UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

COLUMBUS DIVISION

ELIZABETH CAMERON

5005 Majestic Drive East

Columbus, OH 43232

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

c/o Corporation Service Company

50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330

Columbus, OH 43215

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES

INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-R11

1761 East St.

Andrew Place, Santa Ana CA 92705

and

MANLEY DEAS KOCHALSKI LLC

c/o Corporation Service Company

50 West Broad Street, Suite 1330

Columbus, OH 43215

Defendants.

Case No.:

Judge:

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

Plaintiff Elizabeth Cameron, by and through counsel, for her Complaint against

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, states as follows.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 1 of 28 PAGEID #: 1
1. Plaintiff Elizabeth Cameron (“Plaintiff” or “Cameron”) is the owner of real

property and the improvements thereon located at and commonly known as 5005

Majestic Drive East Columbus, Ohio 43232 (the “Home”).

2. Plaintiff currently maintains the Home as her primary, principal residence,

and has so maintained the Home as such for all times relevant to the allegations of this

Complaint.

3. Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for

Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series

2004-R11 (“Deutsche”) is the primary assignee and owner of a note (the “Note”) and a

mortgage on the Home that allegedly secures the Note (the “Mortgage”) (collectively

the “Loan”). A copy of the Loan is attached as Composite Exhibit 1​.

4. Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) is a wholly owned and

operated subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation and is a limited liability company

incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

5. Ocwen is registered to do business with the Ohio Secretary of State and

maintains its principal place of business at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West

Palm Beach, FL 33409.

6. Ocwen has acted as the agent of and loan servicer for the Loan on behalf

of Deutsche since March 11, 2013 and continues to act in such capacity for Deutsche.

As a loan servicer, Ocwen is a partial assignee of the Loan.

2

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 2 of 28 PAGEID #: 2
7. At all times relevant herein prior to March 11, 2013, non-party American

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) acted as the agent of and loan servicer for

the Loan on behalf of Deutsche.

8. Defendant Manley Deas Kochalski LLC (“MDK”) is an Ohio limited liability

company which has members and employees engaged in the practice of law in the

State of Ohio.

9. MDK acted as the agent and attorney for Deutsche and Ocwen with

respect to MDK’s conduct discussed, infra.

10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action

arises under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA)

and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. (RESPA)

and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 12 U.S.C. §§1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”).

11. This action is filed to enforce regulations promulgated by the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and implemented pursuant to Section 6(f) of

RESPA which became effective on January 10, 2014, specifically, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35

of Regulation X.

12. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as Plaintiff

maintains the Home as her primary residence within this District, Ocwen does business

within this District, and the conduct giving rise to the causes of action in this

Complaint, infra, occurred primarily within this District.

INTRODUCTION

3

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 3 of 28 PAGEID #: 3
13. In 2013, Cameron became caught in a homeowner’s nightmare after her

mortgage servicer Ocwen repudiated a loan modification agreement that had been

negotiated in a foreclosure mediation in 2009, approved by a bankruptcy court in 2010,

and onboarded by a prior servicer in 2011. Immediately after Ocwen was designated

as the servicer on the account in 2013, Ocwen reversed four years of Cameron’s

payments and misapplied those payments towards an incorrect, unmodified loan

balance. Although Cameron had made each and every payment in full and on time

pursuant to the loan modification agreement, Ocwen insisted that the loan was in

default and refused to accept five months of further payments from Cameron.

Throughout 2013, Cameron repeatedly wrote to Ocwen to request that it correct its

errors, but Ocwen refused. Four years later, in 2017, Ocwen directed its attorneys to

reopen the 2009 foreclosure case and file a motion for default judgment against

Cameron. The motion was granted days later, before Cameron could respond, and the

property was immediately scheduled for a sheriff sale. Cameron filed a motion to

vacate the judgment, which was ultimately granted, but the foreclosure case has not

been dismissed and remains pending and Ocwen has yet to correct its errors in failing

to honor the loan modification agreement.

14. In January 2013, the CFPB issued a number of final rules concerning

mortgage markets in the United States, pursuant to the DFA, Public Law No. 111-203,

124 Stat. 1376 (2010). These rules were designed to create a process to allow

mortgage loan servicers like Ocwen to have an opportunity to cure their mistakes after

4

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 4 of 28 PAGEID #: 4
appropriate notice from borrowers like Plaintiff and to grant such borrowers a right of

action to seek damage for their failure to do so.

15. Specifically, on January 17, 2013, the CFPB issued the RESPA Mortgage

Servicing Final Rules, 78 F.R. 10695 (“Regulation X”) (February 14, 2013), which

became effective on January 10, 2014.

16. The Loan is a “federally related mortgage loan” as said term is defined by

12 C.F.R. § 1024.2(b).

17. Ocwen is subject to the aforesaid regulations and does not qualify for the

exemption for “small servicers”, as defined in 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41(e)(4).

18. Ocwen is not a “qualified lender”, as defined in 12 C.F.R. § 617.700.

19. Plaintiff asserts a claim for relief against Ocwen for breaches of the

specific rules under Regulation X as set forth, infra.

20. Plaintiff has a private right of action under RESPA pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §

2605(f) for the claimed breaches such action provides for remedies including actual

damages, costs, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

21. Plaintiff asserts claims for relief against Ocwen and MDK for violation of

the FDCPA as set forth, infra.

22. Plaintiff asserts common law claims for breach of contract against Ocwen

and Deutsche.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

23. On or about May 29, 2009, Deutsche initiated foreclosure proceedings

against Plaintiff relating to the Home and the Loan in the Court of Common Pleas for

5

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 5 of 28 PAGEID #: 5
Franklin County, Ohio, assigned Case No. 09 CV 008043 (the “Foreclosure”). A copy of

the docket entries for the Foreclosure obtained from the website for the Franklin

County Clerk of Courts is attached as Exhibit 2​.

24. On or about October 14, 2009, the Foreclosure was referred for mediation

on or about November 2, 2009 (the “Foreclosure Mediation”).

25. As a result of the Foreclosure Mediation, Plaintiff and Deutsche reached

an agreement for Plaintiff to remit three (3) trial payments, each due on December 1,

2009, January 1, 2010, and February 1, 2010, respectively wherein at the conclusion of

the trial period, a loan modification would be considered. A copy of such agreement is

attached as Exhibit 3​.

26. On February 1, 2010, shortly after making the final trial payment, but

before a permanent loan modification could be finalized, Plaintiff filed bankruptcy

proceedings under Chapter 13, Title 11, of the United States Code in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:10-bk-50991 (the

“Bankruptcy”).

27. Pursuant to the filing of the Bankruptcy, the Foreclosure was stayed via

Court Order on or about February 11, 2010.

28. On June 4, 2010, Deutsche filed a proof of claim for the Loan in the

Bankruptcy as the creditor of the Loan AHMSI acting as the servicer of the Loan.

29. On September 13, 2010, AHMSI filed a motion in the Bankruptcy seeking

to modify the Loan (the “Motion to Modify”) stating that “[t]he parties agree to terms

and conditions set forth in attached Loan Modification Agreement terms.” A copy of

6

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 6 of 28 PAGEID #: 6
the Motion to Modify, as well as the Loan Modification Agreement terms attached to

such (“Modification #1”), are attached as Composite Exhibit 4​.

30. Modification #1 had the following terms:

a. Effective date of June 1, 2010;

b. Monthly principal and interest payments of $674.32;

c. Monthly escrow payments (including homeowner’s association

fees) of $273.63, adjusting periodically;

d. Interest rate of 5.000%; and,

e. Unpaid principal balance of $113,776.18.

See Exhibit 4.

31. Judge Hoffman, Jr. granted the Motion to Modify via Order filed October

25, 2010 (“Order Approving Modification #1”) stating that Plaintiff and AHMSI “are

permitted to enter into a Loan Modification AGreement according to the terms

attached to this order”, specifically, Modification #1. A copy of Order Approving

Modification #1 is attached as Exhibit 5​.

32. For reasons unknown, neither AHMSI nor Deutsche ever took any further

action to implement the terms of Modification #1 despite the agreement of all parties

and the approval of the Bankruptcy judge.

33. On or about April 29, 2011, AHMSI sent correspondence to Plaintiff

stating that Plaintiff qualified for a “Home Affordable Modification” (“Modification #2),

which the Borrower accepted. A copy of such correspondence and Modification #2 is

attached as Exhibit 6​.

7

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 7 of 28 PAGEID #: 7
34. Modification #2 had the following terms:

a. Effective date of March 1, 2010;

b. Maturity date of September 1, 2034;

c. Monthly principal and interest payments of $213.31 for the first five

(5) years and then adjusting annually thereafter before plateauing

at $322.28 for the remaining term of the Loan as of February 1,

2017;

d. Monthly escrow payments (including homeowner’s association

fees) of $239.48, adjusting periodically;

e. Interest rate of 2.000% for the first five (5) years and then adjusting

annually thereafter before plateauing at 5.000% for the remaining

term of the Loan as of February 1, 2017;

f. Interest bearing principal balance of $112,213.19; and,

g. Deferred principal balance of $70,439.19 payable upon maturity of

the Loan as modified.

See Exhibit 6.

35. Plaintiff timely and properly accepted Modification #2.

36. AHMSI filed two (2) motions in the Bankruptcy, on July 15, 2011 and

September 6, 2011, respectively, seeking approval for Modification #2. Copies of each

such motions are attached as Exhibit 7 ​and Exhibit 8​, respectively.

37. In furtherance of Modification #2 and the parties’ intent to abide by the

same, on October 5, 2011, AHMSI sent correspondence stating:

8

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 8 of 28 PAGEID #: 8
[AHMSI] has processed [Modification #2] on the [Loan] and

made the required changes to its Loan Servicing system.

Enclosed is a copy of the signed Modification Agreement for

your records.

Your loan is now due for the October payment in the

amount of $504.96.

A copy of such correspondence is attached as Exhibit 9​.

38. Plaintiff subsequently made all required periodic payments on the Loan

as modified through Modification #2 in a timely manner from October 2011 through the

completion of the Bankruptcy in March 2013, remitting sixteen (16) periodic payments

in total to AHMSI.

39. On March 28, 2013, an Order discharging Plaintiff from the Bankruptcy

was entered (the “Discharge”).

40. At the time of the Discharge, the parties intended for the Loan to have

been Modified, and as such, the Loan was reinstated and deemed current.

41. Ocwen obtained servicing rights to the Loan effective March 11, 2013.

42. Ocwen sent a mortgage statement dated March 15, 2013 (the “March

Statement”), indicating that Ocwen was not honoring the terms of Modification #2 as

the terms on the March Statement had reverted to the original terms of the Loan. A

copy of the March Statement is attached as Exhibit 10​.

43. Despite such, in a showing of good faith, Plaintiff attempted to remit

payments in accordance with the terms of Modification #2 on May 17, 2013, June 6,

2013, and July 5, 2013, July 10, 2013, all of which Ocwen rejected (the “Rejected

9

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 9 of 28 PAGEID #: 9
Payments”). Copies of e-mails evidencing Ocwen’s refusal to accept the Rejected

Payments are attached as Composite Exhibit 11​.

44. In late 2013, Plaintiff sought the assistance of Attorney Hillard M. Abroms

of Abroms Law Office (“Abroms”) to have Ocwen correct their errors and honor

Modification #2.

45. Plaintiff, by and through Abroms, sent two (2) separate Qualified Written

Requests (the “QWRs”) to Ocwen requesting that Ocwen correct their errors and

resuming accepting Plaintiff’s payments under Modification #2. Copies of one of the

QWRs as well as Ocwen’s responses to the QWRs are attached as Composite Exhibit

12​.

46. While the statute of limitations has passed concerning violations of

RESPA for Ocwen’s responses to the QWRs, it should be noted that despite being put

on notice of their erroneous actions on multiple occasions through the QWRs, Ocwen

failed to correct the same evidencing a pattern and practice of indifference and

disregard for Plaintiff’s concerns and their erroneous actions. Further as to this point, in

their responses, Ocwen completely failed to appropriately research and convey simple

facts such as under which chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code Plaintiff filed

the Bankruptcy, claiming in their November 1, 2013 response that Plaintiff “filed for

Bankruptcy Chapter 7” along with her ex-husband, who did not file jointly in the

Bankruptcy.

Foreclosure Proceedings Continued

10

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 10 of 28 PAGEID #: 10
47. On or about January 22, 2014, MDK filed an appearance and substitution

of counsel for Deutsche in the Foreclosure. See Exhibit 2​.

48. On June 30, 2017, MDK, on behalf of Deutsche, moved to reopen the

Foreclosure. See Exhibit 2​.

49. After the Foreclosure was reopened, on July 26, 2017, three (3) years

after originally filing an appearance in the case, four (4) years after the Discharge, and

roughly eight (8) years after the filing of the Foreclosure and the Bankruptcy, with

Plaintiff having entered into Modification #1 and Modification #2 and remitting more

than sixteen (16) payments under Modification #2 which were applied by AHMSI

thereby curing the original default at issue in the Foreclosure, MDK, on behalf of

Deutsche, moved for default judgment against Plaintiff for failure to file a timely answer

or responsive pleading to the 2009 Foreclosure complaint. See Exhibit 2​.

50. Without a hearing​, the court granted default judgment against Plaintiff

on July 31, 2017, a mere four (4) days after the motion for default judgment was

filed​, likely at or before the time Plaintiff would have received a copy of such motion

and before Plaintiff would have had a chance to respond to such. See Exhibit 2​.

51. MDK, on behalf of Deutsche, filed a “Praecipe to Issue Order of Sale” in

the Foreclosure on August 8, 2017, to initiate the final process of scheduling a

foreclosure sale of the Home. See Exhibit 2​.

52. Plaintiff subsequently hired counsel, DannLaw (“DL”), to file any

necessary motions to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and otherwise stay any

foreclosure sale in the meantime.

11

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 11 of 28 PAGEID #: 11
53. Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the default judgment in the Foreclosure

on or about October 18, 2017. See Exhibit 2​.

54. The parties agreed to stay the Foreclosure proceedings and refer the

matter to mediation to attempt to reach a settlement in this matter. See Exhibit 2​.

55. The mediation did not prove fruitful, but the parties agreed to to vacate

the judgment in the Foreclosure via an Agreed Order filed on February 5, 2018. See

Exhibit 2​.

56. Ocwen, Deutsche, and MDK did not agree to dismiss the Foreclosure

action.

57. On or about February 5, 2018, Plaintiff, by and through DL, sent a notice

of error (the “NOE”) to Ocwen captioned “Notice of errors pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §

1024.35(b)(11) for failing to honor the terms of Modification #1 and Modification #2;

Notice of errors pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(b)(2) for failure to properly apply

accepted payments to principal, interest, escrow or other charges under the terms of

the mortgage loan and applicable law; Notice of errors pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §

1024.35(b)(1) for failing to accept payments that conform to written requirements for

the Borrower to follow in making payments” via Certified U.S. Mail [Receipt No. 7014

2120 0003 0667 1927. A copy of the NOE is attached as Exhibit 13​.

58. Plaintiff, through the NOE, asserted that Ocwen committed errors in the

servicing of the Loan through substantially similar allegations as the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint, supra, namely, refusing to honor Modification #1 and

Modification #2, failing to apply Plaintiffs’ payments in accordance with said

12

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 12 of 28 PAGEID #: 12
agreements, and refusing to accept payments in accordance with said agreement. See

Exhibit 13​.

59. The NOE provided clear instructions to Ocwen as to how it should

respond and the consequences if it failed to respond. See Exhibit 13​.

60. Plaintiff sent the NOE to Ocwen at the address designated by Ocwen for

receipt of notices of error, which was at all relevant times:

Ocwen Research

P.O. Box 24736

West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4736

(the “Designated Address”). See Exhibit 13​.

61. Ocwen received the NOE at the Designated Address on February 10,

2018. A copy of tracking information for the NOE is attached as Exhibit 14​.

62. Ocwen, by and through Attorney Sarah Alford Wilson (“Wilson”) of

BlankRome (“BR”), sent correspondence to Plaintiff dated March 22, 2018, requesting

an additional fifteen (15) business days to research and respond to the NOE. A copy of

such correspondence is attached as Exhibit 15​.

63. On or about April 17, 2018, Ocwen, through Attorney Wilson of BR, sent

correspondence in response to the NOE (the “NOE Response”). A copy of the NOE

Response is attached as Exhibit 16​.

64. Ocwen, through the NOE Response, stated:

Please be advised that Ocwen’s investigation of the above

issues is ongoing, as Ocwen has been unable to determine

why [Modification #1] and [Modification #2] were not

implemented by AHMSI, and why the Loan was not boarded

with Ocwen as modified by [Modification #2].

13

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 13 of 28 PAGEID #: 13
See Exhibit 16​.

65. To date, the issues surrounding the subject matter of the NOE and this

action remain unresolved.

66. Plaintiff brings this action in an effort to clarify her rights and the rights of

Ocwen and Deutsche relative to Modification #1 and Modification #2, to seek

enforcement of the Modification #1 and Modification #2, enforce her rights under

RESPA against Ocwen, and to put an end to the constant concern, worry, and anxiety

that she have over Ocwen’s servicing of the Loan as a direct and proximate result of

Ocwen’s refusal to implement Modification #1 and Modification #2 while Deutsche and

MDK continue to litigate the Foreclosure which has been pending for nine (9) years

despite such agreements and Plaintiff’s payments under such agreements.

67. Ocwen failed to properly service the Loan and correct its error of refusing

to implement and otherwise breaching Modification #1 and Modification #2 which,

along with the acts of Deutsche and MDK, has directly and proximately caused

damages to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to:

a. Plaintiff incurred attorneys’ fees and costs in seeking to vacate the

default judgment in the Foreclosure and in attending subsequent hearings

and settlement discussions as well lost time and travel expenses to and

from court;

b. Plaintiff incurred attorneys’ fees and costs in the preparation and mailing

of the NOE and the preparation and prosecution of this action.;

14

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 14 of 28 PAGEID #: 14
c. Plaintiff incurred lost time, travel expenses to and from court, filing fees,

attorneys’ fees to defend the Foreclosure.

d. Plaintiff hoped and believed that, by entering into Modification #1 and

Modification #2, she would secure the opportunity to begin the long

process of rehabilitating her credit standing following the Bankruptcy and

be entitled to the “fresh financial start” to which she is entitled pursuant

to the Discharge, but Ocwen, Deutsche, and MDK have deprived Plaintiff

of such an opportunity by refusing to honor the terms of Modification #1

and Modification #2, maintaining the Foreclosure, and continuing to

report Plaintiff as delinquent;

e. Plaintiff has endured and continues to endure severe emotional distress

directly and proximately caused by the conduct of Ocwen, Deutsche, and

MDK. This stress is driven by the daily ongoing fear that she might lose

her Home in foreclosure and be forced to leave her Home. This stress

and fear has resulted in loss of sleep, anxiety, depression,

embarrassment, and other significant and persistent emotional distress;

f. Plaintiff has been caused to unnecessarily remain in a default or

otherwise in delinquent status on the Loan and remain in foreclosure for a

significantly longer time than they would have if Ocwen, Deutsch, and

MDK had acted appropriately and with reasonable diligence in their

handling of errors alleged, which has caused continued damage to her

credit and an unnecessary delay to the rehabilitation of her credit.

15

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 15 of 28 PAGEID #: 15
68. Throughout this entire ordeal, Plaintiff simply wanted to enter into and

continue paying under Modification #1 and Modification #2, avoid foreclosure, begin

rehabilitating her credit, and most importantly, remain in the Home.

PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF REGULATION X VIOLATIONS BY OCWEN

69. Ocwen has engaged in a pattern and practice of mistreating mortgage

loan borrowers and violating the mortgage servicing regulations set forth in Regulation

X of RESPA.

70. Ocwen’s actions are part of a pattern and practice of behavior in violation

of Plaintiff’s rights and in abdication and contravention of Ocwen’s obligations under

the mortgage servicing regulations set forth in Regulation X of RESPA.

71. At the time of the filing of this Complaint, Ocwen has at least Eleven

Thousand Seventy Five (11,075) consumer complaints lodged against it nationally,

specifically concerning the issue identified on the CFPB’s consumer complaint

database as “loan modification, collection, foreclosure” related to mortgages. Each

such complaint is filed and cataloged in the CFPB’s publicly accessible online

database. (http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaintdatabase/).

72. Plaintiff has reviewed the CFPB’s consumer complaint database and has

identified other alleged RESPA violations by Ocwen against other borrowers. In

particular, Plaintiff has reviewed the fifteen (15) consumer complaints attached hereto

and identified as Group Exhibit 17​. The date, details, and a narrative disclosed by the

consumer is set forth in each complaint. The complaints evidence conduct which

16

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 16 of 28 PAGEID #: 16
demonstrates that Ocwen has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating RESPA

with respect to other borrowers.

73. On April 20, 2017, the CFPB filed suit against Ocwen in the Federal

District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:17-cv-80495) (“CFPB

Lawsuit”).

74. The CFPB Lawsuit alleges in Paragraph 33 a possible explanation for

Plaintiff’s trevails and clearly demonstrates that Ocwen’s behavior in this case is part of

a larger pattern and practice:

As set forth in greater detail below, Ocwen has serviced

loans and collected upon debts based on inaccurate and

incomplete borrower loan information. Ocwen has often

input inaccurate and incomplete information, or failed to

input accurate or complete information, about borrowers’

loans into its REALServicing system of record. Even when

the information in REALServicing has been accurate,

REALServicing has generated inaccurate information about

borrowers’ loans due to system deficiencies. Because of

these system deficiencies, Ocwen has had to rely upon

manual processes and workarounds that have themselves

resulted in errors in borrowers’ loan information.

75. Paragraph 69 of the CFPB Complaint provide further indication that the

problems Plaintiff has encountered were part of a larger pattern and practice:

Ocwen’s use of inaccurate and incomplete information

resulting from its boarding of inaccurate and incomplete

information into REALServicing, REALServicing’s

deficiencies, and Ocwen’s error-prone manual processes

has caused or is likely to have caused borrowers substantial

harm, and resulted in Ocwen communicating, orally and in

writing, information to borrowers that it knew or had a

reason to know was inaccurate.

17

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 17 of 28 PAGEID #: 17
76. Ocwen has entered into consent decrees with numerous states

concerning the same deficiencies in their servicing practices as in the CFPB Complaint

(the “Consent Decrees”).1

COUNT ONE: AGAINST DEUTSCHE AND OCWEN

[Breach of Contract]

77. Plaintiff restates and incorporates all of her statements and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through ## in their entirety, as if fully rewritten herein.

78. Modification #1 is an enforceable contract between Plaintiff, Deutsche,

and Ocwen.

79. Deutsche and Ocwen breached the contract by refusing to honor

Modification #1 and failing to properly apply Plaintiff’s payments.

80. Plaintiff performed on her obligations pursuant to Modification #1 by

making payment of amounts properly due and by otherwise substantially meeting the

obligations imposed by the contract.

81. Deutsche and Ocwen have breached the contract is bad faith. This is

evidenced by the fact that Ocwen has failed to timely investigate and mitigate

damages despite Plaintiff’s repeated pleas, requests, and demands that the errors they

identified should be corrected via the NOE and otherwise.

1 Ocwen has entered into such consent decrees with the following states: Alabama, Arkansas,

Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Ocwen is

currently involved in active litigation with Florida and Massachusetts concerning such issues. Consent

orders were issued in California and Washington on February 17, 2017 and August 24, 2016,

respectively.

18

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 18 of 28 PAGEID #: 18
82. As pled, supra, Plaintiff has been harmed by, and continue to suffer from

harm resulting from, Deutsche’s and Ocwen’s respective breaches of Modification #1

by refusing to honor the terms of Modification #1, taking away the opportunity for

Plaintiff to obtain a reasonable, permanent loan modification.

83. Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel to aid in enforcing Modification #1,

incurring attorneys’ fees and costs in preparing and mailing the NOE and in defending

the Foreclosure.

84. The conduct of Deutsche and Ocwen has caused Plaintiff to suffer great

emotional distress driven by the fear that she might lose the Home and be forced to

leave the Home which has resulted in loss of sleep, anxiety, depression,

embarrassment, and other significant emotional distress.

85. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs jointly and severally against Deutsche and Ocwen.

COUNT TWO: AGAINST DEUTSCHE AND OCWEN

[Breach of Contract]

86. Plaintiff restates and incorporates all of her statements and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through ## in their entirety, as if fully rewritten herein.

87. Modification #2 is an enforceable contract between Plaintiff, Deutsche,

and Ocwen.

88. Deutsche and Ocwen breached the contract by refusing to honor

Modification #2 and failing to properly apply Plaintiff’s payments.

19

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 19 of 28 PAGEID #: 19
89. Plaintiff performed on her obligations pursuant to Modification #2 by

making approximately sixteen (16) payments of amounts properly due and by

otherwise substantially meeting the obligations imposed by the contract.

90. Plaintiff attempted to continue her dutiful performance under Modification

#2, but was thwarted in such efforts by Ocwen’s rejection of Plaintiff’s periodic

payments. See Exhibit 11​.

91. Deutsche and Ocwen have breached the contract is bad faith. This is

evidenced by the fact that Ocwen has failed to timely investigate and mitigate

damages despite Plaintiff’s repeated pleas, requests, and demands that the errors they

identified should be corrected via the NOE and otherwise.

92. As pled, supra, Plaintiff has been harmed by, and continue to suffer from

harm resulting from, Deutsche’s and Ocwen’s respective breaches of Modification #2

by refusing to honor the terms of Modification #2, taking away the opportunity for

Plaintiff to obtain a reasonable, permanent loan modification.

93. Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel to aid in enforcing Modification #2,

incurring attorneys’ fees and costs in preparing and mailing the NOE and in defending

the Foreclosure.

94. The conduct of Deutsche and Ocwen has caused Plaintiff to suffer great

emotional distress driven by the fear that she might lose the Home and be forced to

leave the Home which has resulted in loss of sleep, anxiety, depression,

embarrassment, and other significant emotional distress.

20

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 20 of 28 PAGEID #: 20
95. Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and

costs jointly and severally against Deutsche and Ocwen.

COUNT THREE: AGAINST OCWEN

 Violation of 12 C.F.R. §1024.35(e)

[Ocwen’s Failure to Properly Respond to a Notice of Error

in Violation of 12 C.F.R. §1024.35]

96. Plaintiff restates and incorporates all of her statements and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through ## in their entirety, as if fully rewritten herein.

97. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(a) provides:

A servicer shall comply with the requirements of this section

for any written notice from the borrower that asserts an

error and that includes the name of the borrower,

information that enables the servicer to identify the

borrower's mortgage loan account, and the error the

borrower believes has occurred.

98. Comment 1 of the CFPB’s Official Interpretations of 12 C.F.R. §

1024.35(a) provides that “[a] notice of error is submitted by a borrower if the notice of

error is submitted by an agent of the borrower.”

99. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(d) provides that a servicer must acknowledge in

writing receiving a notice of error from a borrower within five (5) days of receipt.

100. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e)(1) provides that a servicer must respond to a

notice of error by either “[c]orrecting the error or errors identified by the borrower and

providing the borrower with a written notification of the correction, the effective date of

the correction, and contact information, including a telephone number, for further

assistance” or:

21

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 21 of 28 PAGEID #: 21
Conducting a reasonable investigation and providing the

borrower with a written notification that includes a

statement that the servicer has determined that no error

occurred, a statement of the reason or reasons for this

determination, a statement of the borrower's right to

request documents relied upon by the servicer in reaching

its determination, information regarding how the borrower

can request such documents, and contact information,

including a telephone number, for further assistance.

101. The NOE meets the requirements of a notice of error as defined by 12

C.F.R. § 1024.35(a). See Exhibit 13​.

102. Plaintiffs sent the NOE to Ocwen at the Designated Address. See Exhibit

13​ and Exhibit 14​.

103. By and through the NOE, Plaintiff alleged that Ocwen’s failure to honor

Modification #1 and Modification #2, Ocwen’s subsequent failure to properly apply the

sixteen (16) payments made by Plaintiff pursuant to Modification #2, and Ocwen’s

subsequent refusal to accept the Rejected Payments constituted approximately

twenty-two (22) clear, continuing, and egregious errors. See Exhibit 13.

104. Ocwen received the NOE at the Designated Address on February 10,

2018. See Exhibit 14​.

105. Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35(e)(3)(i)(C) and 1024.35(e)(3)(ii), Ocwen

was required to respond to the NOE on or before April 16, 2018. See Exhibit 14​.

106. The NOE Response failed to satisfy the requirements of either 12 C.F.R.

§§ 1024.35(e)(1)(A) or 1024.35(e)(1)(B). See Exhibit 16​.

22

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 22 of 28 PAGEID #: 22
107. Ocwen, through the NOE Response, did not acknowledge that any of the

alleged errors occurred and state the date of the correction of any such errors. See

Exhibit 16​.

108. Ocwen, through the NOE Response, did not deny that any of the alleged

errors occurred after performing a reasonable investigation into the same. See Exhibit

16​.

109. Rather, Ocwen, through the NOE Response, stated that their

investigation into the errors alleged by and through the NOE would be ambiguously

and amorphously continuing beyond the statutory deadline of April 16, 2018. See

Exhibit 16​.

110. To this date, Ocwen has failed to correct the errors asserted through the

NOE.

111. Ocwen’s actions are part of a pattern and practice of behavior in violation

of the Plaintiff’s rights and the rights of other similarly situated borrowers and in

violation of Ocwen’s obligations under Regulation X of RESPA. Ocwen’s pattern and

practice as such is evidenced by their consistent refusal to appropriately respond to

and correct the errors Plaintiff alleged through the QWRs and the NOE as well as by

the CFPB Lawsuit and the consent decrees further described, supra.

112. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of

Ocwen’s actions including incurring legal fees and expenses in the preparation and

mailing of the NOE and, ultimately, to preparation, filing, and prosecution of this case

to remedy Ocwen’s wrongful conduct.

23

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 23 of 28 PAGEID #: 23
113. Additionally, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, significant

damages including other legal expenses, other economic loss, as well as anxiety, loss

of sleep, and emotional and mental distress.

114. As a result of Ocwen’s actions, Ocwen is liable to Plaintiff for actual

damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

COUNT FOUR: AGAINST OCWEN

Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692k

[Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]

115. Plaintiff restates and incorporates all of her statements and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through ## in their entirety, as if fully rewritten herein.

116. Ocwen is a debt collector within the meaning under the FDCPA. Ocwen

regularly uses the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or the mails in its

business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, and regularly

collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to

be owed or due another.

117. Plaintiff is a consumer within the meaning under the FDCPA.

118. The Loan is a consumer debt within the meaning under the FDCPA asit

was incurred for household purposes, namely, the purchase of the Home.

119. The Loan was claimed to be in default per the records of Ocwen and

Deutsche at the time that Ocwen attempted to collect the debt by means of permitting,

facilitating, otherwise directing the reactivation of the Foreclosure, the filing of the

24

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 24 of 28 PAGEID #: 24
motion for default judgment, the filing of the “Praecipe to Issue Order of Sale”, and the

general maintenance of the foreclosure proceeding following the Discharge.

120. Ocwen violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(e)(2) when it misrepresented the

character, amount, or legal status of the Loan. Ocwen misrepresented to Plaintiff that

the she was in default, that she owed sums which were not in fact due, and that the

Home would be foreclosed upon.

121. Ocwen knew or had reason to know that the sums claimed were not in

fact due, that the Loan was not in default, that payments had been properly and timely

made, that Ocwen had repeatedly misapplied and wrongfully refused those payments,

and that the Foreclosure had been improperly maintained for years.

122. Ocwen violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(e)(5) when it threatened to take an

action, the collection of amounts not due, that cannot legally be taken.

123. Ocwen violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(f) because its conduct as outlined herein

constitutes an unconscionable means to collect or to attempt to collect a debt.

124. Ocwen violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(d) by employing an unfair and

unconscionable means to collect the subject debt, namely, permitting, facilitating, or

directing the threat of an imminent foreclosure sale of the Home.

125. Plaintiff was damaged by the above actions as described supra.

126. As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to an

award of statutory damages, actual damages, and legal fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§1692k(a).

COUNT FIVE: AGAINST MDK

Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692k

25

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 25 of 28 PAGEID #: 25
[Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]

127. Plaintiff restates and incorporates all of her statements and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through ## in their entirety, as if fully rewritten herein.

128. MDK is a debt collector within the meaning under the FDCPA. MDK

regularly uses the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and/or the mails in its

business the principal purpose of which is the collection of debts, and regularly

collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to

be owed or due another.

129. Plaintiff is a consumer within the meaning under the FDCPA.

130. The Loan is a consumer debt within the meaning under the FDCPA asit

was incurred for household purposes, namely, the purchase of the Home.

131. The Loan was claimed to be in default per the records of Ocwen and

Deutsche at the time that MDK attempted to collect the debt by means of the

reactivation of the Foreclosure, the filing of the motion for default judgment, the filing of

the “Praecipe to Issue Order of Sale”, and the general maintenance of the foreclosure

proceeding following the Discharge.

132. MDK violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(e)(2) when it misrepresented the character,

amount, or legal status of the Loan. MDK misrepresented to Plaintiff that the she was

in default, that she owed sums which were not in fact due, and that the Home would

be foreclosed upon.

133. MDK knew or had reason to know that the sums claimed by Ocwen and

Deutsche were not in fact due, that the Loan was not in default, that payments had

26

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 26 of 28 PAGEID #: 26
been properly and timely made, that Ocwen had repeatedly misapplied and wrongfully

refused those payments, and that the Foreclosure had been improperly maintained for

years.

134. MDK violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(e)(5) when it threatened to take an action,

the collection of amounts not due, that cannot legally be taken.

135. MDK violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(f) because its conduct as outlined herein

constitutes an unconscionable means to collect or to attempt to collect a debt.

136. MDK violated 15 U.S.C. §1692(d) by employing an unfair and

unconscionable means to collect the subject debt, namely, the threat of an imminent

foreclosure sale of the Home.

137. Plaintiff was damaged by the above actions as described supra.

138. As a result of the above violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to an

award of statutory damages, actual damages, and legal fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§1692k(a).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Elizabeth Cameron respectfully requests that this Court

enter an order granting Judgment against Defendants Deutsche, Ocwen, and MDK for

the following:

A. For actual damages, all costs and reasonable attorney fees against

Defendants jointly and severally, as applicable, as to all allegations contained in

Counts One through Five;

B. For statutory damages of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)

27

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 27 of 28 PAGEID #: 27
against Ocwen for each and every violation contained in Count Three;

C. For statutory damages of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)

against Ocwen for each and every violation contained in Count Four;

D. For statutory damages of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)

against MDK for each and every violation contained in Count Five;

E. For all other relief this Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marc E. Dann, Esq.

Marc E. Dann (0039425)

Daniel M. Solar (0085632)

Emily White (0085662)

DannLaw

P.O. Box 6031040

Cleveland, OH 44103

Phone: (216) 373-0539

Facsimile: (216) 373-0536

notices@dannlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Elizabeth Cameron

__________________________________________________________________

JURY DEMAND

__________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Elizabeth Cameron hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on all

such claims that may be so tried.

/s/ Marc E. Dann, Esq.

Marc E. Dann (0039425)

Daniel M. Solar (0085632)

Emily White (0085662)

DannLaw

28

Case: 2:18-cv-00428-SDM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/02/18 Page: 28 of 28 PAGEID #: 28