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

8/9/2019 Class Action Suit Filed Against Bank of America for Abuse in Texas

1/51

1

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

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


2/51

2

servicers 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) areindividualswho are residents of the State of

Texas.



3/51

3

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 holders 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



4/51

4

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 FHAs 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 athttps://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



5/51


6/51

6

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



7/51

7

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



8/51

8

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.

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. Plaintiffs 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.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY



9/51

9

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

sons breathing treatments at a shelter with strangers looking on and passing by. She knows this

would be detrimental to her sons 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 Plaintiffs 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.



10/51

10

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



11/51

11

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 Plaintiffs 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.



12/51

12

37. In May 2010, Defendant BAC again asked Plaintiff to submit a hardship affidavit,

negotiation agreement, and supporting documentation. A copy of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs family, therefore, was

struggling to pay his medical bills, which caused a hardship. In addition, Plaintiffs 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



13/51

13

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 BACs 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,



14/51

14

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



15/51

15

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 Plaintiffs credit report.

52. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff again spoke with Defendant BAC, and was told that a

new negotiator had been assigned to Plaintiffs loan. This negotiator, however, stated that



16/51

16

Defendant BAC still did not have any of Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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



17/51

17

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. Defendants behavior

caused Plaintiff anxiety and emotional distress.

Kim Yvette Thompson

57. In October 1994, Plaintiffs 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, Plaintiffs 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

Plaintiffs loan. Plaintiff received a letter in the mail informing her about a program called



18/51

18

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 lenders title insurance policy or endorsement insuringthe Modified Mortgage as a first lien. If you have any other encumbrancesto the property, you may be required to obtain subordination agreementsfrom other secured creditors.

* If your loan contains mortgage insurance, the modification is contingentupon approval from the mortgage insurer.

* If any other issues -- including but not limited to deterioration in thecondition of the property, lawsuits, liens, additional expenses, and defaultedamounts-- arise between the date of this commitment and the date on whichthe Modified Mortgage documents are to be signed, we may refuse tomodify the Mortgage. We may then pursue collection actions, includingforeclosure, 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



19/51

19

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 Plaintiffs Note and

Security Instrument by adjusting Plaintiffs 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.



20/51

20

68. This supervisor insisted that Plaintiffs 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



21/51

21

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 persons 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



22/51

22

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



23/51

23

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

Americas 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 attorneys 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.



24/51


25/51

25

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

didnt 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 ne 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



26/51

26

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 BACs 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 Plaintiffs telephone calls, Defendant BAC told Plaintiff that

there had been a payment of approximately $9,000 that had not been credited to her account.



27/51

27

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 BACs 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



28/51

28

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. Defendants 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



29/51

29

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



30/51

30

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



31/51

31

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.

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. Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs home for a foreclosure sale to take place in June 2010. True and

correct copies of these notices are attached as Exhibit DD. Plaintiffs 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. Defendants behavior caused Plaintiff anxiety and

emotional distress.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY



32/51

32

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.



33/51

33

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.



34/51

34

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



35/51

35

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. Defendants behavior caused Plaintiff anxiety and

emotional distress.

Karen Mathews

127. In September 2007, Plaintiff Karen Mathews took out a home equity loan1

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.

1A home equity loan is authorized under Article XVI, 50(a)(6) of the Texas Constitution which allows ahomeowner to borrow against the equity established in the homestead in certain circumstances.



36/51

36

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 ahome equity loan created under Texas Constitution Article XVI, 50(a)(6). Rule 736 provides an expeditedprocedure in which the party seeking to foreclose may initiate an in rem action by filing a verified application in thedistrict court in any county where all or any part of the real property encumbered by the lien sought to be foreclosedis located.



37/51

37

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. Defendants 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



38/51

38

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.



39/51

39

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 BACs 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



40/51

40

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 organizations 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 THJLs members have been injured and will continue to be injured by

Defendant BACs 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



41/51

41

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

BACs 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 Lermas 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 Thompsons three May 7, 2010 letters were qualified written

requests within the meaning of RESPA.



42/51

42

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 BACs 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



43/51

43

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 Krauskopfformed 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.



44/51

44

172. Defendants 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 andUrban Development] will limit Lenders rights, in the case of payment defaults, torequire 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]. (emphasisadded) See Deed of Trust, 9(d), attached as Exhibit MM.

As set forth below

Documents

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