United Law Center Secures Another Reversal of a Lower Court Decision on Appeal in a Mortgage Modification Case for a Marin, Calif. Family

United Law Center (ULC), the California consumer law firm leading the litigation charge against wrongful foreclosure, modification and title fraud, is celebrating another First Appellate Dist. Court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision denying a causes of action under Negligence, Fraud & Deceit, Promissory Estoppel and Unfair Business Practices (UCL) in Akinshin v. Bank of America N.A. The Akinshins of San Rafael, Calif. alleged that their bank and its servicer told them that if they made three months of trial plan payments on their modification, they would receive a permanent modification, but were denied.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend
United Law Center (ULC) managing partner, Stephen J. Foondos.

United Law Center(ULC) managing partner, Stephen J. Foondos.

"The courts are finally beginning to see the pattern of bad behavior by the banks over the past decade and allow for the litigation process to unveil exactly how these homeowners were violated," explained Stephen Foondos, owner and founder of ULC.

Sacramento, CA (PRWEB) July 31, 2014

United Law Center (ULC), the California consumer law firm leading the litigation charge against wrongful foreclosure, modification and title fraud, is celebrating another First Appellate District Court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision denying a causes of action under Negligence (under a Negligent Misrepresentation theory), Fraud & Deceit, Promissory Estoppel (Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 430.10(e)) and Unfair Business Practices (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sect. 17200.) In Akinshin v. Bank of America N.A. (1st Dist. Ct. A138098 or WestLaw 2014 WL3728731), the Akinshins of San Rafael, Calif. alleged in their suit that their bank and its servicer conducted unfair or fraudulent business practices by telling them that if they made three months of trial plan payments on their modification, they would receive a permanent modification. The Akinshins were denied the modification after they made 12 such payments to their bank, after the bank extended the trial period. Based on a previously published California case won by ULC, Bushell v. JPMorgan/Chase (3rd Dist. Ct. App. No. C070643), homeowners in California may sue on a fraud cause of action for false promise if a bank promises a homeowner a modification, but ends up denying the modification. ULC has four published cases in California as well as multiple federal decisions. ULC recently prevailed in the Linza v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al. (Yuba County Superior Ct. No. 12-0000714) jury trial in Yuba County, Calif. where a jury awarded $16.2 million in damages to an individual homeowner for such violations. For more information please visit http://www.UnitedLawCenter.com.

Plaintiff Walter Akinshin sued his mortgage loan servicers, Bank of America, N.A., after he was denied a loan modification despite agreeing to a trial plan payment amount and paying all of the payments in the agreement on time. This is the common practice in the mortgage modification process:

1.    The bank allegedly told Akinshin that they would
        not consider a modification of his
        mortgage unless he stopped making payments; in reliance on that promise Akinshin
        stopped making payments and was promised a modification;
2.    For two years, the bank allegedly stalled in the evaluation process, allowing Akinshin’s
        account to accrue additional late fees and penalties which damaged his credit while the
        bank was further enriched with increased servicing fees;
3.    Allegedly, the bank falsely told Akinshin, a qualified borrower, that he did not qualify for a
        modification after he had made 12 trial plan payments based on the terms the bank had
        given him upon condition to receive a modification;

All causes of action were accepted by the First Appellate District Court including: Fraud and Deceit, Negligent Misrepresentation, Promissory Estoppel and Unfair Competition or “Unfair Business Practices”.

“Homeowners have been victimized by their servicers across the U.S. but California was especially vulnerable given the sheer volume of mortgage loans written in the 2000s,” explained United Law Center’s senior managing partner and founder, Stephen J. Foondos. “The violations are universal; we hear nearly the same story from every client and many others from across the U.S. The courts are finally beginning to see the pattern of bad behavior by the banks over the past decade and allow for the litigation process to unveil exactly how these homeowners were violated. “

Homeowners interested in determining if they have a case similar to Akinshin or other landmark mortgage real estate cases like Bushell or Linza ($16.2 million jury verdict against PHH Mortgage) can visit http://www.unitedlawcenter.com and take a few minutes to fill out a simple form about their experience with their mortgage company or servicer. They can also call United Law Center at 916-367-0622 to book a free consultation.

About United Law Center
United Law Center is the consumer law firm leading the litigation charge against wrongful foreclosure, modification and title fraud and other consumer oriented violations in California. With four published cases on the books in California and a recent $16.2 mortgage fraud jury verdict in Linza v. PHH Mortgage et al., United Law Center is securing case law in favor of homeowners fighting banks to keep their homes. Millions of homeowners have been affected by fraudulent banking practices and United Law Center is on a mission to expose those violations and bring justice for consumers. To determine if someone has a valid case, they are encouraged to visit http://www.unitedlawcenter.com to schedule a free consultation.
###


Contact

Follow us on: Contact's Google Plus