IBJNews

Suit accuses Bank of America of fraud, racketeering

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT