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. The deductible is entirely paid by the POWER account. No one ever has to contribute more than $25/month into the POWER account and it is often less. The only cost not paid out of the POWER account is the ER copay ($8-25) for non-emergent use of the ER. And under HIP 2.0, if a member calls the toll-free, 24 hour nurse line, and the nurse tells them to go to the ER, the copay is waived. It's also waived if the member is admitted to the hospital. Honestly, although it is certainly not "free" - I think Indiana has created a decent plan for the currently uninsured. Also consider that if a member obtains preventive care, she can lower her monthly contribution for the next year. Non-profits may pay up to 75% of the contribution on behalf of the member, and the member's employer may pay up to 50% of the contribution.

  2. I wonder if the governor could multi-task and talk to CMS about helping Indiana get our state based exchange going so Hoosiers don't lose subsidy if the court decision holds. One option I've seen is for states to contract with healthcare.gov. Or maybe Indiana isn't really interested in healthcare insurance coverage for Hoosiers.

  3. So, how much did either of YOU contribute? HGH Thank you Mr. Ozdemir for your investments in this city and your contribution to the arts.

  4. So heres brilliant planning for you...build a $30 M sports complex with tax dollars, yet send all the hotel tax revenue to Carmel and Fishers. Westfield will unlikely never see a payback but the hotel "centers" of Carmel and Fishers will get rich. Lousy strategy Andy Cook!

  5. AlanB, this is how it works...A corporate welfare queen makes a tiny contribution to the arts and gets tons of positive media from outlets like the IBJ. In turn, they are more easily to get their 10s of millions of dollars of corporate welfare (ironically from the same people who are against welfare for humans).

ADVERTISEMENT