Opinion ID: 68520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Complaint

Text: According to the Maduras’ complaint, in July 2000, Full Spectrum sent the Maduras loan documents, which they signed and sent back. On July 26, 2000, the Maduras and Full Spectrum closed the loan. Under the terms of the loan agreement, the Maduras borrowed $87,750 at an adjustable interest rate of 14.375 3 percent, secured by their principal residence.1 On July 31, 2000, Countrywide purchased the loan from Full Spectrum. In March 2001, the Maduras called Countrywide and requested to repay their loan in full. Countrywide informed them that a prepayment penalty applied and later sent them a payoff demand statement that included a $5,036.84 prepayment penalty. The Maduras allege that the loan documents they signed did not include a prepayment penalty. According to the Maduras, Full Spectrum and Countrywide destroyed those documents, created fraudulent copies of certain documents, including a Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”) disclosure statement and the adjustable rate note, and forged their signatures on these fraudulent documents. According to the Maduras, the forged documents contained conditions to which they never agreed, including a prepayment penalty. In subsequent communications, the defendants refused to provide the Maduras with copies of the allegedly forged documents. The Maduras sent a notice to Countrywide demanding an immediate rescission of the loan agreement. The Maduras hired a forensic document examiner, who found that their signatures on the TILA disclosure statement and Mr. Madura’s initials on the adjustable rate 1 Although the federal complaint alleges that both Mr. and Mrs. Madura were borrowers, the defendants dispute this allegation. The defendants contend that only Mr. Madura signed the loan documents and that Mrs. Madura’s signature appeared only on documents releasing her marital and homestead interest in the property. 4 note were forged. The Maduras sent this report to Countrywide. In July 2001, Countrywide refused to rescind the loan agreement, claiming that Mr. Madura’s initials on the promissory note were not forged and that all disclosures had been provided. Nonetheless, Countrywide agreed to waive the prepayment penalty. The Maduras also alleged that they had filed a complaint in the Manatee County Circuit Court in Florida (“the state court action”) against Full Spectrum and Countrywide seeking rescission of the loan agreement. The Maduras attached to their federal complaint copies of: (1) their state court complaint, which raised state law claims of forgery, uttering a forged instrument, usury, conspiracy and racketeering; (2) an amended state court complaint, filed by Mrs. Madura, which alleged state law claims of fraud and fraud in the inducement and federal TILA claims; and (3) the forensic document examiner’s report. According to the Maduras’ federal complaint, the state court compelled Mr. Madura to arbitrate his claims. The Maduras’ federal complaint contained nineteen counts based on essentially the same facts as the state court action. In eleven counts, the Maduras sought rescission of the loan agreement and statutory damages for alleged TILA violations. In eight counts, the Maduras sought rescission and damages for state law claims of failure to contract, forgery, fraud, fraud in the inducement, usury, 5 uttering forged bills and violating the Florida Communications Fraud Act (“FCFA”).