Distressed Homeowners Appeal to Third Circuit in Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Against Countrywide, Wells Fargo and Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg
Lower Court Ignored Homeowners' Allegations of Foreclosure Fee Overcharges and Fraudulent Legal Documentation
ShareThis 
This appeal demonstrates that our judicial system, whose function is to enforce the law and provide justice to those who need it, has at times abdicated its responsibilities and ignored fundamental rights of foreclosure fraud victims.
Lancaster, PA (PRWEB) –
On December 6, 2010, lawyers for a proposed class of distressed homeowners filed a brief requesting reversal of an order by U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of Philadelphia, who denied the homeowners’ motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint in a foreclosure fraud class action. The action is entitled Rhodes v. Diamond, Case No. 10-3431 (3d. Cir.).
The proposed Amended Complaint alleges that Countrywide, Wells Fargo and one of their high-volume foreclosure law firms engaged in fraudulent schemes to collect inflated and manufactured foreclosure fees from financially troubled families in danger of losing their homes.
The Amended Complaint, first proposed on January 15, 2010, also alleges that defendants systematically used fraudulent affidavits and bogus mortgage assignments to hastily prosecute mortgage foreclosure actions in the absence of any party with legal standing to sue.
The proposed Amended Complaint seeks relief against defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law.
“In recent months, public officials, commentators and citizens have been appalled to learn about institutionalized fraudulent practices by mortgage servicers and law firms that have created a frightening ‘foreclosure crisis’ in this country,” John G. Narkin, a lawyer for the homeowners said. “This appeal demonstrates that our judicial system, whose function is to enforce the law and provide justice to those who need it, has at times abdicated its responsibilities and ignored fundamental rights of foreclosure fraud victims.”
The appeal also seeks reversal of the lower court’s disposition of an earlier, narrowly circumscribed complaint, which was dismissed on technical grounds involving the U.S. bankruptcy laws, which are unrelated to the more pervasive fraudulent schemes alleged in the proposed Amended Complaint.
Details about this case and its background are available at http://www.bhn-law.com/consumer_rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment