IBJNews

Bank of America seeks to dismiss racketeering suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender, asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by foreclosed homeowners who accuse it of racketeering.

Dwayne Ransom Davis and Melisa Davis sued last month in Indianapolis, claiming Bank of America “routinely” submitted perjured affidavits to support foreclosures. They lost their Knightstown home last year.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank, in papers filed Wednesday with U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, said the Davises were improperly using a federal court to attack a state court proceeding and hadn’t shown they were injured.

“While plaintiffs claim they do not seek to overturn the judgment in the foreclosure action, it is clear they are trying to do precisely that,” in violation of federal law, Bank of America told the court.

The Davises didn’t ask the court to reverse their September 2009 foreclosure. They said in their complaint that the use of “robo-signers,” or people who sign affidavits attesting to facts underlying foreclosures without actual knowledge of them, constitutes racketeering.

They seek class-action, or group, status for anyone whose home was taken under such circumstances since October 2006, and compensatory damages, which would be tripled under U.S. racketeering laws.

“Plaintiffs plead no facts to support their claim that the result, i.e. a judgment of foreclosure, would have been any different had the alleged inaccuracies in the underlying affidavit been discovered in the state court proceeding,” Bank of America said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • show the note
    Shouldn't they be telling BoA to produce the note to show legal standing to foreclose? if they have no legal standing and foreclosed anyway, that's harm caused because those people still owe a debt to someone but now have no property for collateral.
  • Dismissal
    Why would the attorney file that case in federal court? Anyone who knows anything about the federal and state courts knows that the feds dismiss cases at the drop of a hat and get involved with weighing facts at the summary judgment stage when they shouldn't. Only about 20% of federal cases make it beyond summary judgment. JMS is a particularly bad judge to boot. She is very anti-plaintiff, especially when there are deep-pocket defendants which hire big law firms. That case should have been filed in state court

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. A Tilted Kilt at a water park themed hotel? Who planned that one? I guess the Dad's need something to do while the kids are on the water slides.

  2. Don't come down on the fair for offering drinks. This is a craft and certainly one that belongs in agriculture due to ingredients. And for those worrying about how much you can drink. I'm sure it's more to do with liability than anything else. They don't want people suing for being over served. If you want a buzz, do a little pre-drinking before you go.

  3. I don't drink but go into this "controlled area" so my friend can drink. They have their 3 drink limit and then I give my friend my 3 drink limit. How is the fair going to control this very likely situation????

  4. I feel the conditions of the alcohol sales are a bit heavy handed, but you need to realize this is the first year in quite some time that beer & wine will be sold at the fair. They're starting off slowly to get a gauge on how it will perform this year - I would assume if everything goes fine that they relax some of the limits in the next year or couple of years. That said, I think requiring the consumption of alcohol to only occur in the beer tent is a bit much. That is going to be an awkward situation for those with minors - "Honey, I'm getting a beer... Ok, sure go ahead... Alright see you in just a min- half an hour."

  5. This might be an effort on the part of the State Fair Board to manage the risk until they get a better feel for it. However, the blanket notion that alcohol should not be served at "family oriented" events is perhaps an oversimplification. and not too realistic. For 15 years, I was a volunteer at the Indianapolis Air Show, which was as family oriented an event as it gets. We sold beer donated by Monarch Beverage Company and served by licensed and trained employees of United Package Liquors who were unpaid volunteers. And where did that money go? To central Indiana children's charities, including Riley Hospital for Children! It's all about managing the risk.

ADVERTISEMENT