Foreclosure Mill Law Firm Accused of Fraud, Racketeering

See also:

LINK – More Georgia Foreclosure Fraud – Prosecutors Probe Counterfeit Notary Seal from Prommis Solutions

~

LINK – Georgia’s Version of David J. Stern and Friends? – McCalla Raymer, Charles Troy Crouse and Prommis Solutions

~

Click Through to View

And now for the complaint…

WENDY N. JENKINS, ELEANOR

SPRATLIN CRAWFORD, each Plaintiff

individually, and on behalf of all Georgia

residents similarly situated.
Plaintiffs,

vs.

McCALLA RAYMER, LLC, THOMAS A.

SEARS, ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY, AS AN

OFFICER OF MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC, AS AN

OFFICER OF WELLS FARGO, AND AS

AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER

CHARLES TROY CRO– USE, ESQ., aka C.

TROY CRO– USE ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY,

AS AN OFFICER OF MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC, AS AN OFFICER OF

WELLS FARGO AND AS AN EMPLOYEE

OF McCALLA RAYMER, MERSCORP

INC., BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BAC

HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP., fka

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS

SERVICING, LP.,WELLS FARGO BANK,

N.A., PROMMIS SOLUTIONS, LLC.,

PROMMIS SOLUTIONS HOLDING INC.,

GREAT HILL PARTNERS, INC.,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSYTEMS INC.

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY,

TAYLOR BEAN &WHITAKER,

CRYSTAL WILDER, INDIVIDUALLY,

AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN

EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER,

ELIZABETH LOFARO, INDIVIDUALLY,

AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN

EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER,

CHIQUITA RAGLIN, INDIVIDUALLY,

AS NOTARY PUBLIC AND AS AN

EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA RAYMER,

VICTORIA MARIE ALLEN,

INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC

AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA

RAYMER, IRIS GISELLA BEY,

INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC

AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA

RAYMER, JAMELA REYNOLDS,

INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC

AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA

RAYMER AND LATASHA DANIEL,

INDIVIDUALLY, AS NOTARY PUBLIC

AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF McCALLA

RAYMER

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION:

  1. In this Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff(s) seek, inter alia, the injunction of various foreclosure and eviction proceedings, for themselves and other similarly situated, based upon the Defendant’s routine failure to comply with statutory prerequisites to foreclosure. Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent also seek a determination of the validity of foreclosure sales held in violation of statutory requirements, together with damages and other relief.
  2. Georgia has longstanding, statutorily prescribed non-judicial procedures by Power of Sale with minimal consumer protections for homeowners. O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162 et seq. Homes are routinely foreclosed upon pursuant to the statutory Power of Sale without a pre-foreclosure hearing.
  3. The law is clear, however, that entities foreclosing upon homeowners must strictly comply with Georgia’s statutory prerequisites to foreclosure. O.C.G.A. § 23-2-114. Among other things, it is black letter law that the entity seeking to foreclose must have actual legal authority to exercise the Power of Sale.
  4. In recent years, many foreclosing entities, including Defendants have dispensed with this fundamental requirement. Such entities foreclose, through their Counsel, without having first obtained proper and legally valid assignment of the mortgage and the power of sale on property they purport to foreclose.
  5. Georgia’s foreclosure process has become an undisciplined and lawless rush to seize homes. Many thousands of foreclosures are plainly void under statute and Georgia case law. Many borrowers never obtain accurate statutorily required notices, have flawed and fraudulently created assignments of title and thus are sold and, sometimes, resold without a proper chain of title.
  6. Plaintiffs in this matter seek relief for the Defendant’s wrongful foreclosure practices and actions. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief concerning foreclosures conducted by entities who do not hold the Power of Sale, injunction of eviction action pending procedures to verify the validity of underlying sales, injunction of upcoming sales where there is no proof of assignment, cancellation of fees and costs for invalid sales processes and damages.
  7. Plaintiffs seek such relief on their own behalf and on behalf of all Georgia property owners similarly situated.

 

FIRST CA– USE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE


SECOND CA– USE OF ACTION

WIRE FRAUD

 

THIRD CA– USE OF ACTION

RESPA VIOLATION


FOURTH CA– USE OF ACTION

Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)


FIFTH CA– USE OF ACTION

CIVIL CONSPRIACY AND FRAUD (MERSCORP and MERS, Inc.)


SIXTH CA– USE OF ACTION

ILLEGAL FEE SPLITTING AND UNAUTHORIZED

PRACTICE OF LAW


SEVENTH CA– USE OF ACTION

(Great Hill Partners, Inc. and Prommis Solutions, Inc.)


EIGHTH CA– USE OF ACTION

RICO VIOLATIONS


NINTH CA– USE OF ACTION

DAMAGES


COUNT TEN- PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Full complaint below…

~

4closureFraud.org


I sure could use some…

~

Georgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action – Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure Fraudsters
[scribd id=42510180 key=key-o7m9ur85hd491ljkd5o mode=list]