment. Defendant told Plaintiff that if Plaintiff cancelled her
forbearance agreement, Defendant BAC could lower her payments. Plaintiff was hesitant to
cancel the plan, and asked Defendant whether canceling the forbearance would put her in
foreclosure. Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that she was not even in “pre-foreclosure.” Believing
that she would qualify for another form of assistance, Plaintiff agreed to cancel the forbearance
agreement.
43. Defendant BAC’s advice to cancel the forbearance agreement precipitated six
months of confusion, struggle, and anxiety during which Plaintiff fought against misinformation
to obtain a loan modification to save her home.
44. Minutes after Plaintiff canceled her forbearance agreement, Defendant BAC
called Plaintiff and told her that because she had cancelled her forbearance agreement, her house
would be sold at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff asked to withdraw her cancellation of the
forbearance agreement, but Defendant BAC refused to reinstate the agreement. Plaintiff asked to
be considered for assistance, and provided Defendant BAC her financial information over the
telephone, but Defendant BAC told her that she did not qualify for any programs. Devastated,
13
Plaintiff immediately sent a letter via certified mail, return receipt requested to Defendant
requesting an investigation of the matter, but Defendant BAC did not respond to this letter. A
true and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit L.
45. Plaintiff continued calling Defendant BAC trying to find out if her home was
really in foreclosure since such an action made little sense. She spent hours on the telephone
trying to get clear answers to basic questions, but each time she called she spoke to a different
person and had to explain her situation from the beginning. As a result, she was unable to get
consistent information from Defendant BAC. Plaintiff felt that no matter how many times she
called or to whom she spoke, she was blocked at every turn.
46. During at least one of these phone calls Defendant BAC told Plaintiff to stop
sending payments because it would no longer accept them. Plaintiff asked whether her home
would be sold in a foreclosure sale, and Defendant responded that she was not “in foreclosure.”
Plaintiff therefore continued to make partial payments, and Defendant BAC continued to accept
them. In or around December 2009, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that her loan had been placed
in “escalation,” and that BAC was going to work with her to obtain a new forbearance agreement
or make another arrangement.
47. Defendant BAC requested that Plaintiff send documentation of her financial
condition, and told Plaintiff that a negotiator would be assigned once the documentation was
received. Plaintiff faxed the documents numerous times and made numerous calls attempting to
confirm their receipt. Each time she called, however, the documents could not be found, and
Defendant BAC insisted it could not do anything until she sent the documentation.
48. Plaintiff was not deterred and maintained contact with Defendant BAC. Plaintiff
continued trying to send in her documents, and in one conversation Defendant BAC provided
14
Plaintiff with the name of a person named Phil Fuentes, and a fax number where the documents
should be faxed. Plaintiff faxed the documents, through counsel, to the attention of Phil Fuentes,
and then continued to make telephone calls to attempt to confirm that he had received the
documents. A copy of the fax is attached as Exhibit M (financial documentation has been
removed for privacy). Plaintiff left messages for Phil Fuentes, but did not receive a response.
49. On or around February 22, 2010 Plaintiff called Defendant BAC, but was told to
disregard any previous conversations about Phil Fuentes. Plaintiff, however, again called
Defendant BAC, and Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that she should speak to Phil Fuentes.
Plaintiff left a message for him, but her call was not returned. Plaintiff continued to call,
however, and Defendant BAC informed Plaintiff that a negotiator named Rebecca Philipose had
been assigned to her case. Defendant BAC provided Plaintiff with the extension for this person.
Plaintiff left two messages for Rebecca Philipose, but her calls were never returned.
50. On or around March 1, 2010, Plaintiff again spoke with Defendant BAC who told
her that the case was being transferred back to Phil Fuentes and that she did not qualify for
“Making Home Affordable.” Defendant BAC assured Plaintiff, however, that her loan was still
“in review.” However, on or around March 3, 2010 Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant
BAC simply stating that her request for assistance could not be fulfilled, and that if the loan was
in foreclosure, a foreclosure sale would occur.
51. Plaintiff again contacted Defendant BAC and spoke to a different negotiator,
named Kathy Mitchell, who stated that Plaintiff did not qualify for any programs due to a
“negative surplus” based on the debts listed on Plaintiff’s credit report.
52. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff again spoke with Defendant BAC, and was told that a
new negotiator had been assigned to Plaintiff’s loan. This negotiator, however, stated that
15
Defendant BAC still did not have any of Plaintiff’s financial documents. Again, Plaintiff faxed
in her financial documentation, and was finally was able to confirm that the documents were
received. Shortly thereafter, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that Defendant BAC would try to
work with her to see if she would qualify for a loan modification.
53. Unfortunately, the next time Plaintiff spoke to Defendant BAC she was informed
again that she did not qualify for any programs. This time Defendant BAC alleged that another
lien existed on her house. Defendant BAC stated that it planned to close Plaintiff’s application,
but Plaintiff explained that she did not have any other liens on the house, and that she had signed
an affidavit prior to purchasing the home stating that she was not the person named Leticia
Gonzalez subject to a judgment lien. Plaintiff faxed Defendant BAC the affidavit.
54. Finally, Plaintiff again spoke to Defendant BAC, and learned that she had been
approved for a loan modification. Under the terms of the modification, her payments would be
lowered by approximately $80 per month, but she would have to start over and make these
payments for another thirty years – what equity she had achieved after paying for her home the
last 11 years was wiped away. In addition, her principal balance would be increasing to
$83,332.41, even though when Plaintiff first took out the loan her principal balance was only
$81,442.00. Plaintiff was devastated but felt that her only choices were to accept the offer or
lose her home.
55. On or around April 30, 2009 Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant BAC
stating that Plaintiff was “‘Pre-Approved’ for workout assistance.” A true and correct copy of
the correspondence is attached as Exhibit N. The letter requested that Plaintiff submit financial
documentation, among other items, and sign a “Negotiation Agreement.” In addition, Plaintiff
received another letter that contained a “Loan Modification Agreement,” “Commitment to
16
Modify Mortgage,” and an “Amended and Restated Note.” On or around May 4, 2010 Plaintiff
signed and returned all of the documents to Defendant BAC.
56. On May 13, 2010 Plaintiff was hospitalized for anxiety and depression. She was
discharged early because her health insurance would not cover the cost. Defendant’s behavior
caused Plaintiff anxiety and emotional distress.
Kim Yvette Thompson
57. In October 1994, Plaintiff’s father, Charles C. Thompson, Jr., took out a loan
guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs totaling $61,400. A copy of the Deed of Trust
is attached as Exhibit O. Upon information and belief, the loan was composed of two notes: one
promissory note was in the amount of $45,000 and payable to the Veterans Land Board, and a
second promissory note was in the amount of $21,400 and made payable to Temple-Inland
Mortgage Corporation. Charles C. Thompson was a veteran of the Vietnam War.
58. Charles Thompson, Jr. used the loan to purchase a home for his family located at
1111 S. Trace Street, Austin, Texas 78745. He lived in the house with his daughter, Plaintiff
Kim Thompson and his son, Charles Thompson, III.
59. Unfortunately, in 1997, Plaintiff’s father, Charles C. Thompson, Jr. passed away.
Plaintiff and her brother Charles, continued to occupy the home, and became owners of the
property, under the laws of intestate succession.
60. Due to a decrease in income, Plaintiff fell behind on the mortgage payments. In
August 2008, the loan was accelerated and a substitute trustee was appointed. At some point in
2008, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter “Bank of America”) began servicing
Plaintiff’s loan. Plaintiff received a letter in the mail informing her about a program called
17
“Hope for Homeowners” that would allow her to refinance her mortgage. Therefore Plaintiff
called the number, and obtained information about applying for a loan modification.
61. Plaintiff discussed this matter with Defendant Bank of America. After
approximately 2-3 conversations Defendant Bank of America informed Plaintiff that she was
qualified for a loan modification. Defendant Bank of America explained to Plaintiff that her rate
would go down and that her arrearages would be added in to the outstanding balance of the loan.
62. On or around November 17, 2008 Plaintiff received a written offer from Bank of
America to modify the terms of her loan. A true and correct copy of the written offer is attached
as Exhibit P. The offer contained the following section:
Section C. Contingencies
* We may obtain a lender’s title insurance policy or endorsement insuring

the Modified Mortgage as a first lien. If you have any other encumbrances
to the property, you may be required to obtain subordination agreements
from other secured creditors.
* If your loan contains mortgage insurance, the modification is contingent

upon approval from the mortgage insurer.
* If any other issues -- including but not limited to deterioration in the

condition of the property, lawsuits, liens, additional expenses, and defaulted
amounts-- arise between the date of this commitment and the date on which
the Modified Mortgage documents are to be signed, we may refuse to
modify the Mortgage. We may then pursue collection actions, including
foreclosure, if the current Mortgage is in default.
Offer from Bank of America, at 3, attached as Exhibit P.
63. No other contingencies were contained within the offer. Plaintiff and her
brother, Charles C. Thompson, III accepted the offer on November 22, 2008, and returned
the signed document to Defendant Bank of America. In addition, the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”) provided a letter to Bank of America explaining that Plaintiff and
her brother had recorded an Affidavit of Heirship, that the VA had consulted its Regional
18
Counsel, and that the Affidavit of Heirship did not “pose a problem” for the VA. A true and
correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit Q.
64. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Bank of America sent Plaintiff a Loan
Modification Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Loan Modification Agreement is
attached as Exhibit R. The Loan Modification Agreement modified Plaintiff’s Note and
Security Instrument by adjusting Plaintiff’s interest rate to 6.5%, and increasing the “Unpaid
Principal Balance of the Loan” by $11,357.81 to $67,225.84. Payments of approximately
$720 per month were scheduled to resume on February 1, 2009.
65. On November 25, 2008 Plaintiff signed the Loan Modification Agreement
with Defendant Bank of America, and returned them to Defendant the same day. Pursuant to
the terms of the modification, Plaintiff made an initial contribution of $2,530.80, and began
making regular monthly payments in February 2009.
66. Plaintiff, however, did not receive confirmation that her account had been
updated to reflect the terms of the Agreement. Plaintiff called Defendant Bank of America
several times, and was told that she should not worry because it would take up to three
months for the modification to be processed.
67. Finally, in early 2009, Plaintiff called Defendant Bank of America, and asked
to speak to a supervisor. This person told Plaintiff that the only thing Bank of America
needed in order to process and complete the loan modification were probated documents
from a courthouse. Plaintiff explained that the Department of Veterans Affairs had already
approved her affidavit of heirship, and that she would not be able to obtain probated
documents, and that probated documents should not be necessary to show that she and her
brother owned the home.
19
68. This supervisor insisted that Plaintiff’s affidavit of heirship was insufficient,
and was the only factor that was preventing the modification from being completed and
processed. He said once he received probated documents, that he would process and
complete the modification. Plaintiff became exasperated because she believed that this issue
had already been resolved. However, she nonetheless consulted with a law office, and had a
second affidavit of heirship prepared and recorded, and forwarded a copy of this document to
Bank of America.
69. Each month Plaintiff continued sending in a payment of at least $720 to
Defendant Bank of America. In September 2009, Plaintiff received a letter titled “Rescission
of Acceleration of Loan Maturity.” A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit S.
Plaintiff hoped that this was an indication that the modification had finally been processed.
70. In or around October 2009, Plaintiff received a letter stating that the servicing
of her Bank of America mortgage and “home equity loan” account would transfer to a
subsidiary, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (Defendant BAC). Although Plaintiff does not
have a home equity loan, she understood from the letter that Defendant BAC would be her
new loan servicer.
71. In November 2009, Plaintiff began receiving letters stating that her loan was
in default. One of these letters stated that the “owner and/or Mortgagee of the Note and Deed
of Trust” was “Loan Servicing, P.O. Box 7532, Van Nuys, CA 91406-9998 whose address is:
3029999 Dummy-Conversion.” A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit
T.
72. Plaintiff began contacting Defendant BAC. Plaintiff spoke to numerous
different people who provided numerous different explanations. One woman suggested that
20
the reason the modified terms of her loan were not appearing on her statements was because
Plaintiff needed to assume the loan. Therefore, Plaintiff followed this person’s instructions
and wrote a letter to Bank of America stating that she would like for her name to be added to
the mortgage. Another person told Plaintiff be patient, and wait for a call. Another told her
that that she would probably qualify for a repayment plan, that she would refer Plaintiff for a
repayment plan, and that Plaintiff should wait to hear back from Defendant BAC.
73. Plaintiff did not hear back from Defendant BAC. However, Plaintiff
continued to call Defendant BAC, and was told that she needed to submit documentation of
her financial condition. Plaintiff faxed the requested paperwork to Defendant BAC.
74. Meanwhile, Plaintiff continued to send monthly payments of $720, and
continued calling Defendant BAC. In one of these conversations, Defendant BAC told
Plaintiff that “one of the investors” had not approved the modification, and so the
modification had been rejected.
75. Plaintiff asked why she had not been contacted with this information, and who
the investor was that had not approved the modification. Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that
Defendant BAC was trying to do a new modification, but that Plaintiff had not returned
necessary financial documentation. Plaintiff insisted that she had returned the financial
documentation, but the representative would not believe her.
76. Plaintiff continued receiving letters notifying her that her loan was in default.
These notices indicated that the “Owner and/or Mortgagee of the Note and Deed of Trust”
was Loan Servicing, P.O. Box 7532, Van Nuys, CA, 91406-9998 whose address is:
Cighfi1stlasallecenlarcongovin.” True and correct copies of these letters are attached as
21
Exhibit U. The nonsensical language in these letters seemed consistent with the nonsensical
communications that she received over the telephone from Defendant BAC.
77. The notices she received all stated the delinquent amount was between
$8,169.50 and $8,497.28, however, the methods of calculating this amount seemed to vary
wildly. Some statements indicated that she had charges in excess of $16,000 offset by a
partial payment balance of $9,719.56. Other notices showed that she had monthly charges of
only around $7,000, but no partial payment balance. Further, the amount of uncollected costs
ranged from $1,226.64 in February to $952.49 in March. Uncollected late charges were
represented to be $114.96 in one February 17 letter, while $0 in a February 25 letter.
Meanwhile, her escrow review statement from March 24, 2010 showed an available escrow
overage of $4,950.09. A true and correct copy of her March 24, 2010 escrow statement is
attached as Exhibit V.
78. Finally, on or about April 29, 2010 Plaintiff went to a Bank of America
branch office to make her May 2010 payment of $720. A bank representative told her that
Defendant BAC would not accept her payment. She immediately called Defendant BAC,
that confirmed that no payments would be accepted because her house was in foreclosure.
Plaintiff asked to speak to a supervisor, but Defendant BAC informed her that all supervisors
were in a meeting, and that she could call back later. Plaintiff called the number for the law
office that had sent her the rescission of loan acceleration in September 2009 to try to find
out what was happening. She was told that her home was scheduled to be sold at a
foreclosure sale on June 1, 2010.
79. Plaintiff, however, never received any notice stating that her house would be
sold in a foreclosure sale. Through her attorney, Plaintiff received confirmation that
22
notification of the sale had not been sent in writing by Defendant BAC or its attorneys as
required by law, but was told that Defendant BAC intended to conduct a foreclosure sale on
July 6, 2010 regardless. As of the date of filing, Plaintiff has not received notice for a July 6,
2010 sale.
80. At the time of filing, Plaintiff is still living in her home, although Defendant
BAC has indicated an intention to proceed with a foreclosure sale in August 2010. Plaintiff
has suffered serious anxiety as a result of these practices.
Diana Gonzalez
81. In April 2000 Plaintiff Diana I. Gonzalez took out a loan for $36,100 from
America’s Wholesale Lender to purchase a home for her family located at 811 Nogales
Drive, Alton, Texas 78752. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit W. The
servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.
82. In or around May 6, 2006 Plaintiff was involved in a serious car accident.
Prior to the accident, she owned a hair salon, but became unable to operate the salon as a
result of her injuries. For approximately two years after the accident, she borrowed money
from friends and family to pay her mortgage.
83. After falling behind on her loan payments, on or around May 6, 2009, she
received a letter from an attorney stating that her loan had been accelerated. Plaintiff
declared bankruptcy shortly thereafter, however, the bankruptcy was dismissed November
23, 2009. Also in November 2009, Plaintiff received a letter from an attorney’s office titled
“Rescission of Acceleration of Loan Maturity.” A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit
X. The letter stated that Plaintiff would be allowed to continue to pay the indebtedness.
23
Nonetheless Defendant BAC told Plaintiff over the telephone that she should not send
payments because they would not be accepted.
84. Plaintiff began receiving letters in the mail asking her to call a 1-800 number.
Each time she got a letter, she called the number on the letter. Plaintiff understood from one
of these phone calls that her servicer had become BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. Plaintiff
was confused by this, but continued to call the numbers provided in the letters.
85. Each time she called, she spoke to a different person, and explained her story
from the beginning. She would explain that she was disabled, had applied for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”), was awaiting a hearing, and could not work.
86. More than once, Plaintiff provided Defendant BAC with her financial
information over the phone, and was told that Defendant BAC would send a packet of
information to her. Plaintiff understood from these conversations that once she received the
packet, she would be able to start making payments again under a trial payment plan, and
would be evaluated for a permanent arrangement to get caught up on her past-due payments.
After many of these calls, however, Plaintiff did not receive any packet in the mail.
87. Eventually, Plaintiff was determined to be disabled by the Social Security
Administration. Her first Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) payment was issued
February 12, 2010. Meanwhile, however, Plaintiff continued to receive conflicting,
confusing information from Defendant BAC. After calling the number listed on more
correspondence, Defendant BAC would often tell Plaintiff that she should be speaking to
someone in a different department, and could not provide her with any information.
88. Sometimes Defendant would ask her when she was going to send in a
payment, but other times would tell her not to send anything in because it would not be
24
accepted anyway. When Plaintiff could not get answers by calling Defendant BAC, she went
to a Bank of America branch office. She spoke to a bank employee who called Defendant
BAC and put Plaintiff on speakerphone. She believed that the bank employee would be able
to get straight answers from Defendant BAC. She felt assured that the Defendant BAC had
given the correct information to the bank employee, but afterwards, when she called back,
she continued to receive different answers each time she spoke to a different person. Plaintiff
didn’t know who was in charge, and was unable to speak to any person in a position of
authority.
89. Defendant did not treat her case as important or even seriously, even though
Plaintiff stood to lose her home. Defendant BAC spoke to her as if she were unintelligent.
She felt that she was a yo-yo and Defendant BAC was pulling the string. As of June 2010
she finally received a packet of information from Defendant BAC to apply for a loan
modification. As of the time of filing, Plaintiff is collecting the requested documentation to
return to Defendant BAC, and is still living in her home. Plaintiff has suffered serious
anxiety as a result of these practices.
Lea Cornejo
90. In April 1999, Plaintiff Lea Cornejo née Marquitz took out a federally-insured
loan for $59,626 from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. to purchase a home for her family
located at 10924 Stonebridge Dr. El Paso, TX 79934. A copy of the Deed of Trust is
attached as Exhibit Y. The servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.
91. In or around December 3, 2007 Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. However, in or
around October 2008 Plaintiff lost her job as a certified pharmacy technician, and she
eventually became unable to make her payments under the bankruptcy plan. A final order for
25
summary dismissal of the bankruptcy was entered on June 15, 2009, and the bankruptcy case
was closed on August 27, 2009.
92. In November 2009 Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant BAC stating that
her loan was in default. Plaintiff believed, however, that the calculation of the defaulted
amount contained in the letter did not reflect three payments that she had made, totaling
$9,500.
93. The letter that Plaintiff received had a phone number for BAC’s Loss
Mitigation Department, so Plaintiff called Defendant to find out if the missing payments had
been applied to her account, and to find out if she qualified for a program that she had heard
of called Home Affordable Modification Program. Plaintiff provided her financial
information to Defendant, and was told that she did not qualify for the program because she
did not have sufficient income. Defendant BAC also told Plaintiff that it would call her
when the missing payments had been located. She never received a return phone call.
94. Plaintiff continued calling Defendant BAC to find out whether the missing
payments had been applied to her account. During at least one of these phone calls,
Defendant BAC told Plaintiff the funds were received, but on other occasions, Defendant
stated that they were not received. On some occasions, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that it
was “still researching” her question. On another occasion Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that
a check for $4,000 had been returned, but Plaintiff countered that she had not sent in a check;
she had made an online funds transfer. Plaintiff never received a credit for these payments
back to her checking account.
95. During one of Plaintiff’s telephone calls, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that
there had been a payment of approximately $9,000 that had not been credited to her account.
26
Plaintiff grew hopeful that these funds would bring her account current, but when she spoke
with the bankruptcy department to follow up on this information, Plaintiff was told that the
payment had already been applied.
96. Usually during these calls, Defendant BAC would ask Plaintiff to provide
information about her finances. Although Plaintiff had already provided this information,
she complied with each of Defendant BAC’s requests, hoping that she would qualify for a
repayment plan or other program to save her home.
97. Plaintiff grew frustrated, since no one knew what was happening with her
loan. Often when she called she was transferred from one department to another without
anyone being able to answer her questions or tell her how to get answers to her questions.
No one ever returned her calls, and when Plaintiff asked to speak to a supervisor, she was
transferred to other departments, told the supervisor was out of town, or would wait on hold
for up to 30 minutes only to be disconnected before being able to speak to anyone.
98. Later that month Plaintiff received a solicitation in the mail stating that her
home was in foreclosure. Plaintiff called Defendant BAC and confirmed that her house was
scheduled to be sold in a foreclosure sale on March 2, 2010. Plaintiff is unaware of whether
a notice of the sale was placed in the mail.
99. Plaintiff was shocked to learn the sale was imminent, and she persisted in her
telephone calls to Defendant BAC. During these phone calls Defendant BAC continued to
tell Plaintiff that she should provide her financial information to see whether she qualified for
the Making Home Affordable program. She continued to provide this information, hoping
that this would stop the foreclosure. In some of these conversations Defendant BAC told
Plaintiff that she did not have enough income to qualify; in other conversations, she was told
27
that she had too much income to qualify. On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, her home was sold at
a foreclosure sale.
100. Plaintiff had lived in her home for over 11 years. Her nine-year-old son, H.,
had lived in the home his entire life, and her thirteen-year-old daughter, S., had lived in the
home since she was a toddler. Plaintiff was completely devastated by the foreclosure. After
the foreclosure sale, there were days when Plaintiff could not get out of bed to take her
children to school. Defendant’s behavior caused Plaintiff serious anxiety and emotional
distress.
Brandon Krauskopf
101. In August 2005, Plaintiff Brandon Krauskopf and his wife, Kyla Krauskopf,
took out a federally-insured loan for $104,986 from R.H. Lending, Inc. DBA Residential
Home Lending to purchase a home located at 782 Baethge Boulevard, Fredericksburg, Texas
78624. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit Z. The servicing of this loan was
later transferred to Defendant BAC.
102. In or around August 2009 Plaintiff began contacting Defendant BAC about
finding ways to prevent a foreclosure on his home. Plaintiff had recently separated from his
wife, and was caring for their young daughter. In addition, Plaintiff, who is a construction
worker for Laughlin Homes and Restoration, experienced a period of reduced income due to
being unable to work on an out-of-town project. When he did return to work around July 6,
2009, his hours were reduced because of a decrease in demand for construction work.
103. Defendant BAC told Plaintiff a program existed that could cut his payments
in half, and that if he successfully made the payments under a trial modification, he would be
offered a permanent modification. Defendant BAC also told Plaintiff that he did not need to
28
make a payment until he was offered the trial modification. Relieved, Plaintiff sent
Defendant BAC a facsimile that included a letter of hardship and other financial information
that Defendant BAC requested.
104. Around September 2009, Plaintiff contacted Defendant BAC to inquire about
the status of his request for a loan modification. This time, he spoke to a different individual,
who told Plaintiff that he never should have stopped making payments. In response, Plaintiff
began sending in partial payments, and spoke to a Housing and Urban Development certified
counselor about his finances.
105. Around November 2009, Plaintiff again attempted to send in a partial
payment, but this payment was rejected. Plaintiff learned that a foreclosure of his home was
scheduled to occur, and received notification that this would take place January 5, 2010.
Plaintiff continued calling Defendant BAC, but every time that he called he spoke to a
different representative, and he was unable to make sense of the conflicting, incoherent
information that Defendant BAC gave him.
106. In one conversation, Defendant BAC explained that his request for a
modification was under review, that he was eligible for a loan modification, that a negotiator
had been assigned, and that if he was still in review on the date that a sale of his house was
scheduled to occur, the foreclosure sale would be postponed. Approximately five days later,
however, Plaintiff received documents from Defendant BAC, asking him to resubmit all of
his documentation for review. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit
AA. He signed a negotiation agreement and a hardship affidavit, and returned these with
documentation of his income. Plaintiff called repeatedly, until finally on or around
29
December 21, 2009 he confirmed that Defendant BAC had decided not to postpone the sale
of his home.
107. By February 2010, Plaintiff still did not have a decision about his loan
modification, and he again received notification that his house would be sold in a foreclosure
sale. According to the notice, the sale was scheduled to occur on March 2, 2010. Plaintiff
continued to call Defendant BAC, and on or around February 19, 2010 spoke to an individual
that told Defendant that he was on a list for consideration to have his sale date pushed back.
On February 25, 2010 Plaintiff again spoke to Defendant BAC, who again agreed to
postpone the foreclosure sale.
108. Around March 2010, Defendant BAC again sent Plaintiff a letter requesting
that he return certain requested documents and enclosed forms, including a negotiation
agreement. The forms in the packet were similar to those he had completed in December
2009. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit BB. Plaintiff again
completed these forms and returned the signed documents and supporting documentation to
Defendant BAC.
109. Meanwhile, Defendant BAC again sent Plaintiff a notice that his house would
be sold on the first Tuesday in April. Shortly before the sale, Defendant BAC again agreed
to pull the sale.
110. In April 2010, Plaintiff received another set of documents in the mail from
Defendant BAC. A true and correct copy of the April 2, 2010 correspondence is attached as
Exhibit CC. The correspondence consisted of two letters. One of the letters stated that Plaintiff
was “‘Pre-Approved’ for Workout Assistance,” and requested that he sign a number of forms,
including another “Negotiation Agreement” and provide supporting documentation. The
30
second letter, titled “Special Forbearance Agreement” included a written contract that allowed
Plaintiff to begin making monthly payments of $671.45 for the months of May, June and July.
The agreement further provided that all foreclosure actions would be postponed as long as
Plaintiff was not in default under the agreement.
111. Plaintiff signed the forbearance agreement and returned the documentation with
the first scheduled payment of $671.45. Nonetheless, he received notice in April that his home
was scheduled for a May foreclosure sale. The notices began in large bold letters:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS
CONTAINED WITHIN THE ATTACHED
NOTICE.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER &

ENGLE, LLP IS A DEBT COLLECTOR
ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY
INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED
FOR THAT PURPOSE.
112. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant on April 27, 2010, and Defendant agreed
to cancel the sale. However, despite the existence of a forbearance agreement, Defendant BAC
again scheduled Plaintiff’s home for a foreclosure sale to take place in June 2010. True and
correct copies of these notices are attached as Exhibit DD. Plaintiff’s counsel informed
Defendant BAC of the existence of a forbearance agreement on April 28, 2010, But Defendant
BAC did not cancel this sale until May 18, 2010.
113. As of the date of filing, Plaintiff is still living in his home, and waiting to find out
if he will be offered a loan modification. Defendant’s behavior caused Plaintiff anxiety and
emotional distress.
31
Joyce Harryman
114. In December 1998, Plaintiff Joyce R. Harryman, took out a federally-insured loan
for $46,932 from Union Planters Bank, N.A. to purchase a home for her family located at 1509
Mistletoe Avenue, Victoria, Texas 77901. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit
EE. The servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.
115. Plaintiff was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in December 2004. Plaintiff
experienced serious complications as a result of the cancer and resulting surgeries, and became
bed-ridden for a period of three years. Because she was unable to work, she began receiving
Social Security income in 2005 for herself and her son. In 2008, Plaintiff was diagnosed with
cervical cancer and had an operation in 2009.
116. Throughout this period of financial and personal distress, Plaintiff occasionally
fell behind on payments and had to pay late fees, but understood the importance of maintaining
her loan in order to remain in her home, and always prioritized her loan payment.
117. In the beginning of 2009, Plaintiff suffered a number of financial hardships. She
incurred travel costs to attend three funerals of close family members, incurred medical costs for
treatment of a serious spider bite and for treatment of her son, who had a severe asthma attack,
and incurred costs to repair her car after a car accident.
118. These hardships caused Plaintiff to fall behind in her mortgage payments. As
soon as she was able, Plaintiff sent in a monthly mortgage payment, but this payment was
returned to her. Plaintiff called the telephone number on her mortgage statement, and learned
that the servicing of her loan had been transferred to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and was
told that she should be patient and wait for a new mortgage statement. While she was waiting
for this statement, two months passed in which she was unable to send in a payment.
32
119. Eventually, she did receive a statement; however, the statement reflected an
increase in her mortgage payment from approximately $579 to approximately $700. Therefore,
she contacted Defendant BAC to ask about the increase. Defendant BAC suggested that she
apply for a loan modification, and on or around May 15, 2009 Plaintiff sent Defendant BAC a
request for a loan modification, including a hardship affidavit and verification of her income. A
true and correct copy of the Letter is attached as Exhibit FF (financial documentation has been
removed for privacy).
120. Around August 2009, Plaintiff received two letters in the mail from Defendant
BAC. A true and correct copy of the letters dated August 26, 2009 are attached as Exhibit GG.
One of the letters stated that Plaintiff was “‘Pre-Approved’ for Workout Assistance,” and
requested that she sign a number of forms, including a “Negotiation Agreement” and provide
supporting documentation. The second letter, titled “Special Forbearance Agreement” included
a written contract that allowed Plaintiff to begin making her regular monthly payments of
$579.79 during the months of September, October, and November, and provided that all
foreclosure actions would be postponed as long as Plaintiff was not in default under the
agreement.
121. Plaintiff completed these forms and returned the signed documents and supporting
documentation to Defendant BAC. She continued making her regular payments, and continued
to contact Defendant BAC to check on the status of her loan modification request. During these
telephone calls Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that “everything was fine,” “the modification is
being processed,” and that it was “taking longer” because her loan was insured by the Federal
Housing Administration (“FHA”). Defendant BAC also told Plaintiff that her request for a
modification was in “manual review” because it was an FHA loan.
33
122. After the forbearance agreement ended, Defendant BAC informed Plaintiff that
she needed to continue making payments, therefore in February 2010, she sent in a payment of
$1200, and continued to send in monthly payments of approximately $579.29.
123. On or around April 1, 2010 Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant BAC simply
stating that her request was being denied because the “workout assistance you have requested is
not an option.” A true and correct copy of the March 29, 2010 letter is attached as Exhibit HH.
After receiving this letter, Plaintiff called Defendant BAC, and was told that she should not
worry and that Defendant BAC was still reviewing her for a modification.
124. Shortly after this, Plaintiff began receiving letters from Defendant BAC stating
that her loan was in default, and that she must cure this default or her loan would be accelerated.
These letters, however, reflected much higher balances than she believed she owed. Within a
span of seven days Plaintiff received three different notices, showing three different amounts for
the total owed, and three different dates before which she must cure the default. True and correct
copies of these notices are attached as Exhibit II.
125. In addition, each time Plaintiff spoke to Defendant BAC about the amount of
money that Defendant BAC claimed that she owed, the figure seemed to change drastically.
For example, in early April 2010, she spoke to a representative who told Plaintiff that her
payments were only delinquent by about $1,200. A few days later, however, she received a
statement showing that she owed almost $5,000.
126. Finally, on or around May 11, 2010 Plaintiff spoke to Defendant BAC about her
loan modification. Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that she had failed to timely send in documents,
and therefore her loan modification had been dismissed. Defendant BAC stated that the
documents were due by March 29, 2010, but were not received until April 7, 2010. Defendant
34
BAC then told Plaintiff that she had until June 24, 2010 to cure her default. After waiting nine
months for information about her loan modification, Plaintiff was utterly exasperated. Defendant
BAC continues to call her one to three times per day with collection calls. At the time of filing,
Plaintiff is still living in her home, but does not know whether she will be able to obtain any
form of assistance to avoid foreclosure. Defendant’s behavior caused Plaintiff anxiety and
emotional distress.
Karen Mathews
127. In September 2007, Plaintiff Karen Mathews took out a “home equity loan”1
in the amount of $65,390 from Countrywide Bank, FSB on her home, located at 6747 Spring
Rose St., San Antonio, TX 78249-2942. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit
JJ. The servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.
128. Between the years 2007 and 2010, Plaintiff has required a number of surgeries on
her back, hip, and foot that have caused a financial hardship. In or around November 2008,
Plaintiff realized that she would have difficulty paying her mortgage, and began contacting
Defendant to discuss her options for staying in the home. Defendant BAC collected information
about her financial status, but Plaintiff was not offered any type of assistance.
129. Approximately one year later, around November 2009, Plaintiff was unable to
pay her full monthly mortgage payment. She sent Defendant BAC letters on December 9,
2008, April 16, 2009, July 31, 2009, March 20, 2010, April 6, 2010, May 19, 2010, May 21,
2010, and June 11, 2010. These letters identified her financial hardship, requested assistance
and expressed a desire to remain in the home, and were accompanied by documentation of
her financial situation. True and correct copies of the letters are attached as Exhibit KK.
1
A home equity loan is authorized under Article XVI, § 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution which allows a
homeowner to borrow against the equity established in the homestead in certain circumstances.
35
130. Around March 2010, Plaintiff received a packet of information from
Defendant BAC requesting information to apply for the Home Affordable Modification
Program (“HAMP”). On March 20, 2010, Plaintiff sent the application for a HAMP
modification to Defendant BAC by facsimile.
131. On or about March 26, 2010, Plaintiff underwent back surgery. Shortly after
leaving the hospital, Plaintiff learned that Defendant BAC had filed an application for a
foreclosure order in District Court.2
132. On or about April 8, 2010, however, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that she
had been “removed from foreclosure,” and on or about April 20, 2010, Defendant BAC told
Plaintiff that she had been approved for a trial modification effective March 27, 2010, and
that her payments would be reduced from $730.40 to $525.35 per month, with her payments
due on the first of each month. Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that the trial period could last
three months or more, and that her loan was in “the home retention program” and would not
be transferred back to the foreclosure department until a final agreement on the loan could be
reached. Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that “no trial or sale date” could be made “without a
technician” and “there [is] no technician on this loan.”
133. Plaintiff therefore, began making payments, and received confirmation that
three payments in the amount of $525.35 were received by Defendant BAC on the dates
April 21, 2010, April, 30, 2010 and June 4, 2010. True and correct copies of the Western
Union Receipts and check #5687 are attached as Exhibit LL.
2
Rules 735 and 736 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the manner in which a party may foreclose a
“home equity loan” created under Texas Constitution Article XVI, § 50(a)(6). Rule 736 provides an expedited
procedure in which the party seeking to foreclose may initiate an in rem action by filing a verified application in the
district court in any county where all or any part of the real property encumbered by the lien sought to be foreclosed
is located.
36
134. Despite these payments, however, Plaintiff learned that a hearing date was
scheduled to occur on the matter pending in District Court. Plaintiff contacted Defendant
BAC, and spoke to people in the “HOPE department,” “foreclosure department,” and “loss
mitigation department.” In some of these conversations, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff it was
not necessary to attend the hearing, and in other cases told her that she should attend the
hearing. Eventually, Plaintiff contacted the lawyer that had filed the application for a
foreclosure order, who told her Defendant BAC had not communicated any intent to
discontinue the court proceedings.
135. Therefore, on May 20, 2010 she appeared pro se for the foreclosure hearing in
District Court, but an order allowing Defendant BAC to proceed with a foreclosure sale was
signed. Plaintiff received notice that her home would be sold in a foreclosure sale on July 6,
2010. Defendant’s behavior caused Plaintiff anxiety and emotional distress.
Summary of Additional Individual Plaintiffs

Kim Armendarez, Pete Armendarez, Sherry Biggs, William Biggs, Vanessa
Jackson, Agapito Jalamos, and Maria DeLourdes Jalamos
136. Similar to the stories above, the remaining Plaintiffs -- Kim Armendarez, Pete
Armendarez, Sherry Biggs, William Biggs, Vanessa Jackson, Agapito Jalamos, and Maria
DeLourdes Jalamos each had extensive dealings with Defendant BAC in which Defendant BAC
misrepresented information to them, and in which they spent hours being transferred between
departments, often unable to find any person that could give them correct answers to their
questions.
137. Plaintiffs Kim Armendarez (Ms. Armendarez) and Pete Armendarez began
attempting to obtain a loan modification in or around October 2009. Ms. Armendarez
Plaintiff provided her financial information over the telephone, and was informed that she
37
qualified for a loan modification under the “Making Home Affordable” program. Plaintiff
was told that her payments would probably drop to around $800 per month. Eight months
later, as of June 2010, Plaintiff still does not have answers about whether she will be offered
a loan modification.
138. Mr. and Mrs. Armendarez have sent in written requests for a loan
modification on at least three occasions, and have provided supplemental documentation
each time that Defendant BAC has requested such information. As of the time of filing,
Plaintiffs are still living in their home, and seeking assistance to avoid foreclosure. Plaintiffs
have suffered serious anxiety as a result of these practices.
139. Plaintiffs Sherry Biggs (“Ms. Biggs”) and William Biggs learned that their
loan servicing had been transferred from Taylor, Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corporation
(“TBW”) to Defendant BAC when they called TBW to discuss a financial hardship. Ms.
Biggs called a telephone number for Defendant BAC provided by TBW, but Defendant BAC
refused to speak with her until she had been assigned a loan account. Plaintiffs waited
approximately one and a half months to be assigned a loan account.
140. Eventually, Plaintiffs were able to establish communication with Defendant
BAC, but were told that they did not qualify for a loan modification. Around November
2009 Plaintiff William Biggs again found employment, and therefore Ms. Biggs began
calling Defendant BAC approximately one time per week, trying to find a solution to avoid a
foreclosure on her home. Plaintiffs sent facsimiles with hardship letters and documentation
of their income as well. On or around February 2, 2010, Plaintiffs’ home was sold at a
foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs have suffered serious anxiety as a result of these practices.
38
141. Plaintiff Vanessa Jackson began calling Defendant BAC around September
2009, trying to find a way to prevent a foreclosure on her home. Around December 2009,
Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that her past-due payments would be moved to the end of her
loan, that she would be able to return to making her monthly payments, and that as long as
she made on time payments, she would not be in default under the terms of her loan.
Defendant BAC then mailed Plaintiff paperwork, which she signed and returned with
documentation that was requested and a money order. Later, Plaintiff learned that the
document she signed was a forbearance agreement, and that her payments were being applied
in the order in which they had become due, not to the month in which they were made. She
also later learned that she was still considered to be behind in her payments, and that the past-
due amount was not being moved to the back of her loan.
142. Plaintiff has sent a FedEx package to Defendant BAC with financial
information, including a hardship letter, seeking to obtain a loan modification or other loss
mitigation. As of the time of filing, Plaintiff is still living in her home, and seeking
assistance to avoid foreclosure. Plaintiff has suffered serious anxiety as a result of these
practices.
143. Plaintiffs Agapito and Maria DeLourdes Jalamos (“Ms. Jalamos”) fell behind
on their monthly mortgage payments, but maintained regular contact with Defendant BAC to
discuss when payments would be made and in what amounts. Plaintiffs applied for loan
modifications over the phone, but Defendant BAC’s responses to these applications seemed
to vary every time Plaintiffs provided it. On some occasions, Defendant BAC told Plaintiffs
they did not have sufficient income. While on other occasions, Defendant BAC told
39
Plaintiffs they had too much income. Sometimes, Defendant BAC would tell Plaintiffs to
wait for a response, but would not respond at all.
144. Meanwhile, Ms. Jalamos was concerned that the arrearage had been calculated
incorrectly. Each time she called, however, she spoke to a different person, who was not
familiar with her loan account. She would explain the situation from the beginning, but
received different responses about how the arrearage was calculated each time she called.
She spoke to representatives in English and in Spanish to be certain the problem was not
caused by a language barrier, but could not obtain clear answers to her questions.
145. Finally, around May 2010 Plaintiffs learned that their home was scheduled to
be sold at a foreclosure sale on July 6, 2010. Plaintiffs have suffered serious anxiety as a
result of these practices.
Texas Housing Justice League
146. Plaintiff THJL is a Texas nonprofit corporation with a membership. Many of
the individual Plaintiffs are THJL members, and have standing to sue in their own right. The
issues addressed in this lawsuit are germane to the organization’s stated mission of protecting
the housing rights of low-income Texans. Neither the claims asserted by Plaintiff THJL
(negligent misrepresentation and unreasonable collection efforts) nor the relief requested
(temporary and permanent injunction) requires the participation of individual members.
147. Plaintiff THJL does not seek damages, and only seeks injunctive relief.
However, many of THJL’s members have been injured and will continue to be injured by
Defendant BAC’s actions in that many members have loans that are serviced by Defendant
BAC, and have applied or will apply for some type of assistance or information to avoid
foreclosure. Misrepresentations and unreasonable collection efforts have caused and will
40
cause both financial and emotional injury to THJL members; thus, THJL seeks injunctive
relief to prevent these harms from recurring.
VI. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1: Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

Kim Armendarez, Pete Armendarez, Donna Batts, Sherry Biggs, William Biggs,
Leticia Lerma Gonzalez, Joyce Harryman, Vanessa Jackson, Brandon Krauskopf,
Karen Mathews and Kim Thompson
148. The allegations of paragraphs 14 -146 above are realleged and incorporated by
reference herein.
149. Defendant BAC is a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan within the
meaning of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605. Defendant
BAC’s conduct has violated RESPA in the following respects:
RESPA Count: Part A
150. Plaintiffs Kim Armendarez, Pete Armendarez, Donna Batts, Sherry Biggs,
William Biggs, Leticia Lerma Gonzalez, Joyce Harryman, Vanessa Jackson, Brandon
Krauskopf, Karen Mathews and Kim Thompson each sent Defendant BAC written applications
for a loan modification, including a hardship affidavit, and written submissions of financial
information that were “qualified written requests” within the meaning of RESPA, in that
Plaintiffs sought information about their eligibility for a loan modification or other methods to
minimize their losses.
151. Plaintiff Leticia Lerma’s October 20, 2009 written request for an investigation of
misrepresentations made by Defendant BAC with respect to her mortgage account was a
“qualified written request” within the meaning of RESPA.
152. Plaintiff Kim Thompson’s three May 7, 2010 letters were “qualified written
requests” within the meaning of RESPA.
41
153. Defendant BAC failed to respond in a proper and timely way to Plaintiffs’
“qualified written requests” for information about their mortgage accounts by failing to provide
Plaintiffs with the information requested or explain why the information sought was unavailable,
in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e).
RESPA Count: Part B
154. In addition, Defendant BAC failed to send notice of transfer of loan servicing to
Plaintiffs Joyce Harryman, Sherry Biggs and William Biggs within 15 days after the effective
date of transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(c).
Damages
155. Plaintiffs suffered damages including, but not limited to loss of credit,
foreclosure, emotional harm, embarrassment and humiliation.
156. Plaintiffs’ damages were proximately caused by Defendant BAC’s non-
compliance with the requirements of the mortgage servicer provisions of RESPA.
157. Defendant BAC has engaged in a pattern and practice of non-compliance with the
requirements of the mortgage servicer provisions of RESPA, and Plaintiffs seek $1,000 in
statutory damages per violation.
158. Plaintiffs seek attorney fees under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(3).
Count Two: Breach of Contract – Loan Modification Agreement

Kim Yvette Thompson
159. The allegations of paragraphs 14 –146 above are realleged and incorporated by
reference herein.
160. Defendant Bank of America offered Plaintiff a loan modification. A true and
correct copy of the offer, signed and accepted by Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit Q. The Loan
42
Modification Agreement signed by Plaintiff Kim Thompson formed a valid, enforceable
contract. A true and correct copy of the contract is attached as Exhibits R.
161. Plaintiff Kim Thompson was a party to the contract she signed.
162. Plaintiff tendered performance of her contractual obligations.
163. Defendant BAC and Defendant Bank of America breached the contract by
demanding payments in excess of the amount due under the contract and by declaring her loan to
be in default when she had not missed any payments under the terms of the contract.
164. Defendants’ breach caused Plaintiff Kim Thompson injury.
165. Plaintiff seeks actual damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
166. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees under
Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this is a suit for breach of a
written contract (unless Defendant cures on or before July 8, 2010).
Count Three: Breach of Contract – Forbearance Agreement

Donna Batts and Brandon Krauskopf
reference herein. True and correct copies of the contracts are included in Exhibits B and CC, and
are incorporated by reference.
168. The Special Forbearance Agreements signed by Plaintiffs Donna Batts and
Brandon Krauskopf formed valid, enforceable contracts.
169. Plaintiffs Donna Batts and Brandon Krauskopf were each a party to the contract
they signed.
170. Plaintiffs performed their contractual obligations under the contracts.
171. Defendant BAC breached the contracts by posting Plaintiffs’ home for sale during
the period of the forbearance agreement.
43
172. Defendant’s breach caused Plaintiffs Donna Batts and Brandon Krauskopf injury.
173. Plaintiffs seek actual damages within the jurisdictional limits of the court.
174. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees under
Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this is a suit for breach of a
written contract (unless Defendant cures on or before July 8, 2010).
Count Four: Breach of Contract-Promissory Note and Deed of Trust

Agapito and Maria DeLourdes Jalamos
reference herein.
176. The note and deed of trust signed by Plaintiffs to create and secure the
indebtedness on their home constitute an enforceable contract. A copy of the Deed of Trust is
attached as Exhibit MM. As an FHA-insured loan, Plaintiffs’ Deed of Trust states that
compliance with HUD regulations is a precondition to foreclosure:
“In many circumstances regulations issued by the Secretary [of Housing and
Urban Development] will limit Lender’s rights, in the case of payment defaults, to
require immediate payment in full and foreclose if not paid. This Security
Instrument does not authorize acceleration or foreclosure if not permitted by
regulation of the Secretary [of Housing and Urban Development].” (emphasis
added) See Deed of Trust, ¶9(d), attached as Exhibit MM.
As set forth below, Defendant BAC has not complied with the regulations promulgated
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development3 and as such, foreclosure is not an
available remedy at this time.
177. HUD has plainly stated: “[I]t is the intent of the Department that no mortgagee
commence foreclosure acquisition of a property until the requirements of this subpart have
3
HUD regulations prescribe specific loss mitigation efforts that the servicer must employ to help
borrowers avoid foreclosure. To achieve these goals, HUD has promulgated federal regulations detailing FHA loan
servicers’ responsibilities when a homeowner defaults on a loan. The loss mitigation program helps homeowners in
default retain their homes and reduces losses to FHA’s insurance funds.
44
been followed.” (emphasis added) 24 C.F.R. §203.500. A lender is required by the subpart
mentioned to:
Take those appropriate actions which can reasonably be expected to generate the
smallest financial loss to the Department… include[ing], but are not limited
to…partial claims under § 203.414, assumptions under § 203.512, special
forbearance under §§ 203.471 and 203.614, and recasting of mortgages under §
203.616; See 24 C.F.R. § 203.5014
Make reasonable efforts to arrange or hold a face-to-face interview with the
homeowner before three monthly installments on the mortgage are unpaid; 24
C.F.R. §203.604.5
For all loans in default for three months, document that the lender has considered
all loss mitigation options to determine which, if any, are appropriate before
initiating foreclosure; 24 C.F.R. §203.605.
178. Defendant BAC failed to undertake these required loss mitigation efforts.
Therefore, BAC has not met a condition precedent to foreclosure of this loan, namely the
requirement that.
179. Defendant breached the terms of the note and deed of trust by
accelerating the note and invoking the power of sale included in the deed of trust without
performing its own obligations, namely by failing to undertake HUD-regulated loss mitigation
strategies prior to acceleration and foreclosure. See Exhibit MM, ¶ 9(d).
180. The breach caused Plaintiffs’ injury.
181. Pursuant the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act (Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code), Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that Defendant BAC is
without authority to conduct a foreclosure sale regarding this property, and enter emergency,
4
Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. v. Neal, 398 Md. 705 (Md. 2007) (holding that “under principles of equity, a
mortgagee’s commencement of a foreclosure proceeding on an FHA-insured mortgage, without first having adhered
to the mandatory HUD loss mitigation regulations, may invalidate the mortgagee’s declaration of default.”)
5
See Wash. Mut. Bank v. Mahaffey, 154 Ohio App. 3d 44 (Ohio Ct. App., Montgomery County 2003) (finding that
a “common-sense construction of the regulation is that it requires…that a lender either have a face-to-face interview,
or make a reasonable effort to arrange the interview, before bringing a foreclosure action.”)
45
temporary, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant BAC from conducting a
foreclosure sale of the property, and award Plaintiffs their attorney fees.
182. Additional Plaintiffs may be added to this cause of action in the event that
Defendant BAC accelerates the indebtedness on Plaintiffs’ loans without undertaking HUD-
regulated loss mitigation strategies prior to acceleration and foreclosure.
Count Five: Violation of the Texas Property Code

Agapito and Maria DeLourdes Jalamos
reference herein.
184. A mortgage servicer may administer the foreclosure of a property on behalf of a
mortgagee only when that servicer is acting pursuant to a servicing agreement. Texas Property
Code § 51.0025.
185. In June 2010, Plaintiffs received notice that on July 6, 2010 Defendant BAC
would administer a foreclosure sale on behalf of the mortgagee (U.S. Bank National Association
for the Benefit of TheSecurityholders (sic) of the Structured Asset Securities Corporation
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-Rf2). A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit NN.
186. On or about June 14, 2010 Plaintiffs received notice that the servicing of their
mortgage loan would be transferred to Aurora Loan Services, LLC effective July 1, 2010. A true
and correct copy is attached as Exhibit OO.
187. Plaintiffs have performed a reasonable investigation to ascertain whether
Defendant BAC is acting under any grant of authority from the mortgagee, and Defendant BAC
has provided no evidence of any authority to conduct a foreclosure sale on July 6, 2010.
188. Pursuant the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act (Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code), Plaintiffs request that the Court declare that Defendant BAC is
46
without authority to conduct a foreclosure sale regarding this property, and enter emergency,
temporary, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant BAC from conducting a
foreclosure sale of the property, and award Plaintiffs their attorney fees.
Count Six: Breach of Oral Contract-HAMP Trial Modification

Karen Mathews
reference herein.
190. Defendant BAC offered Plaintiff a trial modification pursuant to the Home
Affordable Modification Program. Plaintiff accepted this offer by making payments pursuant to
the terms of the contract. True and correct copies of the Western Union Receipts and check
#5687 are attached as Exhibit LL. Defendant BAC accepted these payments, and provided
Plaintiff with confirmation numbers for the payments. The trial modification, therefore,
constitutes a valid, enforceable contract.
191. One term of the contract was that Plaintiff’s home would be “removed from
foreclosure,” and would not be “transferred back to the foreclosure department” until a final
agreement on the loan could be reached. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these statements, and as a
result sent in payments pursuant to the terms being offered. Plaintiff’s reliance was to her
detriment.
192. Plaintiff performed her contractual obligations under the contract.
193. Defendant BAC breached the contract by posting Plaintiffs’ home for sale during
the period of the trial modification, and without reviewing her application for a final agreement.
194. Defendant BAC’s breach caused Plaintiff injury.
195. Plaintiff seeks actual damages and attorney fees within the jurisdictional limits of
this court.
47
196. In the alternative, Plaintiff alleges that the above described facts constitute a claim
for promissory estoppel. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, justice requires the
enforcement of Defendant’s promises and representations.
197. Plaintiff is entitled to enforcement of Defendant BAC’s promises and
representations, and Defendant BAC is liable to Plaintiff accordingly.
Count Seven: Unreasonable Collection Efforts

All Plaintiffs
reference herein
199. Defendant BAC’s efforts to collect on Plaintiffs’ loans was unreasonable.
Defendant BAC engaged in a course of harassment and misinformation that was intentional,
knowing and reckless.
200. Plaintiffs were injured by Defendant BAC’s actions.
201. Plaintiffs request actual damages including mental anguish, and exemplary
damages.
202. Each Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages under Section 41.003 of theTexas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Count Eight: Intentional Misrepresentation

All Plaintiffs
reference herein
204. Defendant BAC made representations to Plaintiffs, in the course of its business
and in a transaction in which it had a pecuniary interest. These representations were intentional
or, in the alternative, negligent.
48
205. Defendant supplied false information to Plaintiffs.
206. Defendant did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or
communicating the information.
207. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the information, expecting that Defendant BAC
would engage in a meaningful review of their request for assistance or other information.
208. Defendant’s misrepresentations proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
209. Each Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages under Section 41.003 of the Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Count Nine: Texas Debt Collection Act

All Individual Plaintiffs
reference herein
211. Plaintiffs are “consumer[s]” as defined in Section 392.001 (1) of the Texas Finance
Code.
212. Defendant BAC has attempted to collect an alleged obligation that is a “debt” as
defined in Section 392.001 (2) of the Texas Finance Code, and Defendant is a “debt collector” as
defined in Section 392.001 (6) of the Texas Finance Code.
213. Defendant BAC violated the Texas Debt Collection Act, found in Chapter 392 of the
Texas Finance Code, in two ways.
214. Defendant represented falsely the status or nature of the services rendered in
violation of Section 392.304 (14).
215. Defendant used false representations and deceptive means to collect a debt or
obtain information concerning a consumer in violation of Section 392.304 (19).
216. The wrongful acts were committed against Plaintiffs.
49
217. Plaintiffs were injured as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts.
218. Plaintiffs request actual, statutory, and exemplary damages.
219. Plaintiffs request reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 392.403(b).
VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
A home is uniquely valuable. It is the largest investment many low income Texans will
make in their lifetimes, and provides one of the few opportunities for low income Texans to
build wealth. But a home is also where many of the Plaintiffs and other low income Texans raise
their children and accumulate their memories. Misrepresentations that jeopardize a borrower’s
home are unconscionable and the damage is irreparable. Defendant BAC’s misrepresentations to
borrowers are systemic in nature and widespread in practice. Plaintiffs therefore ask that this
court:
(1) Enter a temporary and permanent injunction that Defendant BAC, including its agents
employees and contractors, refrain from practices, policies, and plans that result in or
increase Defendants’ misrepresentations, errors, falsehoods, barriers to timely, accurate
communication with Plaintiffs which are identified by the Court through the course of
this litigation;
(2) Award each individual Plaintiff their actual, statutory, and exemplary damages;
(3) Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorney fees; and
(4) Grant such other relief as Court finds necessary and just.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ .
Molly Ann Rogers
Attorney in charge
State Bar No. 24065992
SDT Bar No. 1044949
50
Robert W. Doggett
SDT Bar No. 36389
Cynthia M. Dyar
SDT Bar No. 989886
TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC.

4920 N. I-35
Austin, TX 78751
512-374-2765
512-447-3940 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
51

Class Action Suit Filed Against Bank of America For Abuse in Texas

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Class Action Suit Filed Against Bank of America For Abuse in Texas

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 6:10-cv-00051 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/29/10 Page 1 of 51

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

hours of telephone runaround, misleading and inconsistent information, lost correspondence,

collapse of the U.S. housing market.

arising under 12 U.S.C. § 2605.

claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unreasonable collection efforts, and

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs.

5. Plaintiffs Joyce Harryman (Victoria County, Texas), Leticia Lerma Gonzalez

6. Plaintiff Texas Housing Justice League (“THJL”) is a nonprofit corporation that is

income Texans seeking the protection of housing rights.

8. Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP is a limited partnership. BAC has

9. Defendant BAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of the well-known banking

However, servicing generally includes such functions as collecting payments, communicating

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) releases “mortgagee letters”

provides in bold capitalized letters, “PARTICIPATION IN THE LOSS MITIGATION

PROGRAM IS NOT OPTIONAL.”

12. In addition, Defendants have agreed to participate in the “Home Affordable

Modification Program” (“HAMP”), which is a federal program introduced by the U.S.

2009, available at https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/docs/hamp_servicer/sd0901.pdf. Under

Modification Program Guidelines, March 4, 2009, available at

13. In order to participate in HAMP, loan servicers must execute a servicer

of mortgage loans in certain circumstances described by the program.

Retention,” “HOPE”, “Foreclosure,” “Bankruptcy” and “Collections” departments with no

scheme of operation so dysfunctional that the constant barrage of misinformation, misdirection,

and deliberate inactivity amounted to abuse and harassment.

practice by Defendant BAC of deliberately misinforming borrowers in default or at risk of

get a modification to lower her payments.

Forbearance Agreement” included a written offer by Defendant BAC to Plaintiff Batts to

and a Western Union payment of $1,090.

The notice began with this cover page :

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER &

26. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant on October 7, 2009, but Defendant

which she sought treatment at an emergency room.

and Defendant will therefore benefit.

everything from the beginning.

Plaintiff faxed the documents, through counsel, on both occasions.

Leticia Lerma Gonzalez

J. The servicing of this loan was later transferred to Defendant BAC.

Plaintiff was not in default under the agreement.

to obtain a loan modification to save her home.

true and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit L.

called or to whom she spoke, she was blocked at every turn.

or make another arrangement.

in foreclosure, a foreclosure sale would occur.

“negative surplus” based on the debts listed on Plaintiff’s credit report.

lose her home.

received another letter that contained a “Loan Modification Agreement,” “Commitment to

signed and returned all of the documents to Defendant BAC.

caused Plaintiff anxiety and emotional distress.

Kim Yvette Thompson

Mortgage Corporation. Charles C. Thompson was a veteran of the Vietnam War.

Kim Thompson and his son, Charles Thompson, III.

property, under the laws of intestate succession.

as Exhibit P. The offer contained the following section:

* We may obtain a lender’s title insurance policy or endorsement insuring

* If your loan contains mortgage insurance, the modification is contingent

* If any other issues -- including but not limited to deterioration in the

Offer from Bank of America, at 3, attached as Exhibit P.

correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit Q.

64. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Bank of America sent Plaintiff a Loan