UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23276

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, SANDRA WALKER (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), hereby files her Complaint against 

Defendant, PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION (hereinafter “Defendant PHH”), and alleges:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought by a consumer for Defendant PHH’s violation of the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. (“RESPA”), and its implementing 

regulations.

2. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is the primary regulatory 

agency authorized by Congress to supervise and enforce compliance of RESPA. The CFPB 

periodically issues and amends mortgage servicing rules under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024, 

RESPA, and the respective implementing regulations. 

3. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks the remedies as provided in RESPA for Defendant

PHH’s failure to comply with Section 2605(k) of RESPA and Sections 1024.41 of Regulation X. 

4. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied.

SANDRA WALKER

Plaintiff,

vs.

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 1 of 12
JURISDICTION

5. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Complaint 

alleges a federal claim and requires the resolution of substantial questions of federal law.

6. Moreover, this case is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States over 

which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. Venue in this District is proper because Plaintiff resides in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida and this is the District where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to 

the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

PARTIES

8. At all times material hereto, Defendant PHH was and is a foreign profit corporation

with its principal place of business at 1 Mortgage Way, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054. Defendant PHH

is duly licensed to transact business in the State of Florida1and lists its registered against as 

Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. 

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant PHH is and was a loan servicer as the term 

is defined in 12 U.S.C. § 2605(i)(2) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.2(b), that services the loan obligation 

secured by a mortgage upon the Plaintiff’s residential property, located at 17032 NW 49th Court, 

Miami, Florida 33055 (the “Subject Property”). 

10. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, as success-in-interest to the decedent 

borrower, Janie Marshall, owned and continues to own the Subject Property, which is located in 

Miami-Dade County, Florida.

11. The Subject Property is a residential single-family home structure. 

1 See

https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=I

nitial&searchNameOrder=PHHMORTGAGE%20P094864&aggregateId=forp-p09486-786bd1de-f1ad-46d5-b25fbd6da9d91fdf&searchTerm=PHH%20Mortgage&listNameOrder=PHHMORTGAGE%20P094864

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 2 of 12
12. At some point in time prior to the violations alleged herein, Defendant PHH was 

hired to service the subject loan.

13. The subject loan is a “federally related mortgage loan” as defined in 12 U.S.C. §

2602(1) and 12 C.F.R. § 1024.2(b) and referred to by Defendant PHH as account number 

******7786.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

14. On or about November 8, 2006, Janie Marshall entered into a promissory note 

agreement with American Brokers Conduit (the “Note”) for what she intended to be her primary 

residence. The Note was secured by a mortgage on the Subject Property (the “Mortgage”). (The 

“Note” and the “Mortgage” are collectively referred to as the “Loan”.)

15. On June 14, 2020, Janie Marshall died intestate and was survived by Plaintiff 

Sandra Walker, her lineal descendant.

16. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff Sandra Walker, by order of the Circuit Court of the 

Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, became the successor-in-interest 

to Janie Marshall’s interest in the Subject Property, and was further granted homestead status 

within the meaning of Section 4 of Article X of the Constitution of the State of Florida. See Order 

Determining Homestead Status of Real Property, attached as Exhibit “A”.

17. On May 25, 2022, a loss mitigation application (the “LMA”) was submitted on 

behalf of Plaintiff to Defendant PHH at their designated e-mail notice address. See LMA Email 

Submissions attached hereto as Exhibit “B”.

18. On May 25, 2022, Defendant PHH acknowledged receipt of the LMA submission. 

See May 25, 2022 Email Acknowledgement attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 3 of 12
19. On May 31, 2022, Defendant PHH issued a communication (“Additional 

Documents Letter”) to Plaintiff advising that additional documents were needed to continue 

reviewing the LMA. See Additional Documents Letter dated May 31, 2022 attached hereto as 

Exhibit “D”.

20. Pursuant to the May 31, 2022 Additional Documents Letter, Defendant PHH 

requested from Plaintiff additional documentation identifying the amount and pay frequency of 

the income listed in the LMA.

21. On June 8, 2022, Plaintiff submitted the requested additional documents, as well as 

a letter further identifying the sources of income, their pay frequency, and updated bank 

statements. See Additional Documents Email Submission dated June 8, 2022 attached hereto as 

Exhibit “E”.

22. On June 8, 2022, Defendant PHH acknowledged receipt of the LMA submission. 

See June 8, 2022 Email Acknowledgement attached hereto as Exhibit “F”.

23. Despite Plaintiff having previously provided Defendant PHH the requested 

documents, on June 23, 2022 a foreclosure action was filed against the Plaintiff in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, bearing Case No. 2022-011750-CA-01 (the “Foreclosure Action”). 

24. Having received Plaintiff’s LMA and additional requested documents, Defendant 

PHH was then required to provide a written notice stating which loss mitigation options, if any, 

Defendant PHH would offer Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after the application was considered 

“facially complete”. Defendant PHH failed to timely respond despite being required to do so 

pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c)(1).

25. Receiving no response from Defendant PHH regarding the status of Plaintiff’s 

LMA, on July 11, 2022 Plaintiff sent Defendant PHH a Notice and Opportunity to Cure (the 

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 4 of 12
“Reminder Notice”) in advance of litigation. The Reminder Notice was received by Defendant 

PHH on July 15, 2022. See Reminder Notice attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.

26. Plaintiff’s Reminder Notice provided Defendant PHH an additional ten (10) days 

to comply with their obligations pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c) and to cure their dual-tracking 

violation .

27. To date, Defendant PHH has failed to or refused to comply with 12 C.F.R. § 

1024.41(c), in that no written notice within thirty (30) days of receipt of a “facially complete 

application” stating which loss mitigation options, if any, will be offered to Plaintiff. 

28. Plaintiff hasretained Loan Lawyers, LLC (“Loan Lawyers”) as counsel and Jenkins 

Lorenzo, LLC (“Jenkins Lorenzo”) as co-counsel for legal representation in this action and has 

agreed to pay a reasonable attorney's fee.

DAMAGES

29. Plaintiff has been injured and suffered actual damages by virtue of Defendant

PHH’s repeated violations of those legal rights and protections which Congress provided to 

Plaintiff and other consumers like her. The threshold of Defendant PHH’s violations stem from its 

repeated failures to respond to the LMA submitted for Plaintiff and timely received before referral 

to foreclosure. Plaintiff’s injuries result in-part from Defendant PHH’s invasion of a legally 

protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual. Simply stated, Plaintiff’s procedural 

rights under RESPA were violated by not providing a response to the LMA despite additional 

notice of same via the Reminder Notice. Moreover, Plaintiff’s procedural rights under RESPA 

were violated when Defendant PHH made the first filing for a judicial foreclosure action while the 

complete LMA was under review.

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 5 of 12
30. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages as a result of Defendant PHH’s failure to 

comply with Regulation X and RESPA, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f), including but not limited 

to: (1) photocopying costs and postage costs incurred in mailing Plaintiff’s Reminder Notice; (2)

and photocopying costs, postage costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as a result of having 

to send additional correspondences due to Defendant PHH’s failure to adequately respond to 

Plaintiff’s LMA, which includes the Reminder Notice. 

31. Plaintiff has also suffered actual damages in the form of emotional distress, anxiety, 

the fear of losing her property due to Defendant PHH’s Foreclosure Action, worry, embarrassment, 

and anguish as a result of the ongoing failures of Defendant PHH to address Plaintiff’s concerns 

relating to the Loan and her LMA.

32. Additionally, Plaintiff suffered actual damages in the form of attorney’s fees and 

costs for having to retain foreclosure counsel due to Defendant PHH’s filing the Foreclosure 

Action while Plaintiff’s complete LMA was under review.

33. Defendant PHH has demonstrated a pattern or practice of noncompliance with 

Regulation X and RESPA with respect to the numerous loans it services, including but not limited 

to, the following loans:

a. With respect to CFPB Consumer Complaint ID 1785376, the Defendant violated 

RESPA by failing to review the borrower for all loss mitigation options.

b. With respect to CFPB Consumer Complaint ID 2596851, the Defendant violated 

RESPA by failing to provide an adequate written response to a loss mitigation 

application.

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 6 of 12
c. With respect to CFPB Consumer Complaint ID 3237650, the Defendant violated 

RESPA by engaging in “dual-tracking” while a complete loss mitigation 

application was under review.

d. With respect to CFPB Consumer Complaint ID 3220738, the Defendant violated 

RESPA by engaging in “dual-tracking” while a complete loss mitigation 

application was under review.

e. With respect to CFPB Consumer Complaint ID 3207119, the Defendant violated 

RESPA by engaging in “dual-tracking” while a complete loss mitigation 

application was under review.

f. With respect to CFPB Consumer Complaint ID 1300234, the Defendant violated 

RESPA by engaging in “dual-tracking” while a complete loss mitigation 

application was under review.

34. Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages in an amount not greater than $2,000.00 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f), as a result of Defendant PHH’s pattern or practice of 

noncompliance with Regulation X and RESPA.

35. Plaintiff is entitled the costs of this action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee 

as determined by the court and pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f).

COUNT I –VIOLATION OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)

36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

37. Section 6, Subsection (k) of RESPA states in relevant part: 

(k) Servicer prohibitions

(1) In general

A servicer of a federally related mortgage shall not-

...

(C) fail to take timely action to respond to a borrower’s requests to 

correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for 

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 7 of 12
purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other 

standard servicer’s duties;

...

(E) fail to comply with any other obligation found by the [CFPB], 

by regulation, to be appropriate to carry out the consumer protection 

purposes of this chapter.

12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(emphasis added)

38. Section 1024.41 of Regulation X was promulgated pursuant to Section 6 of RESPA 

and thus subject to RESPA’s private right of action. See 78 Fed. Reg. 10696, 10714, FN. 64 (Feb. 

14, 2013) (“The [CFPB] notes that regulations established pursuant to section 6 of RESPA are 

subject to section 6(f) of RESPA, which provides borrowers a private right of action to enforce 

such regulations”). See also 78 Fed. Reg. at 10737, 10822 (“The Bureau relies on its authority 

under sections 6(j)(3), 6(k)(1)(C), 6(k)(1)(E) and 19(a) of RESPA to establish final rules setting 

forth obligations on servicers to comply with the loss mitigation procedures in § 1024.41”).

39. The CFPB’s authority to prescribe such regulations under Section 2605(k)(1) is 

stated in Section 2617 of RESPA: “The [CFPB] is authorized to prescribe such rules and 

regulations, to make such interpretations, and to grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of 

transactions, as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter.” 12 U.S.C. § 2617. 

40. Defendant PHH has failed to or refused to comply with 12 C.F.R. § 

1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), in that Defendant PHH did not provide a written notice within five (5) 

business days of receipt of the Additional Documents Email Submission (Ex. E) acknowledging 

receipt of same and whether Defendant PHH determined said application to be complete or 

incomplete.

41. As such, Defendant PHH has violated 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(C) and § 

2605(k)(1)(E).

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 8 of 12
42. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery for actual and 

statutory damages.

COUNT II –VIOLATION OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)

43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

44. Section 6, Subsection (k) of RESPA states in relevant part: 

(k) Servicer prohibitions

(1) In general

A servicer of a federally related mortgage shall not-

...

(C) fail to take timely action to respond to a borrower’s requests to 

correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for 

purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other 

standard servicer’s duties;

...

(E) fail to comply with any other obligation found by the [CFPB], 

by regulation, to be appropriate to carry out the consumer protection 

purposes of this chapter.

12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(emphasis added)

45. Section 1024.41 of Regulation X was promulgated pursuant to Section 6 of RESPA 

and thus subject to RESPA’s private right of action. See 78 Fed. Reg. 10696, 10714, FN. 64 (Feb. 

14, 2013) (“The [CFPB] notes that regulations established pursuant to section 6 of RESPA are 

subject to section 6(f) of RESPA, which provides borrowers a private right of action to enforce 

such regulations”). See also 78 Fed. Reg. at 10737, 10822 (“The Bureau relies on its authority 

under sections 6(j)(3), 6(k)(1)(C), 6(k)(1)(E) and 19(a) of RESPA to establish final rules setting 

forth obligations on servicers to comply with the loss mitigation procedures in § 1024.41”).

46. The CFPB’s authority to prescribe such regulations under Section 2605(k)(1), is 

stated in Section 2617 of RESPA: “The [CFPB] is authorized to prescribe such rules and 

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 9 of 12
regulations, to make such interpretations, and to grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of 

transactions, as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter.” 12 U.S.C. § 2617. 

47. Plaintiff’s LMA was deemed facially complete as of June 8, 2022, upon Plaintiff’s 

submission of the Additional Documents Email Submission (Ex. E).

48. Defendant PHH has failed to or refused to comply with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c) in 

that no written notice was provided to the Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of receipt of a facially 

complete loss mitigation application stating which loss mitigation options, if any, would be 

offered. 

49. As such, Defendant PHH has violated 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(C) and § 

2605(k)(1)(E).

50. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery for actual and 

statutory damages.

COUNT III –VIOLATION OF 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)

51. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

52. Section 6, Subsection (k) of RESPA states in relevant part: 

(k) Servicer prohibitions

(1) In general

A servicer of a federally related mortgage shall not-

...

(C) fail to take timely action to respond to a borrower’s requests to 

correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for 

purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other 

standard servicer’s duties;

...

(E) fail to comply with any other obligation found by the [CFPB], 

by regulation, to be appropriate to carry out the consumer protection 

purposes of this chapter.

12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(emphasis added)

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 10 of 12
53. Section 1024.41 of Regulation X was promulgated pursuant to Section 6 of RESPA 

and thus subject to RESPA’s private right of action. See 78 Fed. Reg. 10696, 10714, FN. 64 (Feb. 

14, 2013) (“The [CFPB] notes that regulations established pursuant to section 6 of RESPA are 

subject to section 6(f) of RESPA, which provides borrowers a private right of action to enforce 

such regulations”). See also 78 Fed. Reg. at 10737, 10822 (“The Bureau relies on its authority 

under sections 6(j)(3), 6(k)(1)(C), 6(k)(1)(E) and 19(a) of RESPA to establish final rules setting 

forth obligations on servicers to comply with the loss mitigation procedures in § 1024.41”).

54. The CFPB’s authority to prescribe such regulations under Section 2605(k)(1) is 

stated in Section 2617 of RESPA: “The [CFPB] is authorized to prescribe such rules and 

regulations, to make such interpretations, and to grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of 

transactions, as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter.” 12 U.S.C. § 2617. 

55. Defendant PHH has failed to or refused to comply with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(f)(2), 

in that Defendant PHH, having received a completely LMA on June 8, 2022, proceeded to initiate 

the Foreclosure Action on June 23, 2022.

56. As such, Defendant PHH has violated 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k)(1)(C) and § 

2605(k)(1)(E).

57. As a result of the above violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery for actual and 

statutory damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SANDRA WALKER respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Court enter an order granting judgment for the following:

(a) That the Defendant PHH be required to provide a written notice and determination 

in compliance with 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(c);

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 11 of 12
(b) That Defendant PHH dismiss the Foreclosure Action;

(c) For actual damages, statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, 

pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f); and 

(d) Such other relief to which this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, SANDRA WALKER hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. 

Dated this 10th day of October 2022. 

Respectfully Submitted,

JENKINS LORENZO, LLC

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

6501 Congress Avenue, Suite 100

Boca Raton, Florida 33487

Tel: (305) 456-1450

By: /s/ Chase E. Jenkins, Esq. 

 Chase E. Jenkins, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 94261

 cjenkins@jenkinslorenzo.com

 Jorge “J.D.” Lorenzo, Esq.

 Florida Bar No. 81702

 jlorenzo@jenkinslorenzo.com

 

/s/ Matthew D. Bavaro

Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 175821

LOAN LAWYERS, LLC

3201 Griffin Road, Ste. 100

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

matthew@fight13.com

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23276-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2022 Page 12 of 12