UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHELLE HART, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 

v Hon. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

 Plaintiff, Michelle Hart, by and through her attorney, Vanessa G. Fluker, Esq., PLLC, 

states her Complaint against Defendant as follows: 

1. This is an action for equitable relief and damages from a predatory mortgage loan 

and for failure to adhere to a Michigan state attorney general consent order and to federal laws 

regarding residential mortgage loan modifications. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff Michelle Hart is an individual residing in the City of Southfield, County 

of Oakland, State of Michigan and owner of property located at 27685 Sutherland, Southfield, 

MI 48076. 

3. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., is a foreign for profit corporation 

doing business in Oakland County, State of Michigan with a registered office address of 30600 

Telegraph Rd., Ste. 2345 Bingham Farms, MI 48025. 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 9
4. The controversy involves federal questions and diversity in that the amount of 

damages is over $75,000. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 USC Sections 1331 and 1332. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Plaintiff Michelle Hart resides at 27685 Sutherland, Southfield, MI 48076, with 

her mother, who is being treated for pancreatic cancer. 

6. Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract with Defendant Countrywide Home 

Loans. The mortgage was an adjustable rate mortgage which was subject to ongoing increases. 

7. Plaintiff suffered a job loss, but obtained temporary work which enabled her to 

make some reasonable mortgage payments. Plaintiff contacted Countrywide to request 

assistance but was told since her employment was not considered permanent Countrywide could 

not help her at that time.

8. Defendant Countrywide represented to Plaintiff it would review the file see if any 

options were available. During this review period in March 2008, Plaintiff obtained permanent 

employment as a legal secretary. 

9. Plaintiff continued to communicate with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 

emphasizing her change in employment status and ability to pay in an effort to negotiate a loan 

modification. 

10. Defendant Countrywide never did negotiate a modification and instead foreclosed 

on the home, selling the home at sheriff’s sale in August 2008. 

11. Throughout the redemption period, Plaintiff continued to communicate with 

Defendant Countrywide to effectuate a modification or the sale back of the property. 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 9
12. Defendant Countrywide. Inc. continued to communicate with Plaintiff with 

respect to a potential workout or loan modification, even requesting verification of Plaintiff 

mother’s medical condition of pancreatic cancer along with updated financial information. 

13. Defendant Countrywide had this information for several months, when Plaintiff 

was informed they would not be modifying the loan, not because Plaintiff was ineligible, but 

because the home was post-sheriff’s sale. 

14. Plaintiff inquired of Defendant Countrywide why they could not conduct an 

affidavit of expungement of Sheriff’s deed and proceed with the modification. To date, 

Defendant Countrywide never gave an explanation, but instead has proceeded with the intent of 

disposing Plaintiff of her home.

15. Plaintiff inquired as to why her loan could not be modified pursuant to the 

Michigan Attorney General consent agreement signed October 6, 2008, with Defendant 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and other affiliates. Defendant Countywide Home Loans did not 

give an explanation as to why the terms of the consent agreement were not applicable to her loan. 

16. Plaintiff also inquired if her loan could be modified given the introduction of 

various federal plans and programs designed to help homeowners. Plaintiff has not received any 

assistance. 

17. Plaintiff made every attempt to obtain a reasonable modification or workout plan 

to retain her home as her mother has pancreatic cancer and any move could be fatal to her health. 

18. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if she is not afforded an adequate remedy 

including injunctive relief. 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 3 of 9
COUNT I - MISREPRESENTATION

19. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-18 above. 

20. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. made material misrepresentations 

regarding material information regarding the mortgage transaction including but not limited to 

promising Plaintiff that her mortgage was being reviewed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. for 

a potential modification or other workout arrangement when in fact Defendant Countrywide had 

no intent of assisting Plaintiff. 

21. Defendant Countrywide made the representations with the intent that the Plaintiff 

would rely on them so the Defendant Countrywide could make a profit from the transaction 

including but limited to: 

a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. could make a larger and quicker profit by 

foreclosing on Plaintiff’s property rather than modifying Plaintiff’s loan and 

engaging in a sale of the property at fair market value. 

b. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans intentionally or recklessly 

misrepresented information regarding loan modification and workout, upon 

which the Plaintiff relied impairing and frustrating her efforts to retain her 

home. 

22. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. knew their representations were false 

or reckless without knowledge of their truth. 

23. Plaintiff did rely on the Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.’s 

representations, and because of the representations believed Countrywide Home Loans Inc., were 

acting in good faith regarding a loan modification or workout. More importantly, Plaintiff 

4 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 4 of 9
believed Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. would be complying with the state consent 

agreement and federal legislation on modifications and workouts. 

24. Plaintiff relied on Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.’s representations to 

her detriment. 

25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.’s 

material misrepresentations, Plaintiff has suffered damages including the foreclosure of her home 

and pain and suffering. 

COUNT II - VIOLATION OF THE HOUSING AND 

ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT OF 2008, PL 110-289

26. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-25 above. 

27. Defendant violated the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, by refusing 

to effectuate a reasonable modification on Plaintiff’s mortgage loan. 

28. Defendant failed to comply with the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 

2008, PL 110-289, Section 1403, by refusing to implement a modification or workout plan when 

such modification or workout plan would exceed, on a net value basis, the anticipated recovery 

on the principal outstanding obligation of the mortgage through foreclosure. 

29. Defendant failed to comply with the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1639, Section 

129A, by refusing to implement a modification or workout plan when such modification or 

workout plan would exceed, on a net value basis, the anticipated recovery on the principal 

outstanding obligation of the mortgage through foreclosure. 

30. As a result of Defendant’s conduct Plaintiff was subjected to home foreclosure 

and damages associated with the foreclosure including but not limited to loss of her home and 

pain and suffering. 

5 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 5 of 9
COUNT III - BAD FAITH

31. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-30 above. 

32. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff to act in good faith and in accordance with 

applicable law in servicing Plaintiff’s loan including discussions regarding modification and 

ownership of the loan. 

33. Defendant acted in bad faith reflected by its arbitrary, reckless and intentional 

conduct evincing indifference or intentional disregard for the Plaintiff’s interests by representing 

to Plaintiff by, 

a. Representing to Plaintiff modification efforts were being performed. 

b. Failing to effectuate any modification or loss mitigation procedures to enable 

Plaintiff to retain home ownership 

c. Refusing to communicate with Plaintiff regarding other options including a cash 

sale. 

34. As a result of Defendant’s bad faith conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages including 

but not limited to the loss of her home and pain and suffering. 

COUNT IV - VIOLATION BY DEFENDANT OF ITS 

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO MODIFY PLAINTIFF’S LOAN 

PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL HOME AFFORDABLE 

MODFICATION PROGRAM AND THE ECONOMIC STABLIZATION ACT OF 2008

35. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-34 above. 

36. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. is currently the servicer on Plaintiff’s 

mortgage. 

37. Defendant Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc. signed a contract with the federal 

government on April 17, 2009, wherein it agreed to perform loan modifications on all its loans in 

6 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 6 of 9
accordance with the Home Affordable Modification Program developed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury pursuant to its mandate under the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Defendant will 

be paid $1,864,000,000.00 for its modification services. 

38. Pursuant to this contract with the federal government and Supplemental Directive 

1 which was issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and is incorporated into the contract, this 

duty to modify loans extends to mortgage loans secured by a one-four unit property, that are 

delinquent or in default, that are not vacant or condemned, that meet a Net Present Test for the 

modification, and applies to loans currently in foreclosure. Borrowers in active litigation are 

eligible for the Home Modification Program. 

39. Plaintiff meets the criteria for the Home Affordable Modification Program. 

40. Despite this fact, Defendant has refused to modify Plaintiff’s loan. 

Wherefore, Defendant should be ordered to modify Plaintiff’s loan in accordance with 

the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, and stop all foreclosure/eviction 

proceedings while it is evaluating Plaintiffs’ loan pursuant to this program. 

COUNT V - VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSENT AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 6, 2009.

41. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-40 above. 

42. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. entered into a consent agreement of 

Assurance of Voluntary Compliance and Discontinuance with the Michigan Attorney General on 

October 6, 2008. 

43. Under this agreement, Defendant is to review various mortgage loan products 

including subprime adjustable rate mortgages for modifications. 

7 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 7 of 9
8 

44. Defendant under the consent agreement submitted to jurisdiction of the courts in 

the State of Michigan for enforcement of the consent agreement. 

45. Defendant has failed to review Plaintiff’s mortgage loan pursuant to the terms of 

the consent agreement. 

46. As a result of Defendant’s bad faith conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages including 

but not limited to the loss of her home and pain and suffering. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

 WHERFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court: 

A. Stay all proceedings for possession including eviction of Plaintiff from property 

located at 27685 Sutherland, Southfield, MI 48076, pending a resolution of 

Plaintiff’s legal and equitable claims. 

B. Set aside sheriff’s sale. 

C. Declare mortgage foreclosure void based upon the numerous legal violations 

articulated in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

D. Order Defendant to negotiate a loan modification pursuant to federal law and 

Defendant’s consent decree with the Michigan Attorney General. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Vanessa G. Fluker 

 Vanessa G. Fluker (P64870) 

 Vanessa G. Fluker, ESQ., PLLC 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 2920 East Jefferson, Ste. 101 

 Detroit, MI 48207 

 (313) 393-6005 

DATED: May 29, 2009 

Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12088-PJD-DAS Document 1 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 9 of 9