UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

 :

WILL SALLEY JR. : 

 :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. _______________ 

 :

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP. : 

 :

CIT GROUP : 

 :

JOHN DOE TRUSTEE : 

: 

JOHN DOE TRUST : 

 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

JOHN DOES #’S 1-100, : 

 :

Defendants. : 

____________________________________: 

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

COMES NOW Plaintiff, WILL SALLEY JR., by and through undersigned counsel, 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C., complaining of Defendants, and respectfully aver as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

1

1. Plaintiff, Will Salley Jr., a consumer and homeowner in Philadelphia County, 

Pennsylvania, brings this predatory lending action for damages and other relief against 

Defendants pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”), the Home

Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a) (“HOEPA”), the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2501 et seq., Pennsylvania Usuary Law, 41 

P.S. §502 ET SEQ., the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 

P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (“UTPCPL”), and under common law theories including breach of contract 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 1 of 23
and fraud. Defendant, Option One, issued a predatory loan to Plaintiff and Defendant, Option 

One and/or its agents and/or assignees to, failed to, inter alia, fully and accurately disclose all 

material terms of Plaintiff’s mortgage loan in the manner required by law, and failed to properly 

rescind his mortgage loan when requested as provided by TILA. 

2. Plaintiff seeks to rescind the unfair and illegal mortgages, which were originated, 

serviced, and/or held and/or assigned to or by Defendants. 

II. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Will Salley Jr., is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, residing therein at 8547 Temple Road, Philadelphia, PA 19150, the property 

which is the subject of the predatory mortgages complained of herein. 

4. Defendant, Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”), at all times 

relevant hereto, is and was, upon information and belief, a California Corporation, whose duly 

registered and appointed agent authorized to accept service of process herein is known as CT 

Corporation, with an office in the City and County of Philadelphia located at 1515 Market Street, 

Suite 1210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 

5. At all times relevant hereto, Option One was is and was is engaged in the business 

of sub-prime mortgage lending. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

2

6. Defendant, CIT Group (“CIT”), at all times relevant hereto, is and was, upon 

information and belief, a Delaware Corporation, whose duly registered and appointed agent 

authorized to accept service of process herein is known as CT Corporation, with an office in the 

City and County of Philadelphia located at 1515 Market Street, Suite 1210, Philadelphia, PA 

19103. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 2 of 23
7. Upon information and belief, CIT is the current holder and/or servicer of the 

mortgage at issue. 

8. Defendant John Doe Trust (“Doe Trust”) is, upon information and belief, a trust 

created pursuant to a certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) the date of inception of 

which Plaintiff, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain. The term, “John Doe 

Trust” is a moniker for the actual name of the trust, which Plaintiff has been unable to ascertain. 

Plaintiff reserves the right to substitute the actual name of the trust for said moniker after 

discovery of same in the course of this litigation. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the 

Doe Trust is the current Holder, beneficial owner, or assignee of the mortgage originated by 

Option Mortgage Corporation. The Doe Trust is a securitization pool of loans, including one of 

Plaintiff’s loans, that is securitized and certain shares or certificates of which are sold or traded 

or offered as “asset-backed securities” on the national and international securities markets. 

9. Defendant, John Doe Trustee, is a moniker used herein for the actual name of the 

trustee of the aforesaid Doe Trust, which Plaintiff has been unable to ascertain. Plaintiff reserves 

the right to substitute the actual name of the trustee for said moniker after discovery of same in 

the course of this litigation. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

3

10. Defendant, John Does #’s 1-100, is a moniker used herein for various individuals 

and entities that are or may be liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged herein, but whose names 

and/or identities and/or whereabouts Plaintiff, after reasonable inquiry, have been unable to 

ascertain. Plaintiff hereby reserves his right to substitute the true names and locations of these 

parties should they discover same in the course of this litigation. Plaintiff further incorporates 

each of these parties as Defendants in each and every count listed below. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 3 of 23
11. At all times relevant hereto, each of the aforesaid Defendants acted by and 

through their agents, officers, directors, servants, and employees, who were acting within the 

authorized scope and course of their employment and/or agency, under the direct control and at 

the direction of said Defendants. 

12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Option One, CIT, Doe Trust, Doe Trustee 

and John Does #s 1-100 were actual and/or apparent agents of one another and/or each other 

and/or that each of the said entities is managed, structured, and/or operated, such that each of the 

said entities is liable for the acts of each of the other entities and/or all of the other said other 

entities for the actions complained of by Plaintiffs herein. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisdiction over this matter is conferred upon this court by TILA, § 1640(e) and 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. Supplemental jurisdiction is conferred over Plaintiff’s state law 

claims by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

14. Venue lies in this judicial district because the events which give rise to this claim

occurred here and the property which is the subject of this action is situated in this district. 

IV. CAUSE OF ACTION

15. In or around July 2000, Plaintiff was referred by a collection agency in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to James Etlen Jr., (“Etlen”) mortgage broker and agent for Option 

One. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

4

16. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff explained to Etlen that he wanted pay his 

water bill of approximately $5,000.00. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 4 of 23
17. However, instead of assisting Plaintiff in paying his water bill, Etlen advised 

Plaintiff to refinance his existing mortgage and consolidate all of his unsecured debt, including 

his water bill. 

18. Relying on the representations of Etlen and Option One, Plaintiff believed and 

therefore avers that in order to pay off his water bill he had to refinance his existing mortgage. 

19. Plaintiff subsequently completed an application for a fixed rate thirty (30) year 

conventional mortgage with Option One based on the representations of Option One that the 

mortgage would be beneficial to him.

20. At all times relevant hereto, in his dealings with Option One, Plaintiff was 

promised a new mortgage loan that would carry a “low” rate of interest a “low” monthly 

payment. 

21. On or about July 18, 2000, a mortgage loan closing was held wherein Plaintiff 

was asked by Option One’s agents to sign various forms and documents in reliance upon the 

representations of Option One that the loan was beneficial to him and based on the aforesaid 

promises by Option One. 

22. Instead of receiving a mortgage with low monthly payments and a low fixed rate 

of interest, Plaintiff was issued a mortgage in the principal amount of $51,000.00 for thirty (30) 

years at a variable interest rate of LIBOR plus 6.15% with a floor of 10.65% of interest. 

23. The HUD-1 settlement sheet for the Option One Loan reflects, inter alia, the 

following fees charged in connection with Option One’s extension of credit: 

Funding Fee $50.00 

Broker Fee ASTAR $2,550.00 

Processing Fee $300.00 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

5

Tax Service Fee $70.00 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 5 of 23
Flood Search $12.00 

 Interest $120.72 

Hazard Insurance Prem. $403.00 

Hazard Insurance 3 Mo. $100.74 

City Property Taxes $652.00 

Aggregate Analysis Adj. -$235.06 

Notary Fees $25.00 

Title Insurance $534.75 

 Endorsements $200.00 

 Courier $42.00 

Recording Fees $43.50 

Total: $4868.65 

24. According to the HUD-1, Etlen t/a Astar Financial Services, was paid a total of at 

least $2,550.00 for alleged brokerage services rendered in connection with the Option One Loan. 

25. Furthermore, according to the HUD-1, Plaintiff allegedly received approximately 

$5000.00 in cash from the proceeds of the loan, however, only received approximately $1000.00 

in cash at settlement. 

26. Plaintiff believes and avers that no other bills were paid at closing. 

27. Upon information and belief, only the disbursements listed on the HUD-1 were 

paid, leaving approximately $4000.00 unaccounted for by Option One. 

28. The HUD-1 contains the following disbursements to others: 

Water Revenue Bureau $5197.47 

Ocwen Federal Bank $23,100.45 

City of Philadelphia $80.00 

Long Beach Acceptance $12,425.00 

Total: $40,802.92 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

6

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 6 of 23
29. The Option One Mortgage allegedly paid off Plaintiff’s existing mortgages on the 

aforesaid property in an alleged amount of $23,100.45 to Ocwen Federal Bank (“Ocwen”) and 

$12,425.00 to Long Beach Acceptance (‘Long Beach”) as well as utilities and unsecured debt. 

30. To Plaintiff’s great surprise, the Option One loan did not completely pay 

Plaintiff’s existing mortgages, leaving an unknown amount still due and owing on the existing 

mortgages. 

31. Because the Option One loan did not completely pay the total amount allegedly 

due on the existing mortgages, Option One did not obtain a first lien on Plaintiff’s real property 

at the time of the closing of the Option One loan, and was left in a subordinate position. 

32. To make matters worse for Plaintiff, the interest rate on the Option One loan was 

not fixed, but rather was adjustable despite what was promised. 

33. Furthermore, Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Option One loan did not 

pay off the existing liens on his property despite what as promised to him. 

34. On or about December 6, 2002, as a result of Option One’s failure to obtain a first 

lien position, Shulman Shore Associates, assignee of one of the existing mortgages on Plaintiff’s 

property, initiated a foreclosure action against Plaintiff in the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia, County, December 2002 Term No. 1103. 

35. Upon information and belief, the foreclosure action was initiated as a result of 

Option One’s failure to obtain a first lien position on Plaintiff’s real property. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

7

36. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Option One decided not to extend 

Plaintiff a loan in the amount and in the manner he had requested, but instead to offer him a 

substantially larger loan, with an adjustable rate of interest. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 7 of 23
37. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Option One notified Plaintiff that it 

would not extend credit on the terms he had requested or the reasons for its refusal to so extend. 

38. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that in the said loan transaction, Option One 

required Plaintiff to consolidate unsecured debt into secured mortgages, to Plaintiff’s financial 

detriment. 

39. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Option One made the loan to Plaintiff 

without regard to his ability to repay same. 

40. Option One did not inform Plaintiff of the true nature of what his obligations 

would be pursuant to the loan. 

41. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the term “predatory lending” is a term

describing lending practices in accordance with the following general description, which is 

paraphrased from a fact sheet written by the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, 

available on the Internet at http://www.cohhio.org/predatoryfactsheets.html: 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

8

Predatory lenders target specific populations (usually low-income, minority, 

and/or elderly homeowners) with high pressure marketing techniques, charge excessive 

fees, frequently refinance or “flip” the loan, and often times mislead the borrower. 

Predatory lenders are literally harvesting the equity that homeowners have built up over 

the years. By loading the loan with excessive fees, high interest rates, and pricey 

insurance premiums on the front end, predatory lenders are all but ensuring themselves a 

pay-off. In many ways, it’s a win-win situation for the lender and a lose-lose situation for 

the borrower. If the borrower makes the monthly loan payments, which are often times 

inflated (excessive fees, high interest rates, and pricey insurance premiums), the lender is 

making a profit. If the borrower is unable to make the monthly payments, the lender 

forecloses and sells the house for a profit. Predatory lenders go beyond risk-based 

pricing, and instead set loan terms high above what they need to offset costs and earn a 

return that compensates for the increased risk. This is typically done through high interest 

rates, high points, high origination fees, unnecessary credit life insurance, and other 

additions to the loan. While many of the loan terms described below may not be 

predatory on their own, the failure of the lender to fully disclose to the borrower the risk 

or cost associated with each individual term can make the loan package more 

problematic, especially if the borrower is unaware that better terms may be available. By 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 8 of 23
structuring the debt with excessive fees and interest rates (beyond those needed to cover 

costs and reasonable, risk-adjusted returns), by “packing” and financing these excessive 

fees, and by “flipping” or frequently refinancing with fees being rolled back into the loan, 

some lenders are able to exploit low-income, minority, and elderly homeowners. 

Predatory lending practices can and do include both specific types of loan terms as well 

as overly aggressive marketing and deceptive or fraudulent practices on the part of 

lenders. These practices raise serious community reinvestment, fair housing and fair 

lending concerns, largely because banks and their mortgage and/or finance company 

subsgage and/or finance company subsng the market and targeting minority communities 

for higher priced, lower quality products. 

42. Option One charged unreasonable fees in Plaintiff’s loan, as aforesaid, in excess 

of the amount customarily charged for such fees. All of the aforesaid fees were financed into the 

mortgage, increasing Plaintiff’s indebtedness to Option One. 

43. Defendant Option One is engaged primarily in the extension of “sub-prime” 

mortgage loans. 

44. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Option One was a predatory lender. 

45. Plaintiff has been damaged by the unlawful conduct and material 

misrepresentations of the defendants and by the negligence of the defendants. 

46. The Defendants’ improper conduct was willful and knowing, wonton and in 

reckless disregard to the rights of Plaintiff. 

47. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, as aforesaid, 

Plaintiff has suffered financial detriment and extreme emotional distress. 

48. Each and every violation of law alleged herein is or was apparent on the face of 

the mortgage and closing documents and any assignee exercising due diligence would have been 

aware of such violations at or prior to the time of any assignment of Plaintiff’s loan or loans. 

COUNT I

TILA RESCISSION AND DAMAGES 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

9

PLAINTIFF V. OPTION ONE, CIT GROUP, DOE TRUST, DOE TRUSTEE, JOHN DOES #S1-100 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 9 of 23
49. The above paragraphs are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 

50. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Option One, and/or its assignor in the 

ordinary course of business extended or arranged for the extension of consumer credit or offered 

to extend or arrange for the extension of such credit payable by agreement in more than four 

installments or for which the payment of a finance charge is or may be required. 

51. Plaintiff entered into a consumer credit transaction with Option One and executed 

notes and mortgages on his residence. 

52. The aforesaid loan with Option One was a residential mortgage loan subject to 

Plaintiff’s right of rescission as described by TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1635 and Regulation Z, 12 

C.F.R. § 226.23. 

53. In said loan transaction, Plaintiff did not receive all the disclosures required by 

the Truth-In-Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. and Regulation Z of the Federal 

Reserve Board ("Regulation Z"), 12 C.F.R. §226.1 et seq. including but not limited to notice 

pursuant to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a) 

("HOEPA"). 

54. Defendant Option One failed to deliver all “material” disclosures required by the 

act and Regulation Z, including, inter alia: 

a. Failing to properly and accurately disclose the “amount financed,” using that 

term, in violation of Regulation Z § 226.18(b) and 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(2)(A); 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

10

b. Failing to clearly and accurately disclose the “finance charge” using that term, 

in violation of Regulation Z § 226.4 and 15 U.S.C. § 1638(a)(3); 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 10 of 23
c. Failing to clearly and accurately disclose the “annual percentage rate” using 

that term, in violation of Regulation Z § 226.18(e) and 15 U.S.C. § 

1638(a)(4); and, 

d. Failing to comply with the special disclosure requirements of § 226.32; 

e. Failing to timely provide each Plaintiff with two (2) copies of a Notice of his 

Right to Rescind the Transaction pursuant to TILA and/or HOEPA. 

55. Due to the violations of TILA and Regulation Z, Plaintiff has an ongoing right to 

rescind the transaction until receipt of all “material” disclosures pursuant to TILA and 

Regulation Z. 

56. On or about July 18, 2003 Plaintiff sent a rescission letter to Defendant, Option 

One and CIT rescinding the aforesaid loan. 

57. More than twenty (20) days have passed since Defendants received the said letters 

and Defendants have taken no actions to rescind the loan, in contravention of their 

responsibilities under TILA. 

58. In the alternative, to the extent this court may find for some reason that Plaintiff 

has not already rescinded the loans, Plaintiff does hereby exercise his rights to rescind the 

aforesaid transactions and this Complaint shall hereby constitute Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Rescission, pursuant to TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. to which Defendants have twenty (20) 

days to respond. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

11

59. Pursuant to TILA, Plaintiff is entitled to damages and rescission of the loans. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 11 of 23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor, and 

against Defendant, and to Order the following relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(a) and 

1640(a): 

a. Rescission of the July 18, 2000 loan transaction, including a declaration that 

Plaintiff is not liable for any finance charges or other charges imposed by 

Defendants; 

b. Termination of any security interest in Plaintiff’s property created under the 

transaction; 

c. Return of any money or property given by the Plaintiff to anyone, including 

the Defendants, in connection with the transaction; 

d. Statutory damages of $2000.00 per TILA violation; 

e. Forfeiture and return of loan proceeds; 

f. Actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and 

g. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses, and costs of suit; and, 

h. Such additional relief as is deemed just and proper, or that the interests of 

justice may require. 

COUNT II

HOME OWNERSHIP AND EQUITY PROTECTION ACT OF 1994 (“HOEPA”) 

PLAINTIFF V. OPTION ONE, CIT GROUP, DOE TRUST, DOE TRUSTEE, JOHN DOES #S1-100 

60. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

12

61. Upon information and belief, the July 18, 2000 loan transaction with Option One 

was a high rate mortgage within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1602(aa)(1)(B), in that the total 

points and fees Defendant charged Plaintiff in addition to interest exceeded 8 per cent of the total 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 12 of 23
loan amount or in that the APR trigger pursuant to HOEPA was met with respect to the 

transaction. 

62. Because the transaction met the statutory definition of a high rate mortgage, it 

was subject to the additional disclosure requirements imposed by the TILA amendments 

contained in the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a) 

(“HOEPA”). 

63. The aforesaid additional disclosures must be provided three days in advance of 

the consummation of the transaction pursuant to 15 USC § 1639(b). 

64. Defendant did not comply with the requirements of HOEPA and Section 32. 

65. Defendant made their loans to Plaintiff without regard for his ability to repay 

same, and have engaged in a pattern and practice of making HOEPA loans to borrowers without 

regard to their ability to repay. 

66. Defendant’s failure to provide Plaintiff with accurate and timely HOEPA 

disclosures, as required by law, constitutes a “material” disclosure violation pursuant to TILA, 

15 USC § 1602(u) (as amended), Regulation z § 226.23 (as amended). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor, and 

against defendants, and Order the following relief: 

a. Rescission of the July 18, 2000 loan transaction, including a declaration that 

Plaintiff is not liable for any finance charges or other charges imposed by 

Defendants; 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

13

b. Termination of any security interest in Plaintiff’s property created under the 

transaction; 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 13 of 23
c. Return of any money or property given by the Plaintiff to anyone, including 

the Defendants, in connection with the transaction; 

d. Statutory damages of $2000.00 per TILA violation; 

e. Statutory damages of $2000.00 per HOEPA violation; 

f. Forfeiture and return of loan proceeds; 

g. Actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and 

h. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses, and costs of suit; and, 

i. Such additional relief as is deemed just and proper, or that the interests of

justice may require. 

COUNT III

RESPA VIOLATION 12 U.S.C. § 2601 ET SEQ.

PLAINTIFF V. OPTION ONE, CIT GROUP

67. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

68. The aforesaid rescission letters constitute a “Qualified Written Request” pursuant 

to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA,”), 12 USC § 2601 et seq. 

69. Plaintiff provided his account number in the request to Defendants. 

70. Defendants, however, failed to respond in accordance with RESPA. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

14

71. Further, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an appropriate written 

explanation or clarification as to why the Defendants believe the account to be accurate as 

determined by the Defendants. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 14 of 23
72. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff with the name and telephone number of 

an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide 

assistance to the Plaintiff as required by RESPA. 

73. More than 60 (sixty) days have elapsed since Defendantss receipt of Plaintiff’s 

Qualified Written Request and Defendants failed to take appropriate action with respect to 

Plaintiff’s inquiry in accordance with 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (e)(2). 

74. Plaintiff has been damaged by the unlawful conduct and material 

misrepresentations of the defendants and by the negligence of the defendants. 

75. The Defendants’ improper conduct was willful and knowing, wonton and in 

reckless disregard to the rights of Plaintiff. 

76. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were and remain creditors within the 

meaning of the 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. and therefore, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. applies and 

requires the Defendants to comply with its loan servicing provisions. 

77. The transactions in this case were “federally related mortgage loans” within the 

meaning of RESPA. 

78. By and through the actions as aforesaid, Defendants violated RESPA. 

79. As a result of the said violations, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for actual 

damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs and other appropriate relief, pursuant 

RESPA. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter judgment in his favor, 

and against Defendants and Order the following relief: 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

15

a. actual damages; 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 15 of 23
b. statutory damages pursuant to RESPA; 

c. attorney’s fees and costs of suit; 

d. declaratory judgment that Defendant violated RESPA; and 

e. such additional and further relief as may be appropriate or 

that the interests of justice require. 

COUNT IV

VIOLATION PENNSYLVANIA USURY LAW 

41 P.S. §502 ET SEQ.

PLAINTIFF V. OPTION ONE, CIT, DOE TRUST, DOE TRUSTEE, JOHN DOES #S1-100 

80. The above paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

81. Plaintiff, at all times relevant hereto, is and was a “Person” as defined by 41 P.S. 

101. 

82. As a result of Defendants’ actions as aforesaid, Plaintiff paid interest and/or 

charges to Defendants in excess of that provided by “other law,” including, inter alia, TILA and 

HOEPA. 

83. Plaintiff, pursuant to 41 P.S. 502, Plaintiff is entitled to recover triple the amount 

of such excess interest or charges paid to defendants. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

16

84. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 

41 P.S. 503. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 16 of 23
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter judgment in his favor, 

and against Defendant and Order the following relief: 

a. three times the usurious interest collected by Defendants; 

b. actual damages; 

c. attorney’s fees and costs of suit; 

d. declaratory judgment that Defendant violated Pennsylvania Usury Law; and 

e. such additional and further relief as may be appropriate or that the interests of 

justice require. 

COUNT V

FRAUD 

PLAINTIFF V. OPTION ONE, CIT GROUP, DOE TRUST, 

DOE TRUSTEE, JOHN DOES #S 1-100 

85. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

86. Defendants intentionally misrepresented and/or omitted a material facts to 

Plaintiff, to wit: that the loan was beneficial when it was not, that their fees were usual and 

customary, when they were not, and that their fees were a part of the finance charge and/or 

amount financed, when they should have been part of some other figure, that Option One was 

obtaining a first lien position on Plaintiff’s real property when it did not, and the American BiWeekly would save Plaintiff money and pay his mortgage off quicker when it did not. 

87. The aforesaid intentional misrepresentations and/or omissions were made in an 

attempt to procure pecuniary gain, to wit: a security interest in Plaintiff’s home and monetary 

consideration form the Plaintiff or form the proceeds of the Plaintiff’s loans. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

17

88. As the intended result of the aforesaid fraud, Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 17 of 23
said misrepresentations and/or omissions, to his detriment. 

89. As a direct and proximate result of the said fraud, Plaintiff has sustained damages. 

90. By virtue of the aforesaid fraud, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive 

damages from Defendants. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants and Order Defendants to pay compensatory and punitive damages, and Order such 

further or additional relief as the interests of justice may require, and will ever pray.

COUNT VI

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

PLAINTIFF V. OPTION ONE, CIT GROUP, DOE TRUST, 

DOE TRUSTEE, JOHN DOES #S1-100 

91. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.

92. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff and Defendants were parties to certain 

contracts.

93. Pursuant to the contracts, Defendants were under various duties to Plaintiff. 

94. Among those duties, all of the Defendants had a duty to comply with the terms of 

mortgage contract. 

95. From the date of the filing of this complaint and at all times relevant for a period 

of four (4) years prior thereto, Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff by misrepresenting 

the amounts due from Plaintiff, and asserting that Plaintiff owed amounts that in fact he did not 

and does not owe. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

18

96. The Defendants further breached their contractual duties to Plaintiff by charging 

the Plaintiff fees that were excessive and/or not bona fide, not reasonable, or not authorized 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 18 of 23
pursuant to the parties’ agreement. 

97. By insisting Plaintiff tender amounts he did not owe, the Defendants breached 

their contractual duties. 

98. The Defendant, CIT, further failed to properly service Plaintiff’s loan by: 

1. Unjustified and unreasonable late fees, interest charges, attorney’s fees; 

and 

2. Late posting and miscrediting of payments; and 

3. Failing to reasonably exhaust loss mitigation options. 

99. The Defendants’ breach of contract was intentional, willful, and/or wanton and 

reasonably calculated to result in foreclosure on the Plaintiff’s real property. 

100. By and through their actions, as aforesaid, Defendants breached the said 

contractual duties. 

101. As a direct and proximate result of the said breach of duties, Plaintiff has 

sustained damages. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:

a. Actual and punitive damages; 

b. Reasonable attorney’s fees and cost of the litigation; and 

c. Such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants and Order Defendants to pay compensatory damages, and Order such further or 

additional relief as the interests of justice may require, and will ever pray.

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 19 of 23
COUNT VII

VIOLATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT 

(FCEUA, 73 Pa.C.S. § 2270.1 et seq.) 

PLAINTIFF V. ALL DEFENDANTS

102. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

103. The collection of debt in Pennsylvania is regulated by the Fair Credit Extension 

Uniformity Act at 73 Pa.C.S. §2270.1 et seq. and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer 

Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa.C.S. 201-1 et seq. 

104. Defendants are “debt collectors” or “creditors” pursuant to 73 Pa.C.S. § 2270.3. 

105. The alleged debt Defendants were attempting to collect is a “debt” as defined by 

73 Pa. C.S. §2270.3. 

106. Violation of the FCEUA is a per se violation of the UTPCPL. 

107. The actions of Defendants constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair and 

deceptive acts and practices within the meaning of the FCEUA and UTPCPL by and through 

their actions, as aforesaid, and by and through the following actions, inter alia: 

i. Using unfair and unconscionable collection methods; 

ii. Giving a false impression of the character, amount or legal status of the 

alleged debt; 

iii. Using false or deceptive collection methods; 

iv. Making threats to take action which cannot be legally taken; and/or 

v. Otherwise using false, deceptive, misleading, and unfair and 

unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

20

vi. Defendants’ actions as described above were done with intentional, 

willful, reckless, wonton, and negligent disregard for Plaintiff’s rights 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 20 of 23
under law and with the purpose of coercing plaintiff to pay the alleged 

debt. 

vii. As a direct and proximate result of the said actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

financial harm and ascertainable loss.

viii. By virtue of the violations of law as aforesaid, and pursuant to the FCEUA 

and UTPCPL, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of actual damages, treble 

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor, and 

against Defendants, and Order the following relief: 

a. An Order declaring that Defendants violated the FCEUA; 

b. Actual damages; 

c. Treble damages; 

d. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses, and 

costs of suit; and, 

e. Such additional relief as is deemed just and proper, or that 

the interests of justice may require.

COUNT VIII

VIOLATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 

(“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa.C.S. § 201-1 et seq. 

PLAINTIFF V. ALL DEFENDANTS

108. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

21

109. Plaintiff and Defendants are “Person[s]” pursuant to 73 Pa.C.S. § 201-2. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 21 of 23
110. The UTPCPL proscribes, inter alia, engaging in any “unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices” either at, prior to, or subsequent to a consumer transaction. 

111. The actions of Defendants, as aforesaid, constitute unfair or deceptive acts and 

practices under the UTPCPL, by way of the following, inter alia:

a. Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff the character, extent, or amount of the 

debt or its status in a legal proceeding, 73 P.S. § 201-3.1; 37 Pa. Code § 

303.3(3); 

b. Defendants engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created a 

likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding, 73 P.S. § 201-2(xxi); 

c. Defendants imposed credit costs expressly prohibited by Federal and 

Pennsylvania law, and failed to comply with TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, and 

ECOA, Pennsylvania Usury Law, and the CSA, which are per se violations of 

the UTPCPL; 

d. Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff that their loans would be beneficial, 

when in fact they were not and Defendants knew they were not, 73 P.S. §202-

1(v); and, 

e. Defendants misrepresented the characteristics or benefits of the loans; 

f. Defendant Option One misrepresented that it was obtaining a first lien 

position when it did not. 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

22

112. As a direct and proximate result of the said actions, Plaintiff has suffered financial 

and other harm. 

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 22 of 23
113. By virtue of the violations of law as aforesaid, and pursuant to the UTPCPL, 

Plaintiff are entitled to an award of actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of

suit. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor, and 

against Defendants, and Order the following relief: 

i. An Order declaring that Defendants violated the UTPCPL; 

ii. Actual damages; 

iii. Treble damages; 

iv. An award of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses, and costs of suit; 

and, 

v. Such additional relief as is deemed just and proper, or that the interests 

of justice may require.

V. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as to all issues herein. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C.

Dated:5/19/04 By: /s/ Brian R. Mildenberg_____________

BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE 

SHERRI J. BRAUNSTEIN, ESQUIRE 

PA Identification Nos.: 84861 / 90675 

1616 Walnut Street, Suite 1010 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 545-2510 

MILDENBERG AND STALBAUM, P.C. 

1616 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1010 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 

(215) 545-2510

23

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02227-ER Document 1 Filed 05/21/04 Page 23 of 23