Predatory Lending Legal Concerns

Summary

Predatory lending practices may involve fraudulent misrepresentation, violating the Truth in Lending Act, and engaging in unfair and deceptive acts. Unauthenticated allegations in court can breach the Federal Rules of Evidence and due process rights. In Massachusetts, similar state rules apply, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act may be relevant. Consider consulting a legal expert to address these issues.

Full Conversation

Al
Hi Al! How can I assist you with your legal issue today?
Please enhance; The beginning of the malicious prosecution is based on ignoring the predatory characteristics of the originating refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated, (CLI), taking advantage of a *-year-old black man, by simultaneously packaging a pair of loans. On August *, *, two loans, $*,*,*, the other for $*,*, totaling $*,*,*, which greatly exceeded the Longmeadow appraisal of $*,*,* were issued to the Kings. One of the loans concealed exceeding the legal lending limits, and the second camouflaged a loan which started with monthly payments of $*.* which escalated to $*,*. The fact that CLI filed a Chapter * bankruptcy on January *, *, that listed * dba(s) warranted further examination and investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Here's the enhanced version:
The malicious prosecution began by ignoring the predatory practices of the originating refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Incorporated (CLI). They exploited a *-year-old black man by simultaneously packaging two loans. On August *, *, two loans, one for $*,*,* and the other for $*,*, totaling $*,*,*, were issued to the Kings, greatly exceeding the Longmeadow appraisal of $*,*,*. One loan concealed its excess over legal lending limits, while the other started with monthly payments of $*,* that escalated to $*,*. CLI's Chapter * bankruptcy filing on January *, *, listing * DBAs, warranted further investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Have you taken any legal steps so far?
Are there other laws that have been broken that should be added?
Hi Al! Based on the situation you've described, the following are potential legal issues that could be considered:
- Predatory Lending Practices: Loan terms that take advantage of the borrower, especially if targeting based on age or race.
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Concealing true loan terms and exceeding legal lending limits.
- Violation of Truth in Lending Act: Failure to disclose accurate loan information.
- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP): Engaging in practices that are unethical or deceitful.
Have you consulted with a financial legal expert or a consumer protection attorney about these issues?
Unauthenticated allegations were presented in the WHC summary judgment without any direct testimony or authenticated documents. This violates what MA and federal laws?
When unauthenticated allegations are presented without direct testimony or authenticated documents, it may violate several legal standards:
- Federal Rules of Evidence: Particularly Rule *, which requires authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility.
- Due Process Rights: Under the 14th Amendment, ensuring fair procedures.
Have you considered challenging the summary judgment based on these violations?
Is there a MA state violation also
In Massachusetts, there could be state law violations related to the presentation of unauthenticated allegations in court:
- Massachusetts Rules of Evidence: Similar to federal rules, these require proper authentication of documents (Rule *).
- Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Chapter 93A): Unfair or deceptive acts, including potentially fraudulent or misleading court filings.
Have you consulted a Massachusetts attorney regarding these potential violations?
Enhance; the courts ignored the invalid, deceptive, purported modification of this loan which: Added $*,*.* to the original principle amount financed; Did not utilize a new appraisal based on the housing depression modification standards during *. Did not include the simultaneous second mortgage. This invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan, and it was not executed by the three original parties. BAC, injected themselves into the modification, despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or the promissory note.
Here’s the enhanced version:
The courts ignored the invalid, deceptive modification of this loan which:
- Added $*,*.* to the original principal amount financed.
- Did not utilize a new appraisal based on * housing depression modification standards.
- Did not include the simultaneous second mortgage.
This invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan and was not executed by the three original parties. BAC injected themselves into the modification despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or the promissory note.
Do you have any documentation or evidence to support your claims?
Enhance; Specifically, mortgagor Alton King Jr. and the original refinance lender, CLI, were not a party to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, even though they were two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification. The invalid document was also signed on different dates, with Terri A. Mayes-King signing on December *, *, and BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signing on March *, *. (See pp. *-*). Mortgage payments were no longer paid on the original note thus the note activating the second time-barred status six years after on December *, *.
Here's the enhanced version:
Mortgagor Alton King Jr. and the original refinance lender, CLI, were not parties to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, despite being two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification on December *, *, while BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signed on March *, *. Mortgage payments ceased on the original note, triggering a second time-barred status six years later on December *, *.
Are you currently working with a lawyer to address these issues?
Enhance; UCC *-* states that an unauthenticated assignment is not evidence without direct testimony from the signatory; therefore, payments must be paid to the original lender because they did not authenticate a transfer; otherwise, payments would not satisfy the obligation under the note.
Under UCC *-*, an unauthenticated assignment is not valid evidence without direct testimony from the signatory. Consequently, payments must be made to the original lender because the transfer was not authenticated. Otherwise, payments would not satisfy the note's obligation.
Do you have evidence that the assignment was unauthenticated?