Unanimous Montana High Court Affirms $426,000 Damages Against Bayview

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

For an overview of our services: https://livinglies.me/2016/04/11/what-can-you-do-for-me-an-overview-of-services-offered-by-neil-garfield/

---

In yet another reminder that the people pushing foreclosures are neither “lenders” nor traditional “servicers,” the Montana Supreme Court upheld a $427,000 award against Bayview Loan Servicing (fronting for CitiMortgage). As more decisions like this land, expect judicial attitudes to keep shifting: these aren’t innocent “errors.” They’re patterns.

What the court said (and why it matters)

A few self-explanatory highlights from the unanimous opinion:

• After losing, Bayview told the homeowners (Robin and Kathleen Jacobson) it was adding $50,000+ in its attorney’s fees to their mortgage anyway. The court affirmed damages and fees.

  “We do not find error with the District Court’s damage award because it is reasonable compensation for the substantial injury and financial detriment suffered by the Jacobsons.” — Justice Michael Wheat, 5–0 decision.

• The harm didn’t stop at judgment. The Jacobsons still couldn’t tell from county records who to pay, and Bayview sent another default notice.

• Over multiple years, Bayview encouraged nonpayment to “qualify” for a mod, made false promises, and misinformed the borrowers about their rights.

Translation: bait, switch, obfuscate, repeat.

Why this fits the national pattern

• “Servicer” masks: Entities like Bayview present as neutral bill-payers but operate as collection fronts for investment banks, often while obscuring who (if anyone) actually owns a loan account receivable.

• Mod-as-trap: The “skip payments to qualify” script is a classic setup to manufacture “default,” then steamroll to foreclosure.

• Fee padding: Slapping losing counsel fees onto a borrower’s account after the fact is more than cheeky—it’s sanction bait.

• Record chaos: If county land records and payoff instructions don’t line up, that’s not a paperwork snafu; it’s a standing problem.

Practical takeaways for homeowners & counsel

• Document everything: Keep a clean paper trail (letters, call logs, envelopes) showing inducements to miss payments and any shifting payoff figures.

• Hit discovery hard: Demand the owner of the debt, payment ledgers, servicing agreements, and authority for fee add-ons. Move to compel; seek sanctions when they stonewall.

• Challenge “business records”: If ledgers are incomplete or come from a third-party platform rather than the named servicer’s own system, object for lack of foundation and hearsay.

• Police fee practices: Post-litigation fee add-ons without contractual and legal basis can support damages.

• Don’t waive defenses: Raise standing, chain of title, and breach of statutory duties early and preserve objections.

Bottom line

Courts are increasingly willing to call these practices what they are. The Montana decision underscores a broader truth: the “mistakes” narrative is a shield for systemic conduct. Push for proof, not presumptions—and the façade cracks.

Need Help With Your Case?

Call us today at 844.583.5339
Submit your case statement online for a complimentary recommendation.
Visit LivingLies.me for resources and case insights.

Tags: Bayview, Citimortgage, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, securitization
Posted in legal standing |