Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure
The crux of Plaintiffs’ UDAP claim is that BAC’s
actions establish that it was engaged in a scheme in which it
never intended to modify Plaintiffs’ loan. Instead, BAC intended
to keep Plaintiffs’ loan “in default and arrears for as long as
possible before ultimately foreclosing to maximize its fees and
the payments it can extract from Plaintiffs.” [Complaint at
¶ 142.] This Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled
the time, place, and content of the allegedly fraudulent
representations which form the basis of the UDAP claim. Further,
the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendant’s
scheme to artificially extend the loan modification process to
maximize fees and payments prior to an inevitable foreclosure
sufficiently allege an unfair or deceptive act or practice.
As to Plaintiffs’ damages, the Complaint alleges that:
BAC’s “false representations that Plaintiffs would only qualify
for loan modification if they remained delinquent on their
mortgage payments has caused Plaintiffs significant damage to
their credit scores”; and, but for BAC’s misrepresentations,
“Plaintiffs would have sought alternate foreclosure avoidance
This Court FINDS that Plaintiffs’ allegations are plausible
and are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement to allege
the damages suffered as a result of the alleged UDAP violation.
This Court therefore FINDS that Plaintiffs have alleged
a plausible UDAP claim, and the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion
as to Count II.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the other elements of their negligence claim
and that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible negligence claim.
Defendant’s Motion is therefore DENIED as to Count I.