Complaint Form Clp12_03

8/4/2019 Complaint Form Clp12_03

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/complaint-form-clp1203 1/24

Chapter 3 Claims for Erroneous Mortgage BillingStatements and Failure to Verify the MortgageDebt

Alan M. White is an attorney with Community Legal Services, Inc., 3638 NorthBroad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140, (215) 227-2400, fax: (215) 227-2435.He has also been a fellow and consultant with the National Consumer Law Center inBoston. His practice includes representation of low-income consumers in mortgageforeclosures, bankruptcies, student loan disputes, real estate matters, and consumer fraudclass actions. He has served on the Education Committee of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference and has been a course planner or faculty memberfor numerous continuing legal education programs on consumer and bankruptcy law,including National Association of Consumer Advocates, Pennsylvania Bar Institute,Philadelphia Bar Education Center, and Pennsylvania Legal Services. He has published a

number of research papers and articles on consumer law issues and has testified athearings held by the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development on predatory mortgage lending. Mr. White received his B.S. fromthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1979 and his J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 1983.

Section 3.1 is a complaint detailing how the mortgage servicer repeatedly andincreasingly misstated the payment amount due by large and inconsistent amounts on amortgage, causing the homeowner great anxiety and stress. It alleges the mortgageservicer failed to respond to the homeowner’s qualified written request under the RealEstate Settlement Procedures Act1 and to verify the mortgage debt the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act.

2

Section 3.2 is a proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law. In addition tothe federal claims alleged in the complaint, it contains state claims for failing to providethe correct amount owed, violating the state cure statute, and a UDAP claim for themortgage servicer’s misconduct.

1 See National Consumer Law Center, Foreclosures Ch. 5 (1st ed. 2005).2 See National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection § 5.7 (5th ed. 2004).



3.1 Complaint Detailing How the Mortgage Servicer Misstated thePayment Amount Due

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________[PLAINTIFF] :

:Plaintiff :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. [No.]:

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP :__________________________________________:

COMPLAINT

1. This is an action by a low-income homeowner against a mortgage

servicing company seeking a proper accounting of her mortgage and statutory damages

under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Act.

2. Jurisdiction over this matter is conferred upon this Court by 12 U.S.C. §2614,

15 U.S.C. §1692 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over

her state law claims.

3. Venue lies in this judicial district in that the events which gave rise to

this claim occurred here and the property which is the subject of the action is situated

within this district.

4. Plaintiff [Plaintiff] is a natural person residing at [Plaintiff’s Address]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140.

5. The Defendant, Litton Loan Servicing, LP (“Litton”), is a corporation

with its principal offices at 4828 Loop Central Drive, Houston Texas. Litton is the



servicing agent for the holder of [Plaintiff]’s mortgage. The mortgage on [Plaintiff]’s

home is held by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA as the trustee for an investor-owned

trust that holds a large pool of mortgage loans sold by Ocwen Federal Savings Bank.

6. [Plaintiff] and her husband, [Plaintiff’s Spouse], purchased their home in North

Philadelphia in 1984.

7. In December 1998 [Plaintiff and Spouse] refinanced their mortgage and entered

into a loan with Pierucci, Inc., trading as Sunset Mortgage Company. The mortgage was later

sold to Ocwen Federal Savings Bank, who in turn sold it to Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota,

trustee. Ocwen continued to service the mortgage.

8. [Plaintiff] eventually filed a civil suit against Ocwen, seeking to rescind the 1998

loan and seeking other relief.

9. The civil suit against Ocwen was settled by a December 2000 settlement and loan

modification agreement that, among other things, called for Ocwen to reduce the loan principal

to $25,984 and the interest rate to 8%, and for [Plaintiff] to make monthly payments of principal

and interest of $190.66. A copy of the December 2000 loan modification agreement is attached

as Exhibit “A”.

10. At some time on or about April 29, 2002 the servicing of the mortgage loan was

transferred from Ocwen Federal Savings Bank to Defendant Litton.

11. Shortly after the servicing transfer, Litton demanded that [Plaintiff] make

monthly payments of $394.79, which was the payment prior to the December 2000 modification.

12. On May 21, 2002, [Plaintiff], through her lawyer, reminded Litton of the terms

of the loan modification, including the $190.66 payment amount, enclosed another copy of the

modification agreement, and asked Litton to correct [Plaintiff]’s account records accordingly.



4

13. Nevertheless, Litton failed and refused to revise its account records to reflect the

loan modification agreement.

14. On or about July 21, 2004 Litton mailed a statement to [Plaintiff] incorrectly

asserting that the mortgage payments were delinquent.

15. On or about August 10, 2004 [Plaintiff] wrote to Litton disputing the alleged

delinquency and asking Litton to correct its account records to reflect that her payments of

$190.66 were paid up to date.

16. On August 18, 2004 Litton acknowledged [Plaintiff]’s written request for

account information and adjustments. On or about October 8, 2004, Litton wrote to [Plaintiff]

acknowledging the loan modification and asserting that Litton’s records had been updated to

reflect the loan modification. The same letter stated that [Plaintiff]’s payment was in fact

$190.66, and was due for October 1, 2004, in other words, her payments were current.

17. [Plaintiff] subsequently received a letter dated September 22, 2004, asserting

that she had an escrow deficit of $5285.17, and that effective November 1, 2004 her mortgage

payment would increase to 455.8 (sic).

18. At about the same time in September 2004 [Plaintiff] received her monthly

statement dated September 15, 2004 showing the amount due by October 1 as $190.66. This

statement also, however, reflected an escrow deficit of $5,285.17 and “other fees due” of

$40,927.12. No explanation was provided for the escrow deficit or the other fees.

19. In November, 2004, [Plaintiff] received a letter from Litton asserting that her

loan was past due for November and December, 2004, and that the total due was $1461. No

explanation was provided for this curious arithmetic. Meanwhile [Plaintiff] continued sending

the $190.66 monthly payments to Litton.



5

20. In December 2004 [Plaintiff] received her monthly statement dated December

15 which called for a current payment amount of $666.96, and a total amount due by January 1

2005 of $2,118.43. The “other fees due” had increased slightly to $40,936.12.

21. [Plaintiff] received another letter from Litton dated January 5, 2005 asserting

that she owed three payments, and must send $2,127.96 “today”. This amount was apparently

calculated on the same basis as the December statement amount, with the January 17 late fee

added in advance. A copy of the January 5 letter is attached as Exhibit “B”. This letter also

falsely stated or implied that foreclosure was imminent and could begin “immediately” or

“today” if payment was not made.

22. Also dated January 5, 2005 were two additional letters sent by Litton. One,

entitled “Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate”, demanded $2,127.96, and stated that after

45 days Litton could accelerate the mortgage balance and foreclose the property. This letter is

attached as Exhibit “C”.

23. The other January 5, 2005 letter, entitled “Appendix A”, is similar to the notice

required by Pennsylvania law prior to foreclosure. This letter is attached as Exhibit “D”.

24. Exhibit D says that the monthly payments due were in the amount of $455.80

each, contradicting the statements calling for $666.96. Exhibit D also contains mathematically

inconsistent amounts needed to be paid by [Plaintiff], on page three. The letter asserts that three

payments of $455.80 are due, plus $19.06 in late charges and $319.18 in deferred late charges.

These amounts total $1705.64. However the total amount demanded is $2,127.96.

25. [Plaintiff] received another letter dated January 27, 2005, purporting to respond to her

attorney’s written request for account information. Exhibit “E”. The January 27 letter states that

the payment amount is $666.96 effective October 1, and is attributable to advances for insurance



6

and taxes. The letter includes an escrow analysis that makes reference to an annual payment of

$417.39 for insurance, but does not explain the escrow deficit in excess of $5,000.

26. It is mathematically impossible for annual insurance payments of $417.39 from

2002 to 2004 to accumulate to a deficit of $5,000. [Plaintiff] pays her own real estate taxes,

which are about $500 per year. Even if Litton had paid the taxes from 2002 through 2004, that

would account only for $1,500 of the asserted escrow advances.

27. The January 27 letter also includes a payment history, but only from September

2004 through December 2004. The history printout included is incomprehensible, does not

identify transactions as payments, advances or charges, does not begin to address the questions

and concerns expressed by [Plaintiff] and her attorney, and is completely unresponsive to her

qualified written requests, which asked for an explanation of the $5,000 escrow deficit.

28. On or about May 13, 2005 Litton, through its attorneys Udren Law Office, P.C.,

mailed a “Reinstatement Quote” to [Plaintiff]. The May 13, 2005 reinstatement is attached as

Exhibit “F”. The total amount claimed to be due is shown as $47,103.60. This document calls

for monthly payments of $362.61, an amount that does not correspond to the $190.66 payment

for principal and interest, the $666.96 payment shown on the December statement, or the

$455.80 referred to on Exhibit D.

29. Exhibit E includes a demand for payment for numerous inspections of the

property, despite the fact that [Plaintiff] has been in constant communication with Litton, has a

working telephone, and Litton has no basis to believe there is any danger of the property being

abandoned.

30. Exhibit E includes a demand for $400 for a BPO, that is, a broker price opinion.

This amount is not properly chargeable to [Plaintiff] under the contract or Pennsylvania law.



7

31. Having no way to determine the correct amount due, [Plaintiff] sent $1400 to

Litton on May 6, 2005 (enough to cover the principal and interest payments due from November

2004 through May 2005) in an effort to show her good faith and desire to maintain her mortgage

payments.

32. Litton has, for the past two years, provided [Plaintiff] with inconsistent,

incomprehensible statements and correspondence and has made it impossible for her to maintain

her monthly mortgage payments. To the extent Litton has made advances for taxes and

insurance Litton has failed to identify the amounts advanced in a clear and simple manner and to

establish a reasonable plan for [Plaintiff] to repay those amounts.

33. [Plaintiff] has suffered severe emotional distress and anxiety as a result of

Litton’s conduct, and has expended money to travel to and from her attorney’s office and to copy

documents in her vain efforts to resolve this account dispute.

COUNT I FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

34. Litton was a debt collector within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692a, at the time it became the servicing agent for

[Plaintiff]’s loan, in that it regularly collects debts owed to another, and the debt was asserted by

Litton to be contractually in default at the time it became the servicer of the debt.

35. Each of the letters described above incorrectly stated the amount and the status

of [Plaintiff]’s debt.

36. Litton failed to provide verification of the alleged debt to [Plaintiff] in response

to her timely written request for such written verification.

37. Due to the repeated and continuing violations of the FDCPA, [Plaintiff] is

entitled to actual and statutory damages under 15. U.S.C. §1692k.



8

COUNT II - RESPA

38. Litton is a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan within the meaning of the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §2605.

39. Each of [Plaintiff]’s (and her attorney’s) written requests for information about

her account and correction of Litton’s numerous errors were “qualified written requests” within

the meaning of RESPA.

40. Litton failed to respond in a proper and timely way to [Plaintiff]’s “qualified

written requests” for information about, and corrections to, her mortgage account, in violation of

12 U.S.C. §2605(e).

COUNT III - PENNSYLVANIA ACT 6 of 1974

41. [Plaintiff]’s mortgage is a “residential mortgage obligation” covered by

Pennsylvania Act 6 of 1974, 41 Pa. Stat. §§101-605.

42. Litton has repeatedly failed to provide [Plaintiff] with an accurate notice of the

amount required to cure her mortgage default, as required by 41 P.S. §403, and has improperly

demanded payment of improper amounts and has thwarted her right to cure her default, under 41

P.S. §404, and has applied some of her payments to amounts not due under her mortgage and Act

6.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in her favor and against Litton for three times

the amount of the illegal charges.

COUNT IV - PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW



9

43. Litton’s conduct described above constituted unfair and deceptive acts

and practices, as defined by 73 Pa. Stat. §201-2(4).

44. [Plaintiff] has suffered an ascertainable loss of money as a result of

Litton’s unfair and deceptive practices.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in her favor

and against defendants, for a proper accounting and application of her mortgage

payments and for actual, statutory, treble and/or punitive damages, and attorney’s fees

and costs, along with any other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

______________________________ALAN M. WHITEAttorney for Plaintiff



10

3.2 Proposed Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________[PLAINTIFF] :

:Plaintiff :

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. [No.]:

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP :__________________________________________:

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF

LAW

Findings of Fact

45. This is an action by a low-income homeowner against a mortgage

servicing company seeking an accounting of her mortgage and statutory damages under

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and

state law.

46. Plaintiff [Plaintiff] is a natural person residing at [Plaintiff’s Address]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140.

47. The Defendant, Litton Loan Servicing, LP (“Litton”), is a corporation

with its principal offices at 4828 Loop Central Drive, Houston Texas. Litton is the

servicing agent for the holder of [Plaintiff]’s mortgage. The mortgage on [Plaintiff]’s

home is held by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA as the trustee for an investor-owned

trust that holds a large pool of mortgage loans.

48. [Plaintiff] and her husband, [Plaintiff’s Spouse], purchased their home in

North Philadelphia in 1984.



11

49. In December 1998 [Plaintiff and Spouse] refinanced their mortgage and entered

into a loan with Pierucci, Inc., trading as Sunset Mortgage Company. The mortgage was later

sold to Ocwen Federal Savings Bank, who in turn sold it to Wells Fargo Bank of Minnesota,

trustee. Ocwen continued to service the mortgage.

50. [Plaintiff] eventually filed a civil suit against Ocwen, seeking to rescind the 1998

loan and seeking other relief.

51. The civil suit against Ocwen was settled by a December 2000 settlement and loan

modification agreement (“the 2000 modification”) that, among other things, called for Ocwen to

reduce the loan principal to $25,984 and the interest rate to 8%, and for [Plaintiff] to make

monthly payments of principal and interest of $190.66. Exhibit 1.

52. On April 29, 2002 the servicing of the mortgage loan was transferred from

Ocwen Federal Savings Bank to Defendant Litton. Exhibit 2.

53. For a period of 29 months, from April 29, 2002, through at least September

2004, Litton failed and refused to adjust its records to reflect the 2000 modification, and as a

result continued demanding monthly payments ranging from $343 to $666 or more from

[Plaintiff], contrary to the terms of the modification. As a result [Plaintiff] received dozens of

letters, account statements and telephone calls from Litton that completely misrepresented the

amounts she owed.

54. Litton appears to have corrected the loan principal and interest rate by the end of

September 2004. Exhibit 8, 9. However, Litton continued demanding repayment by [Plaintiff]

of legal fees incurred by Ocwen prior to the 2000 modification, contrary to the terms of the

modification agreement. (Exhibit 3, entry dated 10/21/2004).

55. On May 9, 2002, Litton sent [Plaintiff] a letter demanding that [Plaintiff] make



12

monthly payments of $394.79, which was the payment prior to the 2000 modification, and

asserting that she was past due for payments since September 2000. Exhibit 2.

56. On May 21, 2002, [Plaintiff], through her lawyer, faxed a letter to Litton calling

attention to the terms of the loan modification, including the $190.66 payment amount, enclosing

another copy of the 2000 modification agreement, and asking Litton to correct [Plaintiff]’s

account records accordingly. These documents were received on the same day by Litton.

Exhibit 1.

57. On October 25, 2002 Litton mailed a “adjustable rate mortgage loan adjustment

notice” asserting that the principal balance was $33,126.86 and the new monthly payment would

be $343.74, based on an interest rate of 11.875%, considerably in excess of the amounts

provided for in the 2000 modification. Exhibit 4.

58. Litton also mailed rate adjustment notice letters to [Plaintiff] on April 30, 2003,

October 24, 2003, and April 26, 2004, each of which incorrectly stated that [Plaintiff]’s mortgage

bore an adjustable interest rate based on the original Note, instead of the fixed 8% rate called for

in the 2000 modification. Exhibit 3.

59. Litton mailed a monthly billing statement on April 14, 2004, May 14, 2004, June

14, 2004, July 15, 2004, August 13, 2004, and September 15, 2004, none of which reflected the

lower interest rate and payment provided for in the 2000 modification. See Exhibit 3, entries for

corresponding dates.

60. On or about August 10, 2004 [Plaintiff] wrote to Litton disputing the alleged

delinquency and asking Litton to correct its account records to reflect that her payments were to

be $190.66, and not $343.74 (or whatever amounts Litton was demanding based on the

adjustable rate Note.) Exhibit 5.



13

61. On August 18, 2004 Litton acknowledged [Plaintiff]’s written request for

account information and adjustments. Exhibit 6.

62. On September 3, 2004 and again on September 16, 2004, Litton wrote to [Plaintiff]

acknowledging the loan modification and asserting that Litton’s records had been updated to

reflect the loan modification. The September 16 letter stated that [Plaintiff]’s payment was in

fact $190.66, and was due for October 1, 2004, in other words, her payments were current.

Exhibits 8, 9.

63. However, [Plaintiff] then received a letter dated September 22, 2004, asserting

that she had an escrow deficit of $5285.17, and that effective November 1, 2004 her mortgage

payment would increase to 455.8 (sic). Exhibit 11.

64. The September 22, 2004 letter was incorrect. As of that date, Litton had made

the following payments for taxes and insurance on [Plaintiff]’s property:

a. $528.66 insurance premium September 5, 2002

b. $417.61 insurance premium May 28, 2003

c. 417.39 insurance premium May 10, 2004

d. $2,965.28 real estate taxes paid on January 29, 2004

Total: $4,328.94 (Defendant’s Exhibit D15)

65. At about the same time in September 2004 [Plaintiff] received her monthly

statement dated September 15, 2004 showing the amount due by October 1 as $190.66. This

statement also, however, reflected an escrow deficit of $5,285.17 and “other fees due” of

$40,927.12. No explanation was provided for the escrow deficit or the other fees. Exhibit 12.

66. On December 6, 2004 Litton sent [Plaintiff] a letter saying she was past due for

two months, and owed a total of $1,451.47. Exhibit 13. This was clearly inconsistent with the



14

September notices referring to a payment of $455 to recover the tax and insurance advances.

67. Also in December 2004 [Plaintiff] received her monthly statement dated

December 15 which called for a current payment amount of $666.96, and a total amount due by

January 1 2005 of $2,118.43. The “other fees due” had increased slightly to $40,936.12. Exhibit

14.

68. [Plaintiff] received another letter from Litton dated January 5, 2005 asserting

that she owed three payments, and must send $2,127.96 “today”. Exhibit 15. This amount was

apparently calculated on the same basis as the December statement amount, with the January 17

late fee added in advance. Exhibit 15 also falsely stated or implied that foreclosure was imminent

and could begin “immediately” or “today” if payment was not made. Pennsylvania law requires

a 30-day notice prior to foreclosure, and also prohibits foreclosure for up to 90 days if a

homeowner applies for emergency mortgage assistance. 41 Pa. Stat. §403, 35 Pa. Stat.

§1680.403c.

69. Also dated January 5, 2005 were two additional letters sent by Litton. One,

entitled “Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate”, demanded $2,127.96, and stated that after

45 days Litton could accelerate the mortgage balance and foreclose the property. Exhibit 16.

70. The other January 5, 2005 letter, entitled “Appendix A”, is similar to the notice

required by Pennsylvania law prior to foreclosure. Exhibit 17.

71. Exhibit 17 says that the monthly payments due were in the amount of $455.80

each, contradicting the statements calling for $666.96. Exhibit 17 also contains mathematically

inconsistent amounts needed to be paid by [Plaintiff], on page three. The letter asserts that three

payments of $455.80 are due, plus $19.06 in late charges and $319.18 in deferred late charges.

These amounts total $1705.64. However the total amount demanded is $2,127.96.



15

72. Although Exhibit 17 demands $319.18 in deferred late charges, other letters sent

by Litton (Exhibits 8 and 19) state or suggest that Litton was waiving the late charges.

73. [Plaintiff] received another letter dated January 27, 2005, purporting to respond to her

attorney’s written request for account information. Exhibit 19. The January 27 letter states that

the payment amount is $666.96 effective October 1, and is attributable to advances for insurance

and taxes. The letter includes an escrow analysis that makes reference to an annual payment of

$417.39 for insurance, but does not explain the escrow deficit in excess of $5,000.

74. The January 27 letter also includes a payment history, but only from September

2004 through December 2004. The history printout included is incomprehensible, does not

identify transactions as payments, advances or charges, does not begin to address the questions

and concerns expressed by [Plaintiff] and her attorney, and is completely unresponsive to her

qualified written requests, which asked for an explanation of the $5,000 escrow deficit and all

other amounts demanded, as well as an account history from 2002.

75. In the five months after September 2004, when Litton had allegedly corrected

[Plaintiff]’s account to reflect the loan modification agreement, [Plaintiff] received conflicting

notices demanding three different monthly payment amounts, escrow advances that were not

due, and a mysterious $40,936 fee balance.

76. [Plaintiff] was understandably confused and upset during this period and

frustrated in her attempts to determine in telephone conversations with Litton exactly what she

owed and why.

77. On or about May 13, 2005 Litton, through its attorneys Udren Law Office, P.C.,

mailed a “Reinstatement Quote” to [Plaintiff]. Exhibit 22. The total amount claimed to be due is

shown as $47,103.60. This document calls for monthly payments of $362.61, an amount that



16

does not correspond to the $190.66 payment for principal and interest, the $666.96 payment

shown on the December statement, or the $455.80 referred to on Exhibit 17, i.e. a fourth

conflicting amount for her monthly payment.

78. Exhibit 22 includes a demand for payment for numerous inspections of the

property, despite the fact that [Plaintiff] has been in constant communication with Litton, has a

working telephone, and Litton has no basis to believe there is any danger of the property being

abandoned.

79. Exhibit 22 includes a demand for $400 for a BPO, that is, a broker price opinion.

This amount is not properly chargeable to [Plaintiff] under the contract or Pennsylvania law,

because it was not a reasonable and necessary cost of foreclosure, incurred after the mailing of a

proper 30-day notice of intent to foreclose, 41 Pa. Stat. §403, 406.

80. Having no way to determine the correct amount due, [Plaintiff] sent a certified

check for $1400 to Litton on May 6, 2005 (enough to cover the seven principal and interest

payments due from November 2004 through May 2005) in an effort to show her good faith and

desire to maintain her mortgage payments. This payment was later refused by Litton.

81. To the present date it does not appear that Litton properly adjusted [Plaintiff]’s

account, retroactively to January 2001, the effective date of the loan modification agreement. As

a result, payments made and accepted from January 2001 to the present may have been applied

improperly.

82. Litton has, for the past two years, provided [Plaintiff] with inconsistent,

incomprehensible statements and correspondence and has made it impossible for her to maintain

her monthly mortgage payments.

83. To the extent Litton has made advances for taxes and insurance, Litton has failed



17

to identify these amounts advanced in a clear and simple notice and payment demand, and has

failed to establish a reasonable plan for [Plaintiff] to repay those amounts.

84. [Plaintiff] has suffered severe confusion, frustration, emotional distress, loss of

sleep, anxiety and fear of losing her home as a result of Litton’s conduct, continuously during the

nearly four years from May 2002 to the present.

Conclusions of Law

85. Jurisdiction over this matter is conferred upon this Court by 12 U.S.C. §2614, 15

U.S.C. §1692 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law

claims.

COUNT I FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

86. Litton was a debt collector within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1692a, at the time it became the servicing agent for

[Plaintiff]’s loan, in that it regularly collected debts owed to another.

87. The FDCPA coverage exception for servicers of debts that are not past due does

not apply to Litton. 15 USC 1692a(6)(F)(iii). Litton asserted in its initial communication with

[Plaintiff] that her payments were seriously past due. Exhibit 2. Whether Litton was correct or

not, the assertion of a default is sufficient to bring Litton under the FDCPA. Schlosser v.

Fairbanks Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2003).

88. Each of the letters described above incorrectly stated the amount and the status

of [Plaintiff]’s debt.

89. In particular, the four rate adjustment letters dated October 25, 2002, April 30,

2003, October 24, 2003, and April 26, 2004, the six monthly statements mailed in 2004

(including Exhibits 12 and 14), and the ten letters and notices (Exhibits 11-13, 15-17, 19-22) for



18

a total of twenty written communications to [Plaintiff], each constituted a separate violation of

15 U.S.C. §1692e.

90. Litton failed to provide verification of the alleged debt to [Plaintiff] in response

to her timely written request for such written verification, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692g(b).

91. Although the statute of limitations under the Federal statute is one year,

encompassing the written communication and other conduct from June 2004 to the present,

Pennsylvania’s Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 Pa. Stat. §§2270.1 to 2270.6, imposes

the same requirements on debt collectors as the federal law. 73 Pa. Stat. §2270.4(A). A

violation of the Pennsylvania debt collection provisions is per se a violation of the Pennsylvania

Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. §§201-9.2, 2270.6(A). The statute of limitations for

private actions under the Consumer Protection law is six years. Gabriel v. O’Hara, 368 Pa.

Super. 383, 534 A.2d 488 (1987).

92. Because of the difficulty of quantifying the misapplication of [Plaintiff]’s

payments by Litton throughout the three year period at issue, it is appropriate to award the $100

minimum damages under the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law for each of the incorrect

and misleading communications, for a total of $2,000. See In re Koresko, 91 B.R. 689 (Bankr.

E.D. Pa. 1988).

93. Due to the repeated and continuing violations of the FDCPA, [Plaintiff] is

entitled to actual and statutory damages under 15. U.S.C. §1692k, as follows:

A) $1,000 statutory damages under the FDCPA,

B) actual damages of $ for anxiety and emotional

distress suffered from 2002 to the present,



19

C) minimum statutory damages under the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension

Uniformity Act and the Consumer Protection Law of $100 for each violation, for a total of

$2,000, and

D) reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

COUNT II - RESPA

94. Litton is a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan within the meaning of the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §2605.

95. The May 21, 2002 letter to Litton was a “qualified written request” to Litton,

within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(1)(B) and was received on that date by Litton.

96. Litton failed to make appropriate corrections to the account within 60 days, and

failed to notify [Plaintiff] of any corrections, as required by 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(2).

97. Each of [Plaintiff]’s (and her attorney’s) subsequent written requests for

information about her account and correction of Litton’s numerous errors were “qualified written

requests” within the meaning of RESPA, including, among others, the January 13, 2005 letter to

Litton, Exhibit 18.

98. Litton failed to respond in a proper and timely way to [Plaintiff]’s “qualified

written requests” for information about, and corrections to, her mortgage account, in violation of

12 U.S.C. §2605(e).

99. As a result of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the servicing

provisions of RESPA, Litton is liable to [Plaintiff] for actual damages in the amount of $

and statutory damages of $1,000. 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1).

COUNT III - PENNSYLVANIA ACT 6 of 1974

100. [Plaintiff]’s mortgage is a “residential mortgage obligation” covered by



20

Pennsylvania Act 6 of 1974, 41 Pa. Stat. §§101-605.

101. Litton has repeatedly failed to provide [Plaintiff] with an accurate notice of the

amount required to cure her mortgage default, as required by 41 P.S. §403, has improperly

demanded payment of amounts not due, and has thwarted her right to cure her default, under 41

P.S. §404.

102. The excess charges to [Plaintiff]’s account include $319.18 in late charges

caused by Litton’s failure to implement the loan modification, Exhibit 17 page 3, the $400

“BPO” fee and $70 in inspection fees, Exhibit 22.

103.

Litton is therefore liable to [Plaintiff] for three times the excess charges, 41 P.S.

§502, or $2,367.54, together with reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

COUNT IV - PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW

104. Litton’s conduct described above constituted unfair and deceptive acts and

practices, as defined by 73 Pa. Stat. §201-2(4).

105. [Plaintiff] has suffered an ascertainable loss of money as a result of Litton’s

unfair and deceptive practices.

106. [Plaintiff] is entitled to recover three times her actual damages, or $

, together with reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, 73 Pa. Stat. §201-9.2.

107. The Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law also authorizes an award to an

aggrieved consumer of “other appropriate relief,” which in this case includes a full and complete

accounting of her mortgage account by Litton, together with all adjustments necessary to reflect

the terms of the 2000 modification agreement, effective January 2001, to remove all late charges,

and any other fee or charge of any kind, apart from the agreed reduced principal, interest from

January 2001, and actual payments of real estate taxes and insurance made by Litton since



21

January 2001.

108. The relief to be awarded the plaintiff can be summarized as follows:

a. $1,000 statutory damages under the FDCPA,

b. $2,000 for the twenty violations of the Pennsylvania debt collection

statute,

c. $1,000 statutory damages for violating RESPA,

d. $2,367.54 in treble damages under Pennsylvania Act 6 of 1974,

e. $ actual damages for emotional distress,

f.

an injunction directing Litton to analyze [Plaintiff]’s account

retroactive to the date of the 2000 loan modification agreement, to

reapply her payments properly under that agreement, to remove all fees

or charges imposed by Litton or the previous servicer, including any

attorney’s fees or foreclosure costs, and to discuss with [Plaintiff] and

establish a reasonable repayment schedule for any taxes and insurance

advances made by Litton from 2002 to the present (which may include

setting off the damage award to [Plaintiff] against these amounts due),

g. and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, in an amount to be

determined after submission of an appropriate motion by the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________



22

ALAN M. WHITEAttorney for Plaintiff



23

EXHIBIT LIST

1. May 21 2002 letter (faxed) with enclosures, from [Name] to Litton LoanServicing, includes 2000 loan modification agreement.

2. May 9 2002 letter from Litton to [Spouse] and [Plaintiff], notice of servicingtransfer.

3. Litton collection log, entries from 10/19/2001 through 2/17/2005 (8 pp.)

4. Litton letter to [Plaintiff] October 25, 2002.

5. [Plaintiff]’s letter of August 10, 2004.

6. Litton’s letter dated August 18, 2004.

7. Litton internal memo dated August 24, 2004 requesting implementation of theLoan Modification.

8. Litton letter dated September 3, 2004, re adjustments to account.

9. Litton letter dated September 16, 2004 also confirming adjustment to paymentamount.

10. Litton transaction history printed on 9/2/04 at 16:16 (military time.)

11. Litton letter dated September 22, 2004.

12. Litton monthly statement dated September 15, 2004.

13. Litton Letter dated 12/6/2004.

14. Litton monthly statement dated 12/15/2004.

15. Litton letter dated January 5, 2005.

16. Litton Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate dated January 5, 2005.

17. Litton Act 91 Notice dated January 5, 2005.

18. January 13, 2005 letter to Litton from [Plaintiff]’s attorney.

19. January 27, 2005 response to [Plaintiff] from Litton, including enclosedhistory.

20. February 4, 2005 Notice of Default from Litton.



21. Litton monthly statement dated February 11, 2005.

22. Reinstatement quote generated 5/13/2005 from Litton.

23. Cashier’s check for $1,400 payable to Litton dated 5/6/2005.

Complaint Form Clp12_03

Documents

Transcript of Complaint Form Clp12_03