IBJNews

Suit accuses Bank of America of fraud, racketeering

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Bank of America Corp. and its Countrywide Home Loans unit are accused of fraud and racketeering in a lawsuit filed by a Marion County resident claiming that perjured affidavits were used to foreclose on her home.

The complaint, filed March 17, is similar to a suit filed in October, which a federal court judge dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the federal case re-filed the suit in Marion Superior Court.

“The battle is now being waged in state court,” said Richard Shevitz, a lawyer at Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad LLP.

Shevitz and partner Irwin Levin, who has a national reputation for representing individuals in class-action lawsuits, are representing Judy Canada.

Canada accuses the lenders of using “robo-signers,” people who sign affidavits attesting to facts underlying foreclosures without actual knowledge of those facts, to push through paperwork to take her home in Marion County.

“The robo-signers knew these affidavits were false when they signed them by the thousands, and the robo-signers nevertheless signed them with complete ignorance of the facts … and with callous disregard for the accuracy of the affidavits,” the lawsuit said.

While she’s not asking the court to reverse her foreclosure, she is seeking monetary damages, as well as the class-action status to sue on behalf of anyone whose home was allegedly taken since October 2006 under similar circumstances.

Canada mortgaged her home with Countrywide on Aug. 26, 2003. After allegedly defaulting on her monthly payments, Countrywide foreclosed on the property on Dec. 22, 2009, according to the suit, leaving an unpaid principal of $56,958.95.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America is the country's largest lender.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Fraud
    Stop paying your mortgaged and you lose your home, that is how it works.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT