BOA Feeling the Heat is Striking Back at Foreclosure Defense Lawyers as Lawsuits are Filed Against Firms Who Represent BOA

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: The battle is heating up. BOA, for example, is stepping up efforts to cause as much trouble as possible for those foreclosure defense lawyers who are getting traction in the courts. This started some time ago as some people were actually indicted for using tactics that were essentially the identical to the bogus filings of the pretenders. The indictments were dismissed.

Now they are using Bar complaints and anything else they can think of to go after the people who are creating “good” law — i.e., cases in which the Judges follow the law without regard to the consequences to the bank that has has filed fabricated, forged or adulterated paperwork in its quest to get a free house from a homeowner.

The good news is that BOA is finding it necessary to attack those who help homeowners. The bad news is that they have a lot of clout and a lot of money. The likelihood is that they will draw some blood — some lawyers will get into trouble because any law practice that involves volume probably has some things that slip through the cracks. So my suggestion is that lawyers for foreclosure defense do a risk assesssment and make sure they have no red flags that the Bar can make hay with.

The article below is one such example but I have been receiving reports like this for 2 years. Coming on the heals of various state actions (Florida a few days ago and New York a few months ago) where the bank’s lawyers must certify that the paperwork is real and thus that the creditor is actually the creditor and that the amount demanded is actually due, it looks more like BOA is trying to balance the appearance of excesses by BOA, BAC, Recontrust and its lawyers. At the moment, it appears as though they are all one entity.

Submitted by Jake Naumer:

An attorney who represents victims of foreclosures and mortgage fraud
claims a senior partner with the law firm Bryan Cave LLP who
represents Bank of America and Countrywide Mortgage is using
underhanded tactics to try to put him out of business.

In the case filed in Orange County, Calif., Superior Court, attorney
Gary Lane says the bank’s lawyers have used intentional and malicious
tactics to prevent him from representing underprivileged defendants.

Lane operates a non-profit legal clinic, the Consumer Protection
Assistance Coalition, in Irvine.

Lane, who has been in practice for 39 years, says that over the last
three years his clinic began to handle a large number of cases
involving homeowners wrongfully threatened by banks and mortgage
lenders and has filed a number of suits against Bank of America and
Countrywide.

Stuart Price, a senior partner at Bryan Cave, is responsible for
handling Bank of America’s mortgage and foreclosure cases, the suit
says and it alleges that in every case filed by Lane, Price files
responses that include untrue and defamatory statements about Lane.

Lane’s suit lists actions that he alleges were taken solely to
undermine his reputation and damage his business, including:

•failure to file a stipulation delaying a hearing, causing Lane to be
sanctioned for not appearing;

•directed a witness to perjure herself, causing Lane to be sanctioned
by the court;

•filed a motion asking that Lane be ordered to seek a judge’s approval
before filing any additional actions against Bank of America; and

•filed a complaint with the State Bar taking issue with 78 lawsuits
Lane had filed against Bank of America, causing Lane to be required to
respond separately to each and every complaint;

Lane says that as a result of the law firm’s tactics, he has been
required to spend “countless hours” responding to the tactical
roadblocks.

In the case of the 78 complaints, Lane notes that the State Bar
normally allows an attorney one month to respond to a complaint,
anticipating that it will take that long to assemble a proper
response. But since Price filed 78 complaints in a single document,
Lane is being given only one or two months to respond.

Lane cites provisions in California’s civil procedure rules noting “a
disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid
exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech,” and alleges
that the purpose of Price’s actions is to block Lane from bringing
further lawsuits against Bank of America on behalf of troubled
homeowners.

The suit seeks injunctive relief, legal fees and dismissal of the
State Bar complaint.

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |