Drafting Causes of Action

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

This is for reference only. You should check with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction to make sure the elements of each cause of action are understood, that they apply, and that you have the facts or sufficient reason to plead that cause of action.

There usually specific state or local forms like a “Civil Cover Sheet” and potentially other forms, including a summons to be issued for service of process. Consultation with an attorney is strongly advised.

The Florida Rules of Civil procedure contain sample pleadings for certain types of actions but not all causes of action. Most states have the same thing. The structure of any cause of action is as follows:

1. Why the court has jurisdiction over the parties
2. Why the court has jurisdiction over the matter in controversy
3. What is the name of the cause of action (e.g. negligence)
4. What is the duty that Plaintiff alleges that defendant had.
5. Defendant breached that duty by ….
6. As a direct and proximate cause of the breach of the aforesaid duty by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered [financial, emotional, physical] damages in excess of minimum jurisdictional amount in controversy for court to hear it]
7. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter Judgment for the Plaintiff in an amount in excess of [jurisdictional amount] and grant such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper, plus attorney fees, costs of this action and
8. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by jury. [It is typical to place in all capital letters on the first page of the pleading “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED”]

If the action is to get the court to enter an order to do or stop doing something, that is called equitable relief.
1. Why the court has jurisdiction over the parties
2. Why the court has jurisdiction over the matter in controversy
3. What is the name of the cause of action (e.g. injunction)
4. What is the duty that Plaintiff alleges that defendant had.
5. Defendant breached that duty by ….
6. As a direct and proximate cause of the breach of the aforesaid duty by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered [financial, emotional, physical] damages in excess of [minimum jurisdictional amount in controversy for court to hear it], which are continuing [and possibly escalating]
7. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter Judgment for the Plaintiff in which the Defendant is enjoined from [describe the activity] and grant such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper, plus attorney fees, costs of this action
8. No jury trial is typical for equitable claims although you can ask for it.

If the action is for an intentional tort (e.g. fraud)
1. Why the court has jurisdiction over the parties
2. Why the court has jurisdiction over the matter in controversy
3. What is the name of the cause of action (e.g. fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation must be stated separately as a different cause fo action)
4. What is the duty that Plaintiff alleges that defendant had.
5. Defendant breached that duty by ….
6. Defendant’s breach was intentional and/or grossly negligent in that Defendant knew or must have known that its actions would damage the Plaintiff
7. [OPTIONAL] Defendant’s action were motivated by its intention to conceal its activities under the umbrella of a larger fraud, to wit: [describe the umbrella]
8. Defendant’s actions were undertaken with actual malice or with reckless indifference to the consequences to its illegal and wrongful actions
9. As a direct and proximate cause of the breach of the aforesaid duty by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered [financial, emotional, physical] damages in excess of [minimum jurisdictional amount in controversy for court to hear it]
10. Defendants actions were reprehensible as well as illegal and ongoing in nature such that Defendant should be required to pay punitive, exemplary or treble damages [if there is a statute providing for treble damages]
11. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter Judgment for the Plaintiff in an amount in excess of [jurisdictional amount], plus punitive or exemplary damages and grant such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper, plus attorney fees, costs of this action and
12. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by jury. [It is typical to place in all capital letters on the first page of the pleading “JURY TRIAL DEMANDED”]

Writ of Mandamus: The Right Procedure

submitted by Frank D’Anna

Writ of Mandate 2 Frank D’Anna

COMMENT: I don’t know if Frank got help, but however he did it, this is a fine piece of work. He obviously understands that if you want to take an appeal, you must state a reason that the trial court erred. If you want to win it, you better come up with a procedural issue that is compelling. Most appeals fail. The reason is that the Appellant wants the appellate court to say the Judge was wrong on the facts. They don’t do that except in the rarest of cases, so don’t bother.

The best appeal is to be able to say and show IN THE COURT RECORD that you didn’t get your day in court, which is to say that the trial judge refused to hear your case on the merits. Any other appeal will get “Per Curium, Affirmed” without comment.

The second best appeal is to imply that the trial judge was tone deaf and ruled based upon presumptions he wasn’t allowed to make. D’Anna’s appeal is a combination of the the two approaches. They both amount to the same thing: you were not heard on the merits and the trial judge prejudged the case based upon incorrect presumptions.

Speaking in legalese this means that the trial judge presumed that YOU had the burden of proof and allowed your opposition, over your objection, to introduce information that was not authenticated, verified or given proper foundation to be taken into evidence. In many cases there is no evidentiary hearing. Your case is a denial of the allegations of the oppositions whether they have filed (judicial states) or they haven’t filed them (Non-judicial states).

The mistake repeatedly made in the trial court is acceptance by the borrower that the borrower has some burden of proof regarding the standing of the opposing party, whether the opposing party is a real party in interest, and whether the note was properly assigned or ever made it into the “Trust.”

This is just plain wrong: There is only party actually seeking affirmative relief — the one who wants to enforce the note and foreclose on the property. The party seeking affirmative relief is the ALWAYS charged with pleading a case upon which relief could be granted and ALWAYS required to prove each and every allegation. The allegations and the proof must line up with the elements of their cause of action as stated by statute, the rules of civil procedure and previous common law decisions.

In non-judicial states these errors are magnified. Because the law is universally misapplied, a party can foreclose through power of sale even if they would have no right to foreclose judicially. That is not the law and if it was the law it would be unconstitutional.

  • The fact that the forecloser ignores the basic elements of law does not shift the burden of pleading or the burden of proof onto the borrower.
  • The fact that the borrower/debtor must bring an action seeking injunction or restraining order to stop the non-judicial sale does not change the burden of pleading or the burden of proof.
  • Once the denial or objection is registered in any fashion, the Trustee in a non-judicial state and the mortgagee in a judicial state MUST, under all conditions, plead and prove their case in a court of law.
  • Non-judicial election is simply not available.


Ratings Arbitrage a/k/a Fraud

Investment banks bundled mortgage loans into securities and then often rebundled those securities one or two more times. Those securities were given high ratings and sold to investors, who have since lost billions of dollars on them.

Editor’s Note: The significance of this report cannot be overstated. Not only did the investment bankers LOOK for and CREATE loans guaranteed to fail, which they did, they sold them in increasingly complex packages more than once. So for example if the yield spread profit or premium was $100,000 on a given loan, that wasn’t enough for the investment bankers. Without loaning or investing any additional money they sold the same loans, or at least parts of those loans, to additional investors one, two three times or more. In the additional sales, there was no cost so whatever they received was entirely profit. I would call that a yield spread profit or premium, and certainly undisclosed. If the principal of the loan was $300,000 and they resold it three times, then the investment bank received $900,000 from those additional sales, in addition to the initial $100,000 yield spread profit on sale of the loan to the “trust” or special purpose vehicle.

So the investment bank kept $1 million dollars in fees, profits or compensation on a $300,000 loan. Anyone who has seen “The Producers” knows that if this “show” succeeds, i.e., if most of the loans perform as scheduled and borrowers are making their payments, then the investment bank has a problem — receiving a total of $1.3 million on a $300,000 loan. But if the loans fails, then nobody asks for an accounting. As long as it is in foreclosure, no accounting is required except for when the property is sold (see other blog posts on bid rigging at the courthouse steps documented by Charles Koppa).

If they modify the loan or approve the short sale then an accounting is required. That is a bad thing for the investment bank. But if they don’t modify any loans and don’t approve any short-sales, then questions are going to be asked which will be difficult to answer.

You make plans and then life happens, my wife says. All these brilliant schemes were fraudulent and probably criminal. All such schemes eventually get the spotlight on them. Now, with criminal investigations ongoing in a dozen states and the federal government, the accounting and the questions are coming anyway—despite the efforts of the titans of the universe to avoid that result.

All those Judges that sarcastically threw homeowners out of court questioning the veracity of accusations against pretender lenders, can get out the salt and pepper as they eat their words.

“Why are they not in jail if they did these things” asked practically everyone on both sides of the issue. The answer is simply that criminal investigations do not take place overnight, they move slowly and if the prosecutor has any intention of winning a conviction he must have sufficient evidence to prove criminal acts beyond a reasonable doubt.

But remember the threshold for most civil litigation is merely a preponderance of the evidence, which means if you think there is more than a 50-50  probability the party did something, the prima facie case is satisfied and damages or injunction are stated in a final judgment. Some causes of action, like fraud, frequently require clear and convincing evidence, which is more than 50-50 and less than beyond a reaonsable doubt.

From the NY Times: ————————

The New York attorney general has started an investigation of eight banks to determine whether they provided misleading information to rating agencies in order to inflate the grades of certain mortgage securities, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation.


Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, sent subpoenas to eight Wall Street banks late Wednesday.

The investigation parallels federal inquiries into the business practices of a broad range of financial companies in the years before the collapse of the housing market.

Where those investigations have focused on interactions between the banks and their clients who bought mortgage securities, this one expands the scope of scrutiny to the interplay between banks and the agencies that rate their securities.

The agencies themselves have been widely criticized for overstating the quality of many mortgage securities that ended up losing money once the housing market collapsed. The inquiry by the attorney general of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, suggests that he thinks the agencies may have been duped by one or more of the targets of his investigation.

Those targets are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Crédit Agricole and Merrill Lynch, which is now owned by Bank of America.

The companies that rated the mortgage deals are Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service. Investors used their ratings to decide whether to buy mortgage securities.

Mr. Cuomo’s investigation follows an article in The New York Times that described some of the techniques bankers used to get more positive evaluations from the rating agencies.

Mr. Cuomo is also interested in the revolving door of employees of the rating agencies who were hired by bank mortgage desks to help create mortgage deals that got better ratings than they deserved, said the people with knowledge of the investigation, who were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Contacted after subpoenas were issued by Mr. Cuomo’s office late Wednesday night notifying the banks of his investigation, spokespeople for Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank declined to comment. Other banks did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In response to questions for the Times article in April, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, Samuel Robinson, said: “Any suggestion that Goldman Sachs improperly influenced rating agencies is without foundation. We relied on the independence of the ratings agencies’ processes and the ratings they assigned.”

Goldman, which is already under investigation by federal prosecutors, has been defending itself against civil fraud accusations made in a complaint last month by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The deal at the heart of that complaint — called Abacus 2007-AC1 — was devised in part by a former Fitch Ratings employee named Shin Yukawa, whom Goldman recruited in 2005.

At the height of the mortgage boom, companies like Goldman offered million-dollar pay packages to workers like Mr. Yukawa who had been working at much lower pay at the rating agencies, according to several former workers at the agencies.

Around the same time that Mr. Yukawa left Fitch, three other analysts in his unit also joined financial companies like Deutsche Bank.

In some cases, once these workers were at the banks, they had dealings with their former colleagues at the agencies. In the fall of 2007, when banks were hard-pressed to get mortgage deals done, the Fitch analyst on a Goldman deal was a friend of Mr. Yukawa, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

Mr. Yukawa did not respond to requests for comment.

Wall Street played a crucial role in the mortgage market’s path to collapse. Investment banks bundled mortgage loans into securities and then often rebundled those securities one or two more times. Those securities were given high ratings and sold to investors, who have since lost billions of dollars on them.

Banks were put on notice last summer that investigators of all sorts were looking into their mortgage operations, when requests for information were sent out to all of the big Wall Street firms. The topics of interest included the way mortgage securities were created, marketed and rated and some banks’ own trading against the mortgage market.

The S.E.C.’s civil case against Goldman is the most prominent action so far. But other actions could be taken by the Justice Department, the F.B.I. or the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — all of which are looking into the financial crisis. Criminal cases carry a higher burden of proof than civil cases. Under a New York state law, Mr. Cuomo can bring a criminal or civil case.

His office scrutinized the rating agencies back in 2008, just as the financial crisis was beginning. In a settlement, the agencies agreed to demand more information on mortgage bonds from banks.

Mr. Cuomo was also concerned about the agencies’ fee arrangements, which allowed banks to shop their deals among the agencies for the best rating. To end that inquiry, the agencies agreed to change their models so they would be paid for any work they did for banks, even if those banks did not select them to rate a given deal.

Mr. Cuomo’s current focus is on information the investment banks provided to the rating agencies and whether the bankers knew the ratings were overly positive, the people who know of the investigation said.

A Senate subcommittee found last month that Wall Street workers had been intimately involved in the rating process. In one series of e-mail messages the committee released, for instance, a Goldman worker tried to persuade Standard & Poor’s to allow Goldman to handle a deal in a way that the analyst found questionable.

The S.& P. employee, Chris Meyer, expressed his frustration in an e-mail message to a colleague in which he wrote, “I can’t tell you how upset I have been in reviewing these trades.”

“They’ve done something like 15 of these trades, all without a hitch. You can understand why they’d be upset,” Mr. Meyer added, “to have me come along and say they will need to make fundamental adjustments to the program.”

At Goldman, there was even a phrase for the way bankers put together mortgage securities. The practice was known as “ratings arbitrage,” according to former workers. The idea was to find ways to put the very worst bonds into a deal for a given rating. The cheaper the bonds, the greater the profit to the bank.

The rating agencies may have facilitated the banks’ actions by publishing their rating models on their corporate Web sites. The agencies argued that being open about their models offered transparency to investors.

But several former agency workers said the practice put too much power in the bankers’ hands. “The models were posted for bankers who develop C.D.O.’s to be able to reverse engineer C.D.O.’s to a certain rating,” one former rating agency employee said in an interview, referring to collateralized debt obligations.

A central concern of investors in these securities was the diversification of the deals’ loans. If a C.D.O. was based on mostly similar bonds — like those holding mortgages from one region — investors would view it as riskier than an instrument made up of more diversified assets. Mr. Cuomo’s office plans to investigate whether the bankers accurately portrayed the diversification of the mortgage loans to the rating agencies.

Gretchen Morgenson contributed reporting

Federal Courts Provide Foreclosure Victim A Stay from Eviction! L.A. Homeowner refuses to yield claiming Unlawful Foreclosure!

Federal Courts Provide Foreclosure Victim A Stay from Eviction! L.A. Homeowner refuses to yield claiming Unlawful Foreclosure!

By M Soliman
Submitted by Keith Bloom

A Los Angeles Federal Court heard early arguments by plaintiff’s counsel for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a suit filed against the lender and defendant Deutsche Bank in an unlawful detainer.

February 10, 2009 / http://www.borrowerhotline.com; Los Angeles, California – A Los Angeles Federal Court has agreed to hear the matter of a wrongful foreclosure in the case of Russell v. Deutsche Bank et al. The news is according to Maher Soliman a Juris Pro™ expert witness and case development analyst to counsel. In reviewing the matter the presiding judge agreed to the request by counsel to issue a TRO after taking the complaint and request for an injunction under consideration.

It’s noteworthy to cite how the defendant in the state UD case attacked the banks standing at the superior court level, and having lost, has now found new life in the federal courts. The federal court heard arguments for overturning the lenders recovery efforts in a foreclosure under the state’s power of sale provision. According to Soliman, “the borrowers file made no sense where audits showed errors, omissions and instances of negligent acceptance. The analysis considered the transfer of interest in the collateral questionable throughout the foreclosure. It is still unclear as to the parties standing and who the holder in due course in the foreclosure is”.

The next step is a hearing and early arguments for issuing an indefinite injunction pending the trial. Counsel for the plaintiff is J Barfield-McCarren. According to information received at press time the temporary restraining order will remain unopposed by the defendant’s in this matter.


San Diego Sues Countrywide, Officers, Mortgage Brokers, Mortgage Aggregators, Investment Bankers, and Investors




The “Simple” answer is YOU have to stop the trustee and lender(s) from acting illegally. They are counting on the idea that you won’t be persistent or clever enough to game the system against them the way they are doing to you. You don’t have to be very clever. But you DO need to be persistent and not give up at the first sign of resistance or confusion. Give yourself time to understand the system. You will.

You need to go down to the courthouse and file a petition for emergency injunction. If you need a lawyer, which you probably do, you can at least hire him/her to draft the pleading and summons. You hand deliver it tot eh clerk and wait for the court file so you can go up to the assigned judge and ask for an emergency order or hearing. Most judges are simply waiting for someone to contest these things. They are mystified as to why more people don’t. They are ready to sign orders stopping lenders and trustees from proceeding without adequate proof of their authorization, or their standing to do anything, 

Mortgage Meltdown: For People Already in Trouble

We received the following plea for help. I have changed the name to protect privacy. But both the plea and the answer are applicable to many people, which is why we are publishing the Garfield Handbooks. I will shortly publish a way for you to down load the books and forms and purchase the book on line or in hard copy. 

“hello my name is John Smith i am currently in chapter 13 bankruptcy countrywide has currently forclosed on my property the bank brought it back and is currently moving to evict me i beleive there were bogus fees and my atorney did not want to argue the issue , my payments went from $1900 to $2800 to $3850 within 18months adjusted twice please send me info so i can fight back”

First thing you need to do is calm down because allowing yourself to be overtaken by anxiety will lead to bad judgment, unclear thoughts and strategies that could make your situation worse.

Second thing is it would be nice if you would order the Garfield Handbook for Borrowers in the Mortgage Meltdown Crisis by sending a money order for $19.95 payable to General Transfer Corporation and address it to Neil F. Garfield, 4980 S Alma School Rd., A-2, Suite 124, Chandler, Az 85248. I will send you via email the  current manuscript and give you free updates for 60 days. If you want it in hard copy, send $29.95 including shipping and handling. Whether you do or don’t buy the book (which helps defray the costs of servicing the thousands of people stuck in your position), I will help you as much as I can right here and right now. 

Third thing you should do is consult a lawyer that is local and knows the ropes. After reading this email a lawyer might be willing to help you without a retainer because of the possibility of getting paid by Countrywide or even in a class action. The lawyer should consider joining one of the many class action lawsuits that have been filed. Make sure you join one that is for borrowers and not for investors in CDOs. If you must proceed on your own, here are some tips that other people are doing:


  1. Contact the Office of the Attorney General of your State. Do the same in your county and your city. You might find that an investigation is already underway against Countrywide and lenders in general in this massive fraud — and they might even intervene for you. You are a victim and not a bad guy, so don’t get put off by anyone telling you that you should have known better when you signed the documents. Remember, the largest criminal investigation in the history of economic fraud is currently underway in many states and there is plenty of talk behind the scenes about what to do for people like you. 
  2. Contact the Judge’s office in the bankruptcy case and file a copy of whatever you send to the Judge with the clerk of the bankruptcy court. Use letter sized paper, double-spaced with numbered paragraphs. Make sure you send copies of whatever you have sent to the Judge to the Trustee to whom you were supposed to make your payments. Do not expect the Trustee to intervene for you. Adversarial proceedings are expensive and unless you can offer to pay up front, the Trustee is in all probability not going to help you.
  3. You might want to ask for a conversion to Chapter 11, which is available for individuals and which allows for certain “cram down” features that are more likely to get you relief that you might get in Chapter 13 or Chapter 7. But the filing fee in Chapter 11 cases is very high. You might want to get  request leave of court to spread the payment out over time. 
  4. If the bankruptcy court won’t hear you then try everything below in the State Court in your jurisdiction. The clerk of the court will generally be helpful. 
  5. Generally a good time to contact the Judge in person is on a Friday afternoon when the Judge dispenses advise and punishment to lawyers who screwed up in his court that week. At that time you can present your papers (if the Judge lets you) and literally plead with the Judge to help you. 
  6. The Judge on the other hand is seeing a geometric increase in these cases and most bankruptcy judges are (a) not pleased with the change in bankruptcy laws passed by congress and (b) don’t like these foreclosures based upon crazy payment re-sets and (c) would offer some relief as long as they were not inventing law, just enforcing and deciding it. So don’t get crazy with your demands, because the Judge will probably not be receptive to what you have to say. 
  7. Be respectful and not argumentative withe the Judge. You can show your emotion but make absolutely certain it does not come across that you are angry or ready to fight with the Judge. That can lead to handcuffs and spending a night behind bars to cool off.
  8. Do not assume the Judge knows anything about your case (in terms of who you are, where you live, when this case started, when you bought, or what happened when you bought — these are all things you must say in writing, and if you given the chance, out loud in court); but by all means you can assume that the Judge knows the law — better than you do and better than 99% of the attorneys that appear before him or her. In fact, appearing pro se (without counsel) might put you at an advantage because the Judge is likely to use his own knowledge or her own knowledge, to your advantage.
  9. Do not assume the Judge is against you if he/she asks you questions or says things that seem to favor the other side. A Judge is supposed to be objective, not automatically in your favor because of your good looks or the severity of the penalty you are experiencing. 
  10. Be very scrupulous in obeying all time limits and all other instructions of the court. Don’t think you can play fast and loose with ANYTHING. Bankruptcy Court is Federal Court and Federal Court is a lot tighter on rules than you usually find in State Courts. 
  11. Ask the Judge on paper and orally if you get the chance, for a stay or temporary injunction, preventing Countrywide from enforcing the mortgage, filing eviction, or getting an order that would allow  or order law enforcement to come to your house and literally remove you. Do not remove yourself. You might be surprised how long it can take before a sheriff does the eviction. They don’t like this situation anymore than you do, and they are aware of the criminal investigations going on against Countrywide and other lenders.
  12. Ask the Judge to allow you to file an “Adversary Proceeding”. You will get instructions in the local rules from either the Judge or his clerk. 
  13. Tell the Judge in your paperwork and orally, if you get the chance that you want to challenge the mortgage and the note in that they were not computed properly, that the adjustments were not computed in accordance with law, that the amount demanded from you is wrong (too high) and that you have been defrauded by Countrywide and other co-conspirators) on all of the following grounds:
  14. Fraud in the inducement: Countrywide entered into a conspiracy to defraud you and millions of other people to believe that you could, with their help, afford a house that you otherwise believed you could never pay for. You were presented with terms you were led to believe you could afford, but the entire arrangement amounted to bait and switch because the terms being enforced against you now are the not the same terms you started off with. They inflated the price of the home, enlisted an appraiser to verify the value, enlisted a mortgage broker to guide you into a mortgage you could not afford, intentionally distracted you from disclosures that might have alerted you to problems with the mortgage terms and note, and then led you to believe that you had been approved by a financial institution with far superior  information, and upon whom you reasonably relied to verify the value of the home, the reasonableness of the terms of the mortgage, and the lack of any need for an attorney. [Needless to say, if anything here does not apply to you don’t say it]. As a result, you went to a closing where you presented with a pile of papers that you did not understand but which were explained to you by a title agent that was enlisted to tell you the terms of the mortgage and note in such a manner that you would be distracted from understanding that you could not possibly pay for the house, that the house might not be worth what you were paying for, and that the mortgage terms only benefitted the co-conspirators, none of whom assumed any risk in the transaction because they sold the risk to third party investors who were similarly lied to and defrauded. As a result you have been deprived of living arrangements that you could have afforded but which are no longer available, you have spent money improving and furnishing a house that you cannot afford if the price and mortgage terms are maintained, and are faced with the expense and costs of moving, including the threat of literally moving out onto the street and becoming one of the hundreds of thousands of homeless persons displaced by this massive fraud.
  15. Fraud in the execution: You were led to believe by the co-conspirators and third parties that you were signing papers that were the same as what you were originally told by the developer, who probably received a rebate on the yield spread premium, the mortgage broker who also received a rebate, the title agent who received a high closing fee, and the appraiser who also received a fee in excess of the amount that the marketplace would have awarded if the transaction had not been fraudulent. 
  16. Rescission — only if they can give you back everything they took from you.
  17. Usury: The net effect of this scheme was to acquire title to property and sell it at prices that would allow the lender to secure a return that would otherwise be in violation of usury laws.
  18. RICO racketeering: This was an interstate scheme involving co-conspirators from many states and perhaps other countries as well. The scheme violates criminal statutes and cicll statutes. Accordingly the case should referred for criminal prosecution and you are entitled to treble damages and attorney fees.
  19. TIL (Truth in Lending): The co-conspirators intentionally misled you by distracting you from the real terms of the transaction and as a result violated local, state and federal truth in lending laws.
  20. Discovery: The Clerk might help you with this. You want to file requests for Production, requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and a demand for access to the main and ancillary computers containing emails, correspondence and policies of Countrywide for dealing with your case and cases like yours. Get access to emails, correspondence etc. dating back before the loan and relating to the creation of the loan product the borrower eventually was sold. Same for what they know of the other players — developer/seller, mortgage broker, appraiser, relations with investment bankers showing they knew they would not be carrying he risk of the loan ( shows they had not interest other than closing the deal without concern as to whether the deal went bad for borrower or lender). Get screen shots of websites and see if you have copies of web pages that were printed during the loan and sales process. Check for differences. If someone has been fired at the lender for the events leading up to the CDO and mortgage meltdown, get their deposition. Demand copies of drafts of documentation before it was presented to the borrower along with any emails or inter-office memos. Find out if anyone has consulted counsel for criminal exposure, employment litigation, or civil exposure. You can’t get the content of the conversation but you can get the answer to that question if you phrase it right
  21. See my other posts on livinglies.wordpress.com for more allegations that might be applicable.

Neil F. Garfield, Esq.


This is not a solicitation for legal services nor legal advice in your particular situation. I do not know what jurisdiction you live in, I have not interviewed you, you have not retained me, and I am not your lawyer. These matters are complex and generally require the services of competent legal counsel experienced in bankruptcy, foreclosures and lender liability. You should consult with local counsel before doing anything. The information contained in this email is general information that may or may not apply to your situation. 

This transmission may be protected by attorney client privilege and attorney work product privilege if it contains legal advice or opinions, and it contains information that are private, trade secrets, protected by non-disclosure and non-circumvention agreements between the parties and is therefore confidential and privileged. It may also be for the sole purpose of compromise and settlement only if it contains an offer and may not be used in any judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding without the express written consent of the sender. 

%d bloggers like this: