Mortgage Fraud

January 19, 2024 By Marc Dann

Complicated and impenetrable arbitration agreements like this one from Wells Fargo cost consumers millions each year. DannLaw’s Consumer Arbitration Team helps attorneys and families fight back.

In a recent article posted on Columbia Law School’s Blue Sky Blog, Jeff Sovern argues that businesses should not be able to use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to harm consumers. We agree. This flaw in the law costs American families tens of millions of dollars each year. That’s why DannLaw has been fighting for real reform of the FAA including urging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to issue a new rule that would block the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. Unfortunately, until the CFPB or Congress acts, consumers will continue to be victimized by greedy corporations.

But that doesn’t mean consumers are defenseless. That’s because the experienced, dedicated attorneys and staff at DannLaw’s Consumer Arbitration Practice Group are here to help. We work with consumers and attorneys across the nation to file, pursue, and win arbitration cases against the biggest players in the consumer financial game.

Whether you’re an attorney battling on behalf of clients or a consumer who has been ripped off by a mortgage lender, credit card company, or retailer, contact the consumer arbitration experts at DannLaw. We’re ready to help you fight and win. To learn more complete our contact form or call 330-294-3226.

We’ve posted Mr. Sovern’s CLS Blue Sky blog post below. To read a version with footnotes click here.

Consumer protection laws face a fundamental enforcement issue: Because consumer claims are typically for small amounts, and litigation is expensive, it rarely makes economic sense for consumers to litigate their claims individually. Partly to deal with this problem, lawmakers created class actions so the cost of litigation could be shared among many claims. But businesses have used the Federal Arbitration Act against consumers, inserting into agreements arbitration clauses that block consumer class actions. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled these clauses are valid.[1] As a result, few consumers assert claims subject to these contracts unless a substantial amount of money is at issue.

This leads to two unfortunate outcomes. First, in many situations, merchants employing arbitration clauses need not fear that they will face private enforcement of consumer protection laws and so are insufficiently deterred from engaging in misconduct that might otherwise lead to liability. Second, consumers lack an effective means to secure compensation unless they suffer huge losses. The problem is worsened by the fact that consumers cannot understand arbitration clauses and so surrender their rights to litigate in court without realizing that they are doing so.

In a new book chapter, I argue that Congress should amend the FAA to exclude consumer claims from the FAA’s coverage until a dispute has arisen. Otherwise, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) should use its rule-making power to limit the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.

Arbitration and Claim Suppression

Multiple studies show that few consumers commence arbitration claims unless substantial sums are at issue. [2]Arbitration clauses’ claim-suppression effect was illustrated colorfully by one advocacy group when it observed that in many years more American consumers are struck by lightning than win a monetary award in arbitration.[3]

Consumer products and services companies are keenly aware that arbitration clauses insulate them from liability. One lawyer defending against class actions described arbitration clauses as a “silver bullet” for defeating consumer cases,[4] while another acknowledged that a “claim that is $162 – an individual claim – is not one that any rational litigant would litigate.”[5] In Judge Richard Posner’s words: “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”[6]

Arbitration and Consent

Arbitration derives its legitimacy from consent. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[a]rbitration under the [FAA] is a matter of consent . . . .”[7] But whether consumers genuinely agree to arbitration is debatable.

Research demonstrates that consumers cannot understand arbitration clauses or their impact. Thus, an empirical study of consumer understanding of an arbitration clause in a credit card contract found that less than 9 percent of the respondents realized both that the contract included an arbitration clause and that it blocked them from suing in court.[8] Despite that contract’s class action waiver, four times as many respondents thought they could still participate in a class action as recognized that by agreeing to the contract they would surrender their right to join a class action. Even when respondents were told to assume they had agreed to a contract barring them from joining in a class action, less than a third realized they were foreclosed from doing so. Just one respondent in 16 realized both that (1) the contract they had been shown would prevent them from joining a class action, and (2) as a general matter, class action waivers block participation in class actions. When consumers can neither recognize that they are waiving the right to participate in a class action nor that such a waiver would be given effect, it is difficult to justify the claim that they have consented.

A CFPB telephone survey found that a majority of its respondents believed they could join a class action despite having agreed to a contract that included a class action waiver.[9] Similarly, only one consumer in 14 understood that an arbitration clause would block them from proceeding in court. And a more recent study also found consumers do not understand arbitration clauses.[10]

At the end of the day, if consent – the source of arbitration’s legitimacy – means no more than signing a contract that consumers cannot understand, it is hard to see arbitration as legitimate.

Efforts to Carve Out Consumer Claims From the FAA

Members of Congress have repeatedly but unsuccessfully introduced bills to amend the FAA to eliminate consumer disputes from its coverage. In the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, Congress authorized the CFPB to regulate arbitration.[11] The CFPB issued a rule which would have barred the use of class action waivers in arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.[12] But Congress invoked the Congressional Review Act (“CRA”)[13] to block the CFPB’s rule from going into effect.

The CFPB should issue a different arbitration rule. The Congressional Review Act bars administrative agencies from issuing “a new rule that is substantially the same” as the rule Congress struck down.[14] That bars the bureau from producing a rule banning class action waivers. Nevertheless, that still leaves the bureau options. Indeed, consumer protection advocacy groups recently petitioned the bureau to promulgate a new rule blocking the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts. The petition differs from the CFPB’s blocked rule because the regulation it calls for would not be limited to class action waivers and because the proposed regulation would be based on lack of consumer comprehension of arbitration clauses rather than the claim-suppression effect of class action waivers.

Conclusion

Arbitration clauses have become common in consumer contracts as a device to block the filing of consumer class actions against businesses catering to consumers. Consequently, it no longer makes economic sense to assert many consumer claims, and therefore companies are insufficiently deterred from violating some consumer protection laws. Using arbitration clauses to preclude class actions lacks legitimacy because consumers do not knowingly consent to arbitration. Congress should amend the FAA to exclude consumer claims from its coverage, or, failing that, the CFPB should use its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to protect consumers against the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts.

November 24, 2023 By Marc Dann

US Veterans Got a Mortgage Break. Now They’re Losing Their Homes

A Covid-era program gave borrowers a year without mortgage payments. Some are finding their lenders would rather foreclose than let them pick up where they left off.

By Caleb Melby, Polly Mosendz, and Ann Choi

November 9, 2023 at 12:01 AM EST

Sharelle Rosado didn’t give a lot of thought to the legal solicitations piling up at her front door earlier this year. She’d recently gotten a speeding ticket and figured lawyers were offering their services. It wasn’t until she began opening the letters that she realized the mail was much more serious: Her house was in foreclosure.

Rosado is savvy about homeownership. She’s a licensed real estate agent and the one-time star of the Netflix show Selling Tampa, which tracked the staff of her all-female, all-Black brokerage. Her clients count on her expertise. Yet she was bewildered that her lender was moving to take her four-bedroom house outside Tampa.

It turned out to have everything to do with a Covid-era mortgage program that allowed borrowers with federally backed loans to postpone payments for a year or longer and then, at the end of this forbearance period, apply to pay the arrears over time. About 8.5 million homeowners availed themselves of the program, including about 445,000 military veterans such as Rosado, a former Army paratrooper whose loan was backed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

In March 2022, after her 12-month forbearance ended, Rosado filled out what’s known as a loss-mitigation application—essentially a report on her financial status, used to determine her eligibility for a repayment plan—and sent it to her lender, United Wholesale Mortgage. UWM approved her application and sent her a loan-modification agreement, under which she would resume her monthly payments and the payments she’d skipped would be due when the mortgage was paid off.

Rosado and her home outside Tampa. Photographer: Mike Adno for Bloomberg Businessweek

There was one problem: Rosado was recently divorced, and UWM wanted her ex-husband to sign the document, too. She and UWM came to an agreement, she says, that her ex didn’t need to co-sign the modification if he would instead sign a quitclaim deed, a document confirming he no longer had an ownership stake in the house. After some delay, he signed, and in August of that year, Rosado sent her signed agreement along with the quitclaim. The next month her mortgage payment of $1,282.77 was posted to her account, which she took as proof that the matter had been resolved. Not so: She was told there were still paperwork problems with her modification. She says she sent the quitclaim again.

Rosado says she had no idea the company intended to seize her home until the legal solicitations arrived on her doorstep in March. After a final failed attempt to get her loan modification approved, she faced two unappealing choices: immediately pay more than $45,000 in arrears and fees or lose her house. “I was pissed,” Rosado says. “This is embarrassing. I’m not about to lose my house.” She paid.

In a written statement, a UWM spokeswoman said the company “works hard to assist borrowers, even distressed borrowers, in servicing their loans,” but that Rosado’s account was incomplete. She said the signed agreement Rosado sent in August 2022 was an old version, and under the VA’s requirements she needed to submit a divorce decree in addition to the quitclaim. The company said it had “attempted telephone contact” with her 35 times last year and 43 times this year. Rosado says that UWM didn’t ask her for a divorce decree prior to foreclosing and that she didn’t receive any voicemails saying her file was incomplete.

At first, it looked as if the entire episode was an expensive fluke. But Rosado began hearing from friends she’d met while serving at Fort Bragg (now Fort Liberty) in North Carolina who were having their own troubles getting their loans modified. They had some things in common, including signs of financial vulnerability, such as disability, unemployment or divorce. The lenders had things in common, too: Most were nonbank companies, which issued more than 80% of the 746,000 VA loans written last year. Over the past decade, as traditional banks have retreated from the $12 trillion US mortgage market, these lenders, which mostly operate online and outside the scrutiny of bank regulators, have stepped into the void.

The mortgage forbearance program was a feature of the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, known as the Cares Act. It covered a large majority of the mortgages in the US, because most mortgages are backed by federal programs. Loan-modification agreements typically offered one of two options: The arrears would be added to the mortgage, extending the repayment period while keeping the monthly cost affordable; or, as in Rosado’s case, the arrears would be lumped into a balloon payment due when the mortgage was paid off. But the government didn’t require lenders and servicers (companies that buy and manage loans) to approve those agreements. Or to make the process straightforward and easy.

Across the US, about 4,000 veterans whose mortgages had been in the forbearance program had lost their homes as of mid-October, according to ICE Mortgage Technology Inc. Some 6,000 more are in foreclosure; 34,000 others are marked delinquent. Not all the foreclosure actions were the result of loan-modification denials. But the figures don’t include thousands of borrowers, like Rosado, who paid a lump sum, sometimes under duress.

The problem isn’t limited to veterans. Other homeowners who took part in the forbearance program have faced similar difficulties. About a half-million of them are delinquent or facing foreclosure, and an additional 87,000 have lost their homes. But the actions against veterans are notable given the lengths policymakers and regulators have gone to get them into homes and keep them there.

“If I didn’t have that money, I’d be with some of those other people, losing everything”

The Cares Act, a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill, was rolled out within weeks of the pandemic’s onset. The mortgage forbearance element in the act was broad and homeowner-friendly: Borrowers didn’t have to prove they were hard up, and mortgage companies couldn’t say no. So lenders and servicers lost a huge chunk of their primary revenue stream, and the legislation contained no bailout for them. Many were unhappy. “It’s frankly frustrating and ridiculous that we do not have a solution in place,” Jay Bray, chief executive officer of the lender Mr. Cooper Group Inc., formerly Nationstar Mortgage, told CNBC in April 2020. “There is going to be complete chaos.” His company had a strong balance sheet, Bray said, but others in the industry would “start seeing problems soon.” (Instead, interest rates fell, millions of people refinanced their mortgages, and lenders made a lot of money.)

As borrowers began to exit forbearance, in early 2021, the mortgage companies needed to help them craft repayment plans, which involved more people, more paperwork and more cost. The rollout of those plans was rocky at best. Some borrowers encountered insurmountable roadblocks, with their homes on the line. Conventional wisdom has long held that lenders prefer what are called workouts, such as loan modifications, rather than foreclosing on homeowners, which can be time-consuming and expensive. But home prices were skyrocketing, the product of a Covid-inspired desire for more space, historically low interest rates and a flood of government money. “Right now, because of the property values, they don’t mind foreclosing,” Safora Nowrouzi, a lawyer in California who handles foreclosure cases, says of lenders. “And that’s why denials are much higher.”

Borrowers, lawyers and advocates describe a rudimentary playbook: requests for documents that have already been submitted, assurances that an application is complete only for it suddenly to be reopened, envelopes that don’t contain promised documents, loans transferred to different lenders and other paper-shuffling moves that force borrowers into delinquency, increase the size of their arrears and narrow their options. Borrowers are “lulled into inaction, because they’re led to believe that the lender is working something out,” Nowrouzi says.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which monitors lending practices, says it’s unable to track how many loss-mitigation and loan-modification applications go awry, or how many are denied. But complaints from service members prompted the agency and the US Department of Justice to issue a warning in December 2021 to lenders and mortgage servicers citing borrowers who had “suffered negative impacts.” The letter described “incorrect or confusing communications” and mandatory lump sum payments as things that could run afoul of protections in the Cares Act. Borrowers with government-backed loans, the warning letter said, “generally cannot be required to repay their forbearance amount in a lump sum payment if they indicate that they cannot afford to do so when exiting forbearance.”

The letter doesn’t appear to have had the desired effect. In a report that covered transactions through March 2023, the agency again made clear that something was amiss. It said it had identified lenders that delayed homeowners’ applications and that “borrowers could not reasonably avoid injury because servicers controlled the processing of applications, and borrowers reasonably expected servicers to enroll them in the options they applied for.” The report didn’t identify any lenders by name, and no enforcement actions were taken. But the agency said the unnamed companies had “ceased the practice and developed improved policies and procedures.”

That hasn’t been the experience of veterans and advocates who spoke to Bloomberg Businessweek. “Instead of bringing attention to the damage inflicted, it conceals it,” Roberto Rivera, a consultant in New Jersey who works with attorneys whose clients are going through the loan-modification process, says of the agency’s reports. A spokesperson for the CFPB says it doesn’t make supervisory interactions with companies public.

Even after everything, Rosado considers herself lucky. Her circumstances had changed since she bought her home in 2020—the Netflix show plus a recent engagement to former Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Chad “Ochocinco” Johnson—and she could afford the one-time payment. “If I didn’t have that money, I’d be with some of those other people, losing everything,” she says.

One of those other people is Monica Rosario, a retired Army captain. When it came time to modify the loan on her three-bedroom townhouse in Fayetteville, North Carolina, she was going through a divorce and between jobs. The divorce proceedings put her taxes in disarray, so Rosario, a colon cancer survivor, sent bank statements to her lender, Freedom Mortgage Corp., showing that she was still receiving disability benefits from the Army and was able to make monthly payments. She says the documentation never seemed to stay in her file. Freedom denied her loan-modification application and told her earlier this year that she had to pay $15,000 or lose her home, she says. She didn’t have that much money on hand and forfeited the house in a short sale in July.

Her home was listed for sale at 53% more than the price she paid. Rosario, who now rents across town, says she’s so wracked with depression that she’ll go days without stepping outside. “I still don’t understand how I was expected to pay that money so suddenly and continue on with my life,” she says. “It doesn’t make any sense.” A spokesperson for Freedom, one of the largest originators of VA loans last year, declined to comment.

“The risk of being sued and the risk of being dinged by the CFPB is baked into their business model”

Someone who last bought a home a decade ago would scarcely recognize the mortgage market today. The changes began with the 2008 global financial crisis, which was triggered by risky mortgage lending practices. In the aftermath, down payments once again became standard for most conventional mortgages, variable-interest-rate loans fell out of favor with both lenders and borrowers and income-verification standards were tightened.

Those reforms also made the business of writing mortgages less profitable for banks, which at the time underwrote the majority of home loans. Borrowers with higher credit scores and larger down payments can still count on bank loans; they’re desirable customers who, in addition to being unlikely to default, can be sold on more lucrative services, such as wealth management. For other clients, a new generation of companies sprouted up. Nonbanks, sometimes called shadow banks, don’t take deposits and are subject to much less regulation. They figured out they could make a profit lending to not-quite-prime homebuyers. Of course, the nonbanks need money to run their businesses. They often get it in the form of credit lines from many of the same banks that pulled back from the messy business of underwriting.

Last year, nonbanks accounted for 60% of all US home loans. The two biggest, Rocket Cos. and United Wholesale Mortgage, originated more than $255 billion of mortgage debt—more than Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and US Bancorp, the top three bank lenders in 2022, combined.

John Bell, who manages the VA’s home-loan program, praises the role nonbank lenders have played in the VA mortgage business. “Thank goodness we had some of these nonbanks that raised their hand and were wanting to get into the business when banks backed out,” he says.

Many mortgage companies love VA loans. They’re backed by the government, the VA doesn’t set minimum credit score requirements, and down payments often aren’t necessary. Even closing costs can be borrowed, sending loan-to-value ratios as high as 103.3%. The result: VA borrowers often begin homeownership owing more than their home is worth, creating a long earnings runway for lenders.

Nonetheless, veterans who’d been waved through when they applied for their mortgage found their lenders weren’t going to make things easy when it came time to modify their agreements. Lawyers and housing advocates say that, depending on the state, trying to beat lenders in a he-said, she-said battle over who dropped the ball in a loan modification can be almost impossible. Those who succeed say borrowers must rigorously document their cases if they have any hope of winning. And there’s a growing sense that federal agencies, far from preventing abuses, may be making things worse with complex rules that befuddle lenders as well as borrowers. “The misinformation they’re giving on those phone calls is so sickening,” says Rivera, the consultant, of calls that customers have with their lenders. “There’s nobody there who has read the guidelines. It’s absurd.”

Absurd could describe Rosie Bennett’s situation. She got forbearance for the mortgage on her home in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in July 2020, the month before the death of her husband, who served as a Navy medic in the 1950s. The reprieve gave Bennett, who’s 79 and has multiple sclerosis, time to settle her affairs.

In January 2022 her mortgage servicer, Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., mailed her an envelope that she expected to contain her loan-modification agreement. But the envelope was empty, according to a lawsuit she filed against Dovenmuehle in federal court in Idaho. Bennett says she contacted the company several times to ask for the agreement and was told it would be sent. She continued making monthly payments, but the paperwork never came. In May 2022 the company sent a notice saying Bennett would be foreclosed on if she didn’t pay $33,529 within a month.

Rosie Bennett and her Coeur d’Alene home. Photographer: Amy Osborne for Bloomberg Businessweek

Dovenmuehle started foreclosure proceedings in June. In October the company transferred Bennett’s loan to PHH Mortgage Corp. She says she reached a modification agreement with PHH, only to have it rescinded this January. She was told she “needed to have her deceased husband execute and record” a document transferring his ownership in the house to her and was again threatened with foreclosure, according to the lawsuit, which also names PHH as a defendant.

Spokespeople for Dovenmuehle and PHH say they complied with all applicable laws and guidelines. The PHH spokesperson says, however, that the company no longer intends to foreclose. Bennett is pursuing her lawsuit anyway. The two-year saga has rattled her. “I’m just such a nervous wreck right now,” she says. “My whole body is just shaking all the time.”

One possible takeaway: Choose your lender carefully. But Bennett hadn’t contracted with Dovenmuehle or PHH. She and her husband had gotten their mortgage from Federal Savings Bank, based in New York. There are no rules preventing banks from selling mortgages or hiring nonbanks to service them. “This is the one consumer contract where you don’t get to pick who you do business with,” says Marc Dann, Bennett’s lawyer and a former Ohio attorney general, who now specializes in consumer lending cases. “She can’t say ‘Oh, I don’t like Dovenmuehle. I’m going to go down the street to Wells Fargo.’ She can’t do that.”

Settlements from cases such as Bennett’s tend to be small, and there’s little disincentive to avoid abusing borrowers, Dann says. “The risk of being sued and the risk of getting dinged by the CFPB is baked into their business model,” he says. “We could really use another 1,000 law firms doing the work that I do. At that point, maybe we would have an impact on the behavior of these companies.”

Lewis Rutherford’s maddening journey to a foreclosure notice began more than a year ago. A 63-year-old truck driver who played keyboards in bands at US Army bases across Europe in the 1980s, Rutherford hadn’t always paid his mortgage on time. After exiting forbearance, he thought he could avoid future problems by sending money in advance to his lender, Caliber Home Loans Inc. But when he sent $3,333 in August 2022 to cover three months of payments for his home in New Castle, Delaware, about $2,500 appeared to go missing.

Rutherford was irate and refused to make additional payments until the matter was resolved. In March, before he could get to the bottom of it, Caliber sold his loan to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing. Rutherford says a Shellpoint representative told him the company had no record of his advance payments. With his money still missing, Rutherford insisted he wasn’t going to make any additional payments until the matter was straightened out. That’s a risky strategy for any borrower in a fight with a lender. In May, Shellpoint moved to foreclose.

What Rutherford didn’t know was that Caliber and Shellpoint were owned by the same company, Rithm Capital Corp. The paperwork Shellpoint said it couldn’t find existed within the same corporate family. As he fought to keep his home, “Rithm had one of its best quarters ever,” its CEO told investors in August. The company, which has been rolling up finance businesses for years, is now closing in on an acquisition of Sculptor Capital Management, a $33 billion hedge fund.

“Something ain’t right with these people,” Rutherford says. “If they see an opportunity to snatch a house, they will.”

He says that in June, after he told Shellpoint he’d spoken to Businessweek, the company said it didn’t need to foreclose on him after all. Court records show the company withdrew its foreclosure case a week later. A spokesman for Rithm’s mortgage division says the company made an error in how it applied Rutherford’s advance payments. “We have since corrected this error and are actively addressing any potential credit reporting impact caused by this issue,” the spokesman said. “In addition, we are ensuring that no other borrowers were negatively affected by this issue.”

In Charlotte, Makeda Young, a major in the National Guard who’s studying to be a physician assistant, took matters into her own hands. She says she paid more than $19,000 to clear her forbearance arrears after delays by her lender, Mr. Cooper, pushed her into default. Records show her application for a modification was accepted three times, followed by demands for documentation that Young says she’d already provided, ultimately leading to a foreclosure warning and her credit score dropping by 111 points.

Makeda Young and her Charlotte home. Photographer: Mike Adno for Bloomberg Businessweek

Not all borrowers are meticulous record keepers, but Young is. She compiled a dossier of all documents and emails and pulled her phone records to show how many hours she’d spent dealing with the company. In June she took her case to the consumer protection unit of the North Carolina Department of Justice, which contacted Mr. Cooper. In a letter, the company told the agency it had tried to reach Young on several occasions and that she hadn’t responded. But Young sent her phone logs to state officials in an email describing Mr. Cooper’s description of events as “misleading and inaccurate.”

It worked. In a new letter, Mr. Cooper described Young’s efforts to get her loan modified and erased its claims that she’d been delinquent, which restored her credit score. A spokeswoman for Mr. Cooper says Young’s application ultimately was denied after all documentation had been received. The company “is committed to finding solutions to keep our customers in their homes” the spokeswoman said.

“I’m going to make sure they investigate every single case,” Young says. She’s been documenting her efforts on Facebook. One post highlights the portions of Mr. Cooper’s letter that portrayed her as a nonresponsive customer and an amended letter showing she had in fact been in frequent contact with them. And there’s a tearful video after Mr. Cooper relented.

The replies show how common the problem has become. “Dealing with this RIGHT NOW!!!” wrote one borrower. “This just HAPPENED TO ME!!!!” posted another. “My folks in NC whom are Veterans are going thru the almost same scenario real time. Thank you Sista! ARMY STRONG!”

May 9, 2023 By Leo Jennings III

Hello and Happy Spring. I’m reaching out today to provide our clients and friends with updates about several pending cases, new investigations and an exciting new addition to the DannLaw legal team.

First I would like to introduce and welcome Jeff Crossman to DannLaw. Jeff, who recently joined DannLaw after serving in the Ohio House and running for Ohio Attorney General, will be litigating complex class action, mortgage servicing, and corporate/business cases.

Picture of Jeff Crossman Jeff brings more than two decades of legal experience to Dann Law. During his career, he has represented a variety of clients in complex matters, successfully resolving disputes for both individuals and businesses ranging from small startups to national corporations. Jeff has served as an associate with a prominent national law firm, as in-house legal counsel for multiple national companies, and recently served two terms as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives where he gained invaluable experience in public policy, government, and changes made to the legal system. The sum of Jeff’s experience has given him a unique perspective and a deep understanding of the legal landscape, which he leverages to achieve the best outcomes for his clients.

Jeff believes that every client deserves high-quality legal representation personalized to fit the client’s needs, and he is committed to achieving the best possible outcomes for each and every one of his clients.

Education

B.A. University of Mount Union
M.A., University of Akron
J.D., Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, magna cum laude

Bar Admissions

State of Ohio
Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Pending: Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mortgage Servicing Litigation

Our Mortgage Servicing Litigation team, which includes Dan Solar, Michael Smith, Saher Chaudrey, Javier Merino, Brian Flick, Kim White, and Karen Ortiz, continue to bring groundbreaking cases on behalf of homeowners involved in disputes with their mortgage servicers:

Delays and mistakes made by servicers assisting homeowners who took advantage of Covid Related Mortgage Payment Forbearance provided by the CARES Act and the American Recovery Act. As a result of these errors, many borrowers exited forbearance with higher interest rates than they should have and some are facing unnecessary and unwarranted foreclosure actions.
Homeowners put at risk because servicers mishandled tax, insurance, and other escrow payments..
Problems that have occurred when mortgage servicing is transferred from one company to another. This problem is especially prevalent when borrowers and services are engaged in loss mitigation activities.
Accounting problems following the successful completion of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
Violations of Ohio’s Residential Mortgage Loan Act. Dannlaw has obtained numerous consumer/borrower favorable court decisions involving servicers who failed to abide by changes in the Ohio Law that protects borrowers.

Foreclosure Defense

As foreclosure protections sunset our Foreclosure Defense team led by Whitney Kaster with support from Amanda Severt, Karen Ortiz and Roberto Rivera are litgating cases and developing thoughtful and innovative loss mitigation and legal strategies that will enable our clients to stay in their homes. If you are or may be about to enter foreclosure, please contact form or call us at 216-373-0539. We are here to help.

Class Action Lawsuits

The members of our class action practice group, Brian Flick, Javier Merino, Andy Wolf, Jeff Crossman, Saher Chaudrey,Kim White and Liza Marigliano are pleased and proud to report that they have worked with co-counsel to obtain preliminary approval of several class action cases across the United States in the past several months. There are active claim deadlines in the following cases. If you believe you are a member of the class in one or some of these actions, we encourage you to visit the case settlement websites to review the terms of settlement and if appropriate files a claim: .

Nationstar

In the Class Action case against Nationstar Mortgage and payment processor ACI we successfully negotiated a $9 million settlement that is set for final approval on May 31, 2023 in the Federal District Court in North Carolina. You still have time to submit claims if Nationstar pulled money from your bank account without permission in April of 2021. Visit this website to make a claim https://achloanpaymentlitigation.com/.

Michigan Ave. Immediate Care

Michigan Avenue Immediate Care has agreed to a $900,000 settlement fund for people whose personal information was exposed to the dark web as the result of a data breach. If you were a patient of the of that Chicago medical practice file a claim here: https://www.maicincident.com/

Parker Hannifin

We’ve reached a favorable $1.75 Million settlement for present and past employees of Parker Hannifin who were impacted by a data breach. If you ever worked at Parker Hannifin please follow this link to learn more and file a claim www.phdatasettlement.com.

We are also investigating and litigating several other significant class action cases including:

Pricing Fraud by Dollar General. DannLaw has filed cases against Dollar General in Ohio, New York and New Jersey based on allegations that prices listed for items on shelves are lower than prices charged at the register. If you live anywhere in the United States and believe you have been overcharged by Dollar General or any other retailer, please contact our office by completing and submitting our contact form or calling 216-373-0539.

Salmonella Poisoning in Jif Peanut Butter

The FDA, along with CDC and state and local partners are investigating a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Senftenberg infections linked to certain Jif brand peanut butter products produced at the J.M. Smucker Company facility in Lexington, Kentucky. If you believe you have been impacted by the outbreak please complete and submit our contact form or call us at 216-373-0539.

Traffic Camera Violations in the City of Girard

Tickets were wrongly issued to drivers along Rt 80 in Girard Ohio

Impact Cases

Federal Government’s failure to compensate victims of “Snap Skimming” DannLaw recently filed a case in Ohio against the United States Department of Agriculture regarding the agency’s failure to reimburse Ohioans whose SNAP benefits have been “skimmed” by unknown third parties beginning in January of 2022.

Skimming occurs when criminals use a device placed over a point-of-sale card reader to steal information from payment cards like SNAP EBT and cash assistance cards. That means SNAP or cash assistance benefits may have been stolen with the cardholder’s knowledge.

If you believe you have been a victim of SNAP theft, please please complete and submit our contact form or call us at 216-373-0539.

Racial Discrimination in Mortgage Lending by Wells Fargo We have assumed a leadership role in investigating allegations that Wells denied borrowers of color mortgage financing at a rate almost double that of white borrowers..

Ohio PUA Unemployment Benefits

In Bowling v. Dewine we continue to pursue $900 million in fully federally-funded COVID-19 supplemental unemployment insurance benefits the DeWine administration callously denied Ohioans who were left jobless as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.

Data Breach Cases

We are also bringing Class Actions for Data Breaches against the following Companies:

Last Pass/GoTo Technologies

Carrington Mortgage and Alvaria, Inc.

Snap Finance–Brian Flick has been appointed co-lead counsel

Key Bank/KeyBank Mortgage/Fulton Bank/Overby-Seawell

Samsung

Bet MGM (Where Javier Merino is taking a Lead Role)

Lakeview Loan Servicing

If you or someone you know has been impacted by these data breaches please complete and submit our contact form or call us at 216-373-0539.

December 21, 2022 By Marc Dann

While the $3.7 billion settlement between Wells Fargo and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is welcome news, it doesn’t resolve all the issues surrounding the bank’s bad behavior–a point made by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra who noted that Wells’ rinse-repeat cycle of violating the law has harmed millions of American families.” He also said the company is a serial offender that puts one third of American households at risk of harm and that finding permanent resolution to this bank’s pattern of unlawful behavior is a top priority.

As most of you know, holding Wells accountable is also a top priority for DannLaw. We successfully represented clients in a class action suit related to the same issues outlined in the CFPB order and we are currently pursuing cases in California and New Jersey.

In addition, we continue to recieve calls and emails from homeowners who are involved in home mortgage disputes with Wells. If Wells is your lender or servicer and you believe you are being abused by the bank please contact DannLaw today by calling Lisa at 216-250-4012, emailing [email protected], or visiting https://dannlaw.com/contact/ to schedule a no-cost consultation that will enable us to determine if you are entitled to financial compensation.

Under the terms of the agreement with the CFPB Wells will provide $2 billion in compensation to consumers for engaging in the following activities:

• Unlawfully repossessing vehicles and bungling borrower accounts: Wells Fargo had systematic failures in its servicing of automobile loans that resulted in $1.3 billion in harm across more than 11 million accounts.

• Improperly denying mortgage modifications: During at least a seven-year period, the bank improperly denied thousands of mortgage loan modifications, which in some cases led to Wells Fargo customers losing their homes to wrongful foreclosures.

• Illegally charging surprise overdraft fees: For years, Wells Fargo unfairly charged surprise overdraft fees – fees charged even though consumers had enough money in their account to cover the transaction at the time the bank authorized it.

• Unlawfully freezing consumer accounts and mispresenting fee waivers: Customers affected by these account freezes were unable to access any of their money in accounts at the bank for an average of at least two weeks.

The terms of the agreement require Wells to contact its victims. Eligible consumers don’t have to take any action.

We wish we could say we believe Wells will now clean up its act. But we don’t. We know the bank is taking advantage of homeowner and consumers every day. If you are one of them, please contact DannLaw today wo we can protect your rights, your family and fight for the compensation you deserve.

You can learn more about the settlement here: https://www.cnn.com/…/wells-fargo-cfpb…/index.html and here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/…/cfpb-orders-wells…/

April 22, 2022 By Marc Dann

The End of Covid Forbearance is here. Time to rework your loan.

DannLaw founder Marc Dann Mortgage forbearance and other programs made available to homeowners during the COVID-19 pandemic are about to end. That means millions of homeowners are or will soon be pursuing loan modifications or other work out options with their lenders. Karen Ortiz, Roberto Rivera, and DannLaw’s highly experienced and knowledgeable legal staff are here to help families navigate the complicated process and select the payment structure that best meets their needs. Please contact us to arrange a no-cost, no-obligation consultation by calling 216-373-0539 or completing our contact form.

Changes at DannLaw

We are sad to announce that Attorney Whitney Horton is leaving DannLaw after being a valuable member of our team for more than seven years. If Whitney has been working on your case, a notice of substitution of counsel will be filed in the next few weeks. Whitney Kaster, who was at DannLaw before the pandemic is returning to the firm on Monday April 24. Attorney Kaster will work me and Emily White on foreclosure defense matters and with Brian Flick on Consumer Protection cases. In addition, Amanda Severt who has been our administrative assistant has been promoted and will now work as a paralegal assigned to foreclosure cases and state court litigation.

Student Loan Changes

The U.S. Department of Education is making changes to the Income Based Repayment program for Federal Student Loans that should enable lower income borrowers to fulfill their obligations faster and qualify for Public Service or other Loan forgiveness programs sooner. You may read about the changes here. Richard Cordray who served as Ohio Treasurer and AG before being named the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is now in charge of Student Loan Issues at the DOE drafted and implemented these significant improvements.

Foreclosures Are Ramping Up

Along with forbearance and other relief programs, foreclosure stays are ending. That means hundreds and perhaps thousands of new judicial foreclosure actions will be filed in Ohio, New Jersey and other states. We have the experience, expertise, and knowledge needed to save your home.

Remember this important point: The filing of a foreclosure lawsuit is the beginning, not the end of the process. Please reach out to DannLaw or another attorney as soon as you know a foreclosure action has been filed against you. If you’ve been served with a foreclosure complaint you have a short time–28 Days in Ohio–to retain a lawyer and file an answer. The vast majority of people who retain us because they want to stay in their home are able to do exactly that.

In addition to defending the foreclosure action, we conduct a thorough investigation to determine if your mortgage loan servicer has followed all applicable rules and laws that govern mortgage lending. If we discover violations, we can bring and pursue claims against the mortgage company. Our foreclosure clients pay an affordable monthly payment into our trust account to cover the fees that we earn in their cases. We offer a free consultation. If you or anyone you know has been sued for foreclosure please contact us here, or call us at 216-373-0539. To schedule an appointment with me visit calendly.com/mdann.

Regulation F Changes the Game for Debt Collectors and Consumers

The CFPB has enacted new strict rules that govern the manner in which debt collectors may contact you by mail, email, text, telephone or social media. You can read about the new regs here. In addition, Credit Reporting Agencies will no longer report most medical debt. This should help consumers improve their credit score. If you believe a debt collector has made a misrepresentation to you or contacted you by phone, letter, text, or email at an inappropriate time you may be entitled to financial compensation. Please feel free to contact us to discuss your situation.

Data Breach Cases

Multiple courts have selected DannLaw to serve as Class Counsel in data breach Cases. A data breach occurs when a company fails to properly safeguard its customers’ personal information. Our legal staff devotes considerable time and resources to pursuing and securing just compensation for the inconvenience, expense, and aggravation data breach victims endure.

I have a new perspective on that today. I’ve been ensnared in multiple data breaches. Someone obtained my personal information and “took over” my bank account. I’ve spent 20 hours sorting out payments, ACHs and was forced to visit my bank three times. I have a renewed passion to ensure that companies who allow breaches to occur are held accountable for their actions. If you are notified that your information is at risk due to a breach, contact us immediately so we can take all available legal steps to secure just compensation for you and other data breach victims.

April 6, 2022 By Marc Dann

Claiming that Wells Fargo has engaged in a “…pervasive pattern and practice of placing Black Americans at a disadvantage in comparison to White Americans with respect to their applications for mortgage loans,” attorneys from DannLaw and the Zimmerman Law Offices filed a class action lawsuit against the giant bank in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Tuesday, April 6, 2022. The pleading in the case may be viewed here: Ifemoa Ebo v Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo’s disturbing discriminatory behavior was documented in an extensive story published by Bloomberg in March. According to the report only 47% of Black homeowners who completed a refinance application with Wells Fargo in 2020 were approved, compared with 72% of White homeowners. By comparison other lenders had much smaller disparities in approval rates ranging from 7% to 12%. Bloomberg also noted that “Wells Fargo approved a greater share of applications from low-income White homeowners than all but the highest-income Black applicants, who had an approval rate about the same as White borrowers in the lowest-income bracket.”

Wells also discriminated against Blacks who applied for new mortgage loans. A review of publicly available data collected by the CFPB reveals that the bank approved applications submitted by Blacks at a rate 21% lower than those submitted by Whites. The disparity in approval rates at other lenders, including Chase, Quicken, United Wholesale Mortgage was approximately 10%.

Ms. Ebo’s case puts a face to Bloomberg’s reporting. In late 2021 she began searching for and found a new home in Brooklyn’s East Flatbush neighborhood. After signing a purchase agreement for $900,000 she submitted a mortgage loan application to Wells. At the time her credit score was approximately 800, her annual salary was $178,000, and she had no significant debt.

On November 1, 2021, Wells preapproved her for a loan of $883,698. The preapproval was set to expire on February 24, 2022. Ms. Ebo then immediately began working with the bank to secure final approval of the loan. She submitted all documentation requested by Wells, including W-2 forms, paystubs, and bank account statements in a timely fashion. On December 29, 2021, she received a “Commitment Letter” notifying her the application had been approved and advising her that she only needed to submit some additional documentation “in order to complete the final underwriting and funding of” the loan.

Things immediately went off the rails. In January and February Wells again asked for additional information much of which she had already submitted. She was also asked to provide items that were, according to the lawsuit, unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. For example, she was asked to explain why she made a monthly credit card payment of $290 to her own account and for a bank statement for a bank account that did not exist.

As Wells’ unnecessary and duplicative information requests continued into late February and March Ms. Ebo told the bank she was concerned her preapproval would expire before she received her loan even she was highly qualified and had supplied all documentation they had requested.

Her concern was justified. On March 22, 2022, the seller of the property cancelled the purchase contract with Ms. Ebo because Wells had not approved her financing and it was unclear if they ever would. She informed Wells of the seller’s decision that same day and accordingly, did not and never will receive the loan.

This is not the first time the lender has been accused of engaging discriminatory behavior. In 2012, the bank entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department to resolve claims it had unfairly steered Black and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages and charged higher fees and interest rates than they did whites. At the time Wells paid $184 million to thousands of borrowers and agreed to adopt new compliance policies.

“Wells’ treatment of Ms. Ebo is unconscionable, illegal, but not surprising in light of the company’s history, Bloomberg’s reporting and the conversations we’ve had with others who were subjected to the bank’s outrageous practices,” DannLaw’s Javier Merino said. “Clearly, Wells has not been deterred by the laws that prohibit discrimination. Perhaps being held accountable in court will motivate them to change their ways and treat all applicants, regardless of race, equally and fairly in the future.”

The lawsuit seeks actual damages, statutory, and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. For more information please contact Marc Dann at 330-651-3131.