Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/48131069/Kahlo-v-Bank-of-America
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 14:00:12
Document Index: 294143810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5211', '§ 5201', '§ 1391', '§ 1332', '§ 1331', '§ 5211', '§ 5225', '§ 5201', '§ 5213', '§ 5219', '§ 5220']

Kahlo v. Bank of America | Troubled Asset Relief Program | Foreclosure
Description: Class action complaint brought in U.S. District Court in WA state against Bank of America for failure to give HAMP modifications.
Class action complaint brought in U.S. District Court in WA state against Bank of America for failure to give HAMP modifications.
Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1
Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, KAMIE KAHLO and DANIEL KAHLO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
No. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
010174-11 359827 V1
1918 EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I. II. III. IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................................5 PARTIES .............................................................................................................................6 FACTUAL BACKGROUND..............................................................................................6 A. B. C. D. E. The Foreclosure Crisis .............................................................................................6 Creation of the Home Affordable Modification Program........................................7 Duties of a Participating Servicer Under HAMP.....................................................9 Plaintiffs’ Effort to Obtain a Loan Modification Under HAMP............................14 Class Allegations ...................................................................................................17
COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT / BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ......................................................................................................20 COUNT II: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, IN THE ALTERNATIVE .........................................22
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COUNT III: VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, RCW 19.86.010 et seq. ......................................................................................................22 COUNT IV: UNJUST ENRICHMENT .......................................................................................23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................23 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.........................................................................................................24
the Treasury Department implemented the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) – a detailed program designed to stem the foreclosure crisis by providing affordable mortgage loan modifications and other alternatives to foreclosure to eligible borrowers. I. Bank of America agreed that it would participate in one or more programs that TARP authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish necessary to minimize foreclosures. 12 U. Bank of America signed a contract with the U. both through its own review and in response to requests for modification from individual homeowners. Companies that accepted money under the TARP are subject to mandatory inclusion in HAMP as are certain classes of loans. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. Bank of America accepted another $10 billion in TARP funds along with a partial guarantee against losses on $118 billion in mortgage-related assets. In January 2009. Bank of America accepted $15 billion in funds from the United States Government as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). § 5211. 3. 2. Consistent with the TARP mandate. namely those held by Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). 2009 (attached as Exhibit 1 and included by reference) agreeing to comply with the HAMP requirements and to perform loan modification and other foreclosure prevention services described in the program guidelines. must: • identify loans that are subject to modification under the HAMP program. INTRODUCTION In October 2008. acting through its subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1. in connection with its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . By accepting this payment.S.S.C. The guidelines issued by the Treasury Department set forth a detailed process whereby a participating servicer such as Bank of America. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 .1 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. Treasury on April 17.
the federal government incentivizes participating servicers to make adjustments to existing mortgage obligations in order to make the monthly payments more affordable.2 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. and restrictions on the way a servicer may report the borrower to credit reporting agencies. participating servicers are also required to provide written notices to every mortgage borrower that has been evaluated for a loan modification. Servicers receive $1. and • provide a permanently modified loan to those homeowners who comply with the requirements during the trial period. 5. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . this incentive is countered by a number of financial factors that make it more profitable for a mortgage servicer such as Bank of America to avoid modification and to continue to keep a mortgage in a state of CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Under HAMP. HAMP and its associated directives also set prohibitions against certain conduct including demanding upfront payments in order to be evaluated for a loan modification. Though Bank of America accepted $25 billion in TARP funds and entered into a contract obligating itself to comply with the HAMP directives and to extend loan modifications for the benefit of distressed homeowners.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 4 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4.000.00 for each HAMP modification. • institute a modified loan with a reduced payment amount as per a mandated formula. However. • collect financial and other personal information from the homeowners to evaluate whether the homeowner is eligible for a loan modification under HAMP. Whether the homeowner qualifies for a modification or not. 6. instituting or continuing foreclosures while a borrower is being evaluated for a loan modification. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. whether or not the borrower has been found eligible. Bank of America has systematically failed to comply with the terms of the HAMP directives and has regularly and repeatedly violated several of its prohibitions. that is effective for a three-month trial period for borrowers that are eligible for a modification.
Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 5 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 default or distress and to push loans toward foreclosure. The servicer’s right to See Thompson. On information and belief. 7. • Entering into a permanent modification will often delay a servicer’s ability to recover advances it is required to make to investors of the unpaid principal and interest payment of a non-performing loan. 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . • Fees that Bank of America charges borrowers that are in default constitute a significant source of revenue to the servicer.3 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. This presents a substantial cost and loss of revenue that can be avoided by keeping the loan in a state of temporary modification or lingering default. Consequently. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . National Consumer Law Center (October 2009). Bank of America does not own a significant majority of the loans on which it functions as a servicer. as the servicer collects as to each loan it services in a pool of loans. Aside from income Bank of America directly receives. late fees and “process management fees” are often added to the principal loan amount thereby increasing the unpaid balance in a pool of loans and increasing the amount of the servicer’s monthly service fee. This is especially true in cases where the mortgage is owned by a third-party investor and is merely serviced by the servicer such as Bank of America. • The monthly service fee that Bank of America.. Why Servicers Foreclose When They Should Modify and Other Puzzles of Servicer Behavior. is calculated as a fixed percentage of the unpaid principal balance of the loans in the pool. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. Diane E. modifying a loan to reduce the principal balance results in a lower monthly fee to the servicer. Economic factors that discourage Bank of America from meeting its contractual obligations under HAMP by facilitating loan modifications include the following: 1 • Bank of America may be required to repurchase loans from the investor in order to permanently modify the loan.
by making payments. delayed.e. Bank of America has ignored its contractual obligation to modify their loans permanently. Despite Plaintiffs’ efforts. Bank of America has serially strung out. an illegal $1. and who have met the requirements for participation in the HAMP program. In addition to its obligations based on its contract with the Treasury Department.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 6 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. rather than a foreclosure.4 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. i. Rather than allocating adequate resources and working diligently to reduce the number of loans in danger of default by establishing permanent modifications. and otherwise hindered the modification processes that it contractually undertook to facilitate when it accepted billions of dollars from the United States.400 upfront payment to Bank of America in order to even be considered for loan modification.. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. when requested. have not received permanent loan modifications to which they are entitled. Bank of America has entered into written agreements with individual homeowners. • recover expenses from an investor in a loan modification. Fixed overhead costs involved in successfully performing loan modifications involve up-front cost to the servicer for additional staffing. By failing to live up to its obligations under the terms of the agreement it entered into with the Department of the Treasury. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . for temporary loan modifications that must be converted to permanent loan modifications. at least hundreds of Washington homeowners are wrongfully being deprived of an opportunity to cure their delinquencies. pay their mortgage loans and save their homes. and expenses such as property valuation. Plaintiffs and a similar class of borrowers have complied with the agreements by submitting the documentation asked of them and. who are eligible for permanent loan modifications. including Plaintiffs. credit reports and financing costs. Bank of America’s delay and obstruction tactics have taken various forms with the common result that homeowners with loans serviced by Bank of America. physical infrastructure. Because Bank of America is not meeting its contractual obligations. 10. 9. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . is often less clear and less generous.
Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 7 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and the terms of the contracts it formed with individual homeowners.C. and are illegal under Washington law. § 5201 et seq. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. 11.5 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. Bank of America has left thousands of borrowers in a state of limbo – often worse off than they were before they sought a modification from Bank of America.S. JURISDICTION This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U. 12 U. 13.C. and its subsidiary BAC Home Loans Servicing. Defendants regularly conduct business in this District. § 1391(b) inasmuch as the unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed in this District. exclusive of interest and costs. Daniel Kahlo and Kamie Kahlo bring this suit on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated Washington residents (“Plaintiffs”) to challenge the failure of Defendant Bank of America Bank. § 1332(d)(2) in that the matter is a class action wherein the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 .S.000. Defendants’ actions violate their contractual obligations. 15. third-party beneficiaries to a contract between Bank of America and the U. their failure to honor agreements directly with individual homeowners to modify mortgages to a point that they are affordable and sustainable. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties in this action by the fact that Defendants are corporations that are licensed to do business in the state of Washington or otherwise conduct business in the state of Washington.S. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 14. Treasury that was entered into pursuant to and under the direction of TARP.C. 12. II. and the named Plaintiffs reside in this District.A. thwart the purpose of HAMP.S.S. and members of the Class are citizens of a State different from the Defendants. and to recover any illegally collected upfront fees. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U. N. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.C.000. §§ 1331 and 1367 in that the Plaintiffs are intended. LP (collectively referred to as “Defendants” or “Bank of America”) to honor the terms of their agreement with the United States Treasury for the intended benefit of homeowners.
Defendants are collectively referred to as “Bank of America” and are currently doing business and maintaining office branches in Seattle and throughout the state of Washington.000 homes in Washington State. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 .gov/reports/library/report100909-cop. In the third quarter of 2009. foreclosures were filed on 10. the numbers continue to rise. The Foreclosure Crisis 18. 16.senate. III.2 19. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. IV. the United States has been in a foreclosure crisis.. PARTIES Plaintiffs Daniel Kahlo and Kamie Kahlo are a married couple residing in Seattle. Available at http://cop. Oct. 2009). Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing.6 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. LP is a subsidiary of Bank of America. 15. In 2008. is a mortgage lender headquartered in Charlotte.375 Washington properties.realtytrac.S. Over the last three years. Foreclosure Activity Increases 81 Percent in 2008 (Jan. CA. Washington. N.3 20. N.cfin. Available at http://www.aspx ?channelid=9&accnt=0&itemid=5 681. 9. RealtyTrac Staff.A. The number of Washington properties with foreclosure filings in 2008 was 72% higher than in 2007 and 117% higher than in 2006 – more than double the number of filings in the span of two years. 17. A FACTUAL BACKGROUND congressional oversight panel has recently noted that one in eight U. More than 9.A. 2009 report at 3. and is located in Calabasas. a 33% increase over the same Congressional Oversight Panel.200 foreclosure filings were initiated in 2008 in the Seattle area alone (more than an 84% increase over the previous year).com/contentmanagement/pressrelease. 3 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . NC.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 8 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. Washington has been no exception. mortgages is currently in foreclosure or default. Defendant Bank of America. According to 2009 data. foreclosure filings were initiated on more than 26.
§ 5211. 25. Available at http://www. (2009) 23. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . Properties with Foreclosure Filings in 2009 (Jan.com/contentmanagement/pressrelease. Economists predict that interest rate resets on the riskiest of lending products will not reach their zenith until sometime in 2011.realtytrac.com/so13/papers. and Financial Crisis. the Secretary may purchase or make commitments to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions. Foreclosure Activity Increases 5 Percent in Q3 (Oct. Id. or TARP. U. 15.4 Overall in 2009.aspx?channelid=9&itemid=8333 5 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . The Act grants the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 12 U. 573.ssrn. Working Paper No.000 individual properties in Washington had foreclosure filings against them which.5 21.S. Creation of the Home Affordable Modification Program 22.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 9 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 period of 2008.aspx? channelid=9&accnt=0&itemid=77 06.7 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. The purpose of the Act is to grant the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system. 2010).realtytrac. 12 U. § 5225. Deregulation.S.C. and ensure that such authority is used in a manner that “protects home values” and “preserves homeownership. Under TARP. RealtyTrac Staff.com/contentmanagement/pressrelease.C. Congress allocated up to $700 billion to the United States Department of the Treasury for TARP. Securitization.C. Available at http://www. 2009).S. Figure 30. 24. the “Act”).2 at 9.” Id. 2008 and amended it with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on February 17. RealtyTrac Year End Report Shows Record 2. 2009 (together. Economic Stability. 12 U.8 Million U. Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 on October 3.S. B. while slightly less than 2008. See Eric Tymoigne. over 36. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. RealtyTrac Staff.A § 5201 et seq.S.cfm?abstract_id=1458413 (citing a Credit Suisse study showing monthly mortgage rate resets). still constitutes an increase of over 100% from 2007 levels and an increase of more than 400% over 2004. 14. available at http://papers.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .” Id. § 5213(3). It is this subprogram that is at issue in this case. The Treasury Department has allocated at least $75 billion to HAMP. primarily with TARP funds. HAMP is funded by the federal government. In exercising its authority to administer TARP. 27. the Treasury Secretary and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced the Making Home Affordable program. of which at least $50 billion is TARP money. 32.S. or HAMP. The Making Home Affordable program consists of two subprograms. 29. 31. pursuant to their authority under the Act.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 10 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. The Act grants authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to use credit enhancement and loan guarantees to “facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures. with regard to any assets acquired by the Secretary that are backed by residential real estate.” 12 U. 30. that the Secretary “shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners” and use the Secretary’s authority over servicers to encourage them to take advantage of programs to “minimize foreclosures. the Act mandates that the Secretary “shall” take into consideration the “need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities.S. The first sub-program relates to the creation of refinancing products for individuals with minimal or negative equity in their home. 2009. and is now known as the Home Affordable Modification Program.C. The second sub-program relates to the creation and implementation of a uniform loan modification protocol. § 5219. 28.S. and is now known as the Home Affordable Refinance Program. 12 U. The Act imposes parallel mandates to implement plans to maximize assistance to homeowners and to minimize foreclosures.C. On February 18.C.” 12 U. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . or HARP.8 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. The Act further mandates. § 5220.
. Steve R. N. This directive and the directives to follow were issued to provide guidance for adoption and implementation of HAMP “to provide a borrower with sustainable monthly payments. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . Home Affordable Modification Program. These documents together describe the basic activities required under HAMP and are incorporated by reference in both of the TPP Agreements signed by Plaintiffs as well as herein. or other communications. 2009. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE.” Id. The SPA executed by Mr.” attached hereto as Exhibit 4) and Supplemental Directive 09-08 (“SD 09-08.” SPA I. executed a Servicer Participation Agreement (“SPA”) with the federal government.A.” “procedures..A. 2. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in connection with the duties of Participating Servicers. 2009.A. Bailey. frequently asked questions. of Bank of America. and are incorporated by reference herein. 34.6 35. letters. These documents together are known as the “Program Documentation” (SPA I.” On April 17.” SD 09-01at p.9 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE.” referred to as “Supplemental Directives” issued by the Treasury.” attached hereto as Exhibit 2).A. directives. Bailey incorporates all “guidelines. Duties of a Participating Servicer Under HAMP 33. and states that the national mortgage modification program was “aimed at helping 3 to 4 million at-risk homeowners – both those who are in default and those who are at imminent risk of default – by reducing monthly payments to sustainable levels. 1. bulletins.” attached hereto as Exhibit 3) and Supplemental Documentation-Frequently Asked Questions (“HAMPF AQS. instructions.” and “supplemental documentation.” attached hereto as Exhibit 5). A copy of this SPA is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The first Supplemental Directive (“SD”) was issued on April 6. Because Bank of America accepted $25 billion in federal funds and additional loan guarantees. The Program Documentation requires Participating Servicers to evaluate all loans which are 60 or more days delinquent or appear to be in imminent default (as defined by the The Program Documentation also includes Supplemental Directive 09-01 (“SD 09-01. The SPA mandates that a Participating Servicer “shall perform” the activities described in the Program Documentation “for all mortgage loans it services. 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . it was required to participate in HAMP for the loans on which it functions as a loan “servicer. Base Net Present Value (NPV) Model Specifications (“NPV Overview. 36.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 11 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C.).
SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. These steps include capitalizing accrued interest and escrow advances. extending the term The eligibility criteria for HAMP. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . 37. attached hereto as Exhibit 2. and that the “borrower has a monthly mortgage payment ratio of greater than 31 percent” of the borrower’s monthly income. that the property be occupied.10 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 3-4. the servicer must apply the modification steps enumerated in the Program Documentation.7 38.” SD 9-01 at p. Once the participating servicer has determined a mortgage borrower’s eligibility in the HAMP. First. A Mortgage is eligible for the HAMP if criteria enumerated in the Program Documentation are met.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 12 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Program Documentation). reducing the interest rate. upon successful completion of the TPP. the goal of a HAMP modification is for owner-occupants to receive a modification of a first-lien loan by which the monthly mortgage payment is reduced to 31% of their monthly income for the next five years. Id. at pp. that the borrower documents a financial hardship (as defined in the Program Documentation). as well as the formula used to calculate monthly mortgage payments under the modification. the Participating Servicer must collect income and hardship information to determine if the borrower is eligible for a HAMP modification. 4. A HAMP Modification consists of two stages. Generally speaking. 39. Aside from criteria that require that the loan be a first lien mortgage originated before 2009. Second. the Servicer must offer the homeowner a permanent modification. if a borrower contacts a Participating Servicer regarding a HAMP modification. are explained in detail in SD 09-01. 13. a Participating Servicer is required to gather information and. the most salient conditions are that the loan is delinquent or default is reasonably foreseeable. to determine which loans meet the HAMP eligibility criteria. in the stated order of succession until the borrower’s monthly mortgage payment ratio is reduced to 31 percent of the borrower’s monthly income. The servicer must “provide a borrower with clear and understandable written information about the material terms. 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 40. if appropriate. costs. offer the homeowner a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”). SD 0901 p. In addition. and risks of the modified mortgage loan in a timely manner to enable borrowers to make informed decisions. and that it be the borrower’s principal residence.
4 at Q. 9. see also Ex. See Ex. See SD 09-01 p. Ex.11 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 42. a servicer must offer the borrower a TPP. 14. After applying the enumerated modification steps to calculate the modified payment amount. the rate may escalate annually by up to one percent until it reaches an interest cap which is the lesser of: (i) the fully indexed and fully amortizing contract rate or (ii) the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage market Survey rate for 30year fixed rate mortgage loans on the date the modification is prepared. 8-10. See SD 09-01 pp. 41. the second stage of the HAMP process is triggered. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . 2. The payment amount and interest rate in the modified loan are fixed for five years and equal to the payment amount and interest rate in the TPP. 43. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. see also SD 09-01 (Ex. Any foreclosure sale must be suspended and no new foreclosure action may be initiated during the trial period. 83. 3 at p. following: • Proceeding with a foreclosure sale. 2) at p. HAMP prohibits a participating servicer from taking several actions including the CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . • Requiring a borrower to make an initial contribution payment pending the processing of the trial period plan before the plan starts. in which the homeowner must be offered a permanent modification. the rate is fixed for the remainder of the term. and providing a principal forbearance (if necessary). and until the borrower has been considered and found ineligible for other available foreclosure prevention options. Thereafter. 4 at Q63. The TPP consists of a three-month period in which the homeowner makes mortgage payments based on the modification formula stated in the Program Documentation. Once capped. Bank of America uses a standard form agreement to offer TPPs to eligible homeowners.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 13 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and re-amortizing the loan (if necessary). If the homeowner executes the TPP Agreement. This agreement describes the homeowner’s duties and obligations under the plan and promises a permanent HAMP modification for those homeowners that execute the agreement and fulfill the documentation and payment requirements. complies with all documentation requirements and makes all three TPP monthly payments.
4 at Q. In situations where an eligible borrower successfully completed the trial period and should have been converted to a permanent modification. For borrowers who are current when they enter a trial period. Ex. 2009 addresses situations in which the borrower has completed the TPP but has not yet received a permanent modification. 8 at Q1222-01. is not offered an official HAMP modification. • Assessing prepayment penalties for full or partial prepayment as part of the modification. the servicer should report in such a manner that accurately reflects the borrower’s current workout status. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 14 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 44. SD 09-08 (Ex. 22. but for reasons beyond their control were not timely evaluated for a permanent modification. • Reporting borrowers as delinquent to credit reporting bureaus without explanation. 8 at Q1230-02. The HAMP presumes that final modifications will be extended and finalized upon completion of a TPP or shortly thereafter. HAMP Supplemental Documentation dated December 22. SD 09-01 (Ex. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . the servicer should report the borrower current but on modified payment if the borrower makes timely payments during the trial period. 1. 45. 5) at p. or is at risk of losing eligibility for HAMP because they have failed to provide required financial documentation. the servicer must promptly make a determination as to whether the borrower is eligible for a permanent HAMP modification. 25. but in no event later than sixty days after discovering the error. If the borrower is eligible. For borrowers who are delinquent when they enter the trial period. then the servicer must offer the borrower a permanent HAMP modification as soon as possible.12 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 2) at p. Ex. Ex. The HAMP requires a participating servicer to send a Borrower Notice to every borrower that has been evaluated for HAMP but is not offered a Trial Period Plan. • Soliciting borrowers to opt out of consideration for HAMP during the temporary review period.
Trial periods have been started on only 237. 47. The Treasury Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.S. Of those. Bank of America also covenanted that it would perform the services required under the Program Documentation and the Agreement in accordance with the practices. and no less than which Bank of America exercises for itself under similar circumstances. experience and skills to perform the Services. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Bank of America covenanted that all services will be performed in compliance with all applicable Federal.066. By entering into the SPA. at ¶ 5(d).025 HAMP-eligible loans in its portfolio. high professional standards of care.766 of these loans. and that Bank of America would use qualified individuals with suitable training. Under the SPA.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 15 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 46. 1 at ¶ 5(b). Mortgage borrowers who request to be evaluated for a modification under HAMP routinely face unexplained delays and go weeks or months with no communication from Bank of America after providing the requested information. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . the U. Bank of America has routinely failed to live up to its end of the TPP Agreement and offer permanent modifications to homeowners.761 resulted in permanent modifications (only 5% of the started Trial modifications and just over 1% of the eligible pool) even though many more homeowners had made the payments and submitted the documentation required by the TPP Agreement. Bank of America has routinely failed to meet its obligations under the Program Directive. Treasury reported that Bank of America had 1. Bank of America regularly falsely informs borrowers that it did not receive requested information and demands that documents be re-sent. education. In January 2010. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. state and local laws. Ex.13 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 48. specifically including state laws designed to prevent unfair. Id. just 12. SPA. discriminatory or predatory lending practices. 49. and degree of attention used in a well managed operation. Borrowers who attempt to contact Bank of America by telephone face long periods of time on hold and are transferred between service representatives in a deliberate effort to cause the borrower to give up and to terminate the call.
Bank of America is leaving homeowners in limbo.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 16 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 50. Over several months.000 per year and they were having difficulty paying their monthly mortgage payments. and Mrs. Plaintiffs own and operate a small. Mr. Mr. relocation costs. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. Mr. Though they provided all information that Bank of America asked of them. and Mrs. Bank of America informed them that it would not consider any workout arrangement or other forbearance agreement unless and until they were delinquent on their mortgage and advised Plaintiffs to become delinquent on their mortgage. Plaintiffs contacted Bank of America to inform them of their difficulty and to inquire as to a possible workout arrangement.14 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. The mortgage required monthly principal and interest payments of $1. Kahlo followed Bank of America’s advice and fell behind on their mortgage payments in approximately the autumn of 2008. wondering if their home can be saved and preventing homeowners from pursuing other avenues of resolution. they refinanced their mortgage with Bank of America. Plaintiffs’ Effort to Obtain a Loan Modification Under HAMP 51. D. short sales or other means of curing their default. and Mrs. their income had dropped to approximately $20. their efforts were unsuccessful. including using the money they are putting toward TPP payments to fund bankruptcy plans. Plaintiffs Daniel and Kamie Kahlo purchased their home in 1999. Kahlo made the regularly scheduled payments on their loan for several years and remained current until 2008. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .460. 53. 54. as a result of the economic downturn. In early 2009. the Kahlos began an effort to obtain a loan modification through Defendant Bank of America. In or about 2001. independent construction and design business. Kahlo submitted financial information and applications to Bank of America in an effort to obtain a modification or forbearance agreement. In 2008. By failing to live up to the TPP Agreement and convert TPPs into permanent modifications. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . 52.
Hartung. Kahlo heard about the possibility of obtaining a loan modification through the HAMP program.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 17 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 55. this letter will also constitute your acceptance CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 2009. Kahlo received a Terms and Conditions Agreement from Bank of America summarizing the terms and conditions of the loan modification. On August 11. 2009. 2009. The documents Plaintiffs faxed included a signed HAMP Hardship Affidavit on a form provided by Bank of America. 2009. subject to the terms and conditions agreement. On July 28. and Mrs. 58. Bank of America claimed not to have received the letter. and statements showing their property tax account and homeowner’s insurance policy. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. In or about June 2009. tax returns. Plaintiffs requested and received instructions as to the information and documents Bank of America required to consider Plaintiffs for a loan modification under HAMP. Mr. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . The representative stated that she would send out the offer letter but that Plaintiffs would need to send an additional late fee payment of $289.12 in certified funds. 2009 stating. Plaintiffs sent all information requested of them to Bank of America via fax.400 in order to be considered for a HAMP loan modification. Bank of America acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ documents and demanded one full-month payment of $1. The Agreement was accompanied by a cover letter dated August 21. On August 20. Ms. 57.460. On July 15. bank statements. On August 30. who acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs’ payment and summarized the terms of the HAMP modification that Bank of America would offer. When signed by you. 2009. Plaintiffs sent Bank of America a full payment in the amount of $1. “[t]his letter constitutes our offer to modify the Mortgage identified above. 56. and Mrs. Plaintiffs sent a letter to Bank of America requesting to be considered for a loan modification through the HAMP program. Plaintiffs followed up with a telephone call a week later.15 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 59. Plaintiffs received a call from a Bank of America representative. Mr.
they are assured that they are indeed on a trial modification plan and told that they should continue making their payments. Hartung acknowledging receipt of their payment and stating that they were “good to go. Plaintiffs tendered their first payment of $781. and Mrs. The Terms and Conditions Agreement states that the principal balance will be $209. 63. payment terms. No additional summary of interest rate. 61. Bank of America accepted this payment. On December 1.854.55%. costs or fees accompanied the Terms and Conditions Agreement. Plaintiffs did not receive the final modification documents they were told to expect. Plaintiffs received a notice from BAC Home Loans stating that their loan was in default and claiming a principal balance of $211. LP. 2009 and each month thereafter. 2009. 2009. Plaintiffs received an email from Ms. On December 5.” A copy of this letter and the accompanying agreement are attached hereto as Exhibit 9.88 as of CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . On November 30. They made numerous calls and sent emails to Bank of America.” The representative further stated that Plaintiffs would receive “final” modification documents at the time their first payment is due. 65. On September 2.82 effective until maturity. 2009. Plaintiffs received a letter stating that their Bank of America loan would be serviced by Bank of America Home Loan Servicing. 62.058. 60. Kahlo signed the Terms and Conditions Agreement the day they received it and returned it the following day thereby acknowledging their acceptance of Bank of America’s offer. 2009. Mr. In late October.79 to Bank of America on October 30.16 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. Bank of America has accepted each of these payments. 64. They further tendered payment of $289.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 18 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and agreement to these terms and conditions.12. with a corresponding principal and interest payment of $1.567.22 and requires Plaintiffs to make Principal and Interest payments of $781.79 beginning November 1. Plaintiffs have sent a payment of the amount required under the Terms and Conditions Agreement.25% would remain effective for five years and would rise to 5. This amount and corresponding interest rate of 3. 2009. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 .
including requests that they re-send a copy of the Terms and Conditions Agreement because part of it had been “lost. as required by HAMP. Bank of America claimed that Plaintiffs’ loan had not been permanently modified. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . 68. In February 2010. 70. and all their responsibilities under the terms of the HAMP program directives. despite their compliance with HAMP requirements and their continued monthly payments under the Agreement provided by Bank of America. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full. and Mrs. since April 13. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. 2009. have requested or been otherwise eligible for a TPP under the terms of HAMP Program Documentation and who have not received a permanent loan modification ether because they have not been offered a TPP by Bank of America or because they did not receive a permanent loan modification after they complied with their obligations under HAMP as conveyed to them by Bank of America.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 19 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 November 22. Like hundreds or even thousands of Washington residents. on behalf of themselves and a Class consisting of: All Washington homeowners whose loans have been serviced by one or both Defendants and who. without any assurances that their home will not be foreclosed. Despite their compliance with the Terms and Conditions Agreement. 2009. Kahlo have been living in limbo. Plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Plaintiffs still had not received the final documents they were told to expect. They have invested their limited resources in modified payments based on the promise that doing so would result in a permanent loan modification. After several inquiries. Plaintiffs called the number listed on the notice and were told that the notice was in error and that their loan had been modified. Mr. Mr. 66. E. Kahlo have not been provided a Loan Modification Agreement under the HAMP Program guidelines to date. and Mrs.17 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 67.” Bank of America informed Plaintiffs via email that the Terms and Conditions Agreement was merely an “offer” but that the modification has not been approved. Class Allegations 69.
Plaintiffs believe that the 7 Class encompasses many hundreds and perhaps thousands of individuals whose identities can be 8 readily ascertained from Defendants’ books and records. 22 c. Plaintiffs believe the amount in Plaintiffs do not know the exact size or identities of the members of the proposed CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . 12 74. and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. 6 class. their family members. There are questions of law and fact that are common 16 to the class. and on form contracts and uniform 15 loan modification processing requirements. but are not limited to the following: 18 a. 21 intended for the benefit of Class members. 20 b. scope and operation of Bank of America’s obligations to All members of the Class have been subject to and affected by the same conduct. Defendants’ current or former employees. Therefore. officers. 17 These questions include. 19 homeowners under HAMP.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 20 of 26 1 2 71. representatives. their affiliates and subsidiaries. along Whether the manner in which Bank of America has executed the duties it Whether Bank of America breached its duties under HAMP that were The nature. creates a Whether Bank of America’s receipt of an executed TPP Agreement. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. directors. acting as agent for the United States Treasury.18 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . 11 controversy exceeds $5 million. 5 72. 13 The claims are based on the terms of a single unifying contract between Bank of America and 14 Fannie Mae. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities. 25 d. Defendants. since such information is in the exclusive control of Defendants. the proposed Class is so 9 numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. the members of this Court and its staff. 3 4 All Washington homeowners who paid Bank of America an upfront fee in order to be evaluated for loan modification. 23 undertook as part of the HAMP program violates its duty of good faith and 24 fair dealing. agents. 26 with supporting documentation and three monthly payments. Based on the size of the modifications at issue. 10 73.
consumer protection actions. Whether Bank of America’s written representations to homeowners stating that they would receive permanent loan modifications upon successful completion of the trial period and then failing to deliver such permanent modification constitutes an unfair or deceptive practice under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). The individual named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class. binding contract or otherwise legally obligates Bank of America to offer Class members a permanent HAMP modification. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . Whether the above practices caused Class members to suffer injury. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . Whether Bank of America demanded and collected initial payments from eligible homeowners in violation of HAMP provisions. e. j. were subject to the terms of the same agreement and were met with the same absence of a permanent modification. Whether Bank of America’s failure to provide permanent HAMP modifications in these circumstances amounts to a breach of contract and/or a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They are committed to the vigorous prosecution of the Class’s claims and have retained attorneys who are qualified to pursue this litigation and have experience in class actions – in particular. 76. k. f. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 21 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 75. and The proper measure of damages and the appropriate injunctive relief. Whether the above practices affect the public interest within the meaning of the CPA. The claims of the individual named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class and do not conflict with the interests of any other members of the Class in that both the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were subject to the same conduct. g.19 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. i. h. Whether the above practices were acts within trade or commerce within the meaning of the CPA.
This putative class action meets the requirements of Fed. In addition to duties to Plaintiffs based on their status as third-party beneficiaries Bank of America has breached its contractual duties by failing to provide eligible By entering into the SPA and accepting valuable consideration including The SPA and the explicitly incorporated Program Documentation constitute a CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . A class action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient adjudication of this controversy. COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT / BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 80. The Agreement sent by Bank of America to Plaintiffs constitutes a valid offer. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full. A class action regarding the issues in this case does not create any problems of manageability. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of 12 81.20 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. 78. 13 the Class described above. 79. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . to administer its contractual obligations with principles of good faith and fair 20 dealing. 21 84. R. 23(b)(2) and Fed. 24 85. 17 83. 15 contract for which Plaintiffs and the Class are intended beneficiaries. Treasury. Bank of America entered into individual contracts directly with Plaintiffs. Civ.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 22 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 77. Civ. R.S. 22 borrowers with the opportunity to accept permanent loan modifications and by wrongfully 23 collecting introductory payments. P. P. Bank of America has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Class as a whole. 25 of the SPA. 23(b)(3). and under which Bank of 16 America has undertaken duties to act for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class. Bank of America covenanted. 26 86. 18 $25 billion in funds from the U. on behalf of itself and 19 its subsidiaries. 14 82.
89. By executing the Agreement and returning it to Bank of America. Acceptance of this offer occurred when Bank of America accepted Plaintiffs’ TPP payments. and by collecting upfront fees. along with the supporting documentation. To the extent that the contracts were subject to a condition subsequently providing Bank of America an opportunity to review the documentation submitted by Plaintiffs when they returned the signed TPP. and supervise adequately trained staff. instituting and/or continuing with foreclosure proceedings against borrowers in a trial program.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 23 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 87. 94. failing to provide written notices required by HAMP. routinely demanding information already in its files. willing and able to perform under the contracts by continuing to make TPP payments and provide documentation. Bank of America breached those contracts. Plaintiffs gave up the ability to pursue other means of saving their home. and failing to follow through on written and implied promises. 88. making inaccurate calculations and determinations of Plaintiffs’ eligibility for HAMP. By failing to offer Plaintiffs permanent HAMP modifications. 91. Plaintiffs’ return of the Agreement constitutes an offer. Plaintiffs have suffered harm and are threatened with additional harm from Bank of America’s breach. Alternatively. Bank of America routinely and regularly breach its duties under both the SPA and their contract with individual Plaintiffs by failing to retain. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. By making those payments. 90. this condition was waived by Bank of America and/or it is estopped to assert it as a defense to Plaintiffs’ claims. and by deliberately acting to delay and otherwise frustrate loan modification processes. By making TPP payments both during and after the TPP. such as restructuring their debt under CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT .21 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. Plaintiffs’ TPP payments to Bank of America constitute consideration. 93. Plaintiffs forego other remedies that might be pursued to save their homes. Plaintiffs and Bank of America thereby formed valid contracts. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . Plaintiffs remain ready. 92. 95. employ. Plaintiffs accepted Bank of America’s offer.
Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of the Class described above. Plaintiffs’ reliance was to their detriment. 97. 98. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . COUNT III VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. 103.86. made a representation to Plaintiffs that if they returned the TPP Agreement executed and with supporting documentation. payments.22 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. including its practice of leading borrowers to believe that it will permanently CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . RCW 19. by submitting TPP permanent HAMP modifications and have lost the opportunity to fund other strategies to deal with their default and avoid foreclosure. 102. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each member of the Class described above. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation above as if set forth herein in full. Bank of America.010 ET SEQ. On information and belief. such as selling their home. Bank of America’s TPP Agreement was intended to induce Plaintiffs to rely on it and make monthly TPP payments. by way of its TPP Agreements. or pursuing other strategies to deal with their default. and made their TPP payments. 100. Plaintiffs’ reliance was reasonable. 104. 99. The conduct of Bank of America as set forth herein constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Given the language in the TPP Agreement. Plaintiffs have yet to receive Plaintiffs did indeed rely on Bank of America’s representation. COUNT II PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 24 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the bankruptcy code. 101. they would receive a permanent HAMP modification. some putative Class members have suffered additional harm in the form of foreclosure activity against their homes. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. IN THE ALTERNATIVE 96. 105.
Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 25 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 modify their mortgage loans upon successful completion of a trial program. 111.23 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. deceptive. COUNT IV UNJUST ENRICHMENT 110. unreasonable and unlawful practices as alleged herein. alternative. Certify this case as a class action and appoint the named Plaintiffs to be Class representatives and their counsel to be Class counsel. To the extent no breach of contract claim is sustained. the Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief: A. Bank of America’s conduct as set forth herein proximately caused injury in fact to the business or property of Plaintiffs and Class members. Enter a judgment declaring the acts and practices of Bank of America complained of herein to constitute a breach of contract and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . and should be enjoined from continuing to engage in these unlawful. and due to the illegal collection of upfront fees. Bank of America is liable to Plaintiffs and Class members for damages in an amount to be determined at trial. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 . PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE. including attorneys’ fees. 112. this Count is pled in the Class in violation of law and without performing a loan modification. As such. Bank of America collected an upfront fee from Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiffs repeat and reallege every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. B. 108. commerce. 107. 109. Bank of America has been unjustly enriched. costs and statutory treble damages. 106. Bank of America’s conduct as set forth herein affects the public interest because it Bank of America’s conduct as set forth herein occurred in the course of trade or was part of a generalized course of conduct affecting numerous customers in this State.
Award actual and statutory damages to the Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be proven at trial. G. and H.24 010174-11 359827 V1 1918 EIGHTH AVENUE. Brown. Suite 3300 Seattle. including the fees and costs of experts. Berman.com ari@hbsslaw. Order specific performance of Bank of America’s contractual obligations together with other relief required by contract and law. Order Bank of America to adopt and enforce a policy that requires appropriate training of their employees and agents regarding their duties under HAMP. Grant Plaintiffs and the Class such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. SUITE 3300 • SEATTLE. Grant a permanent or final injunction enjoining Bank of America’s agents and employees. E. D. WSBA #29570 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue. WA 98101 (206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594 .Case 2:10-cv-00488-JLR Document 1 Filed 03/22/10 Page 26 of 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 dealing. Berman Steve W. from continuing to harm Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. C. as well as a declaration that they are required by the doctrine of promissory estoppel to offer permanent modifications to Class members. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action. affiliates and subsidiaries. WSBA #12536 Ari Y. 2010 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP By: s/ Steve W. together with reasonable attorneys’ fees. DATED: March 22. Washington 98101 (206) 623-7292 steve@hbsslaw.com 21 22 23 24 25 26 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT . F. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Documents Similar To Kahlo v. Bank of America