Stewart et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Filing 81

ORDER allowing the filing of a second amended complaint (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

William E. Kennedy (State Bar No. 158214)
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY
2797 Park Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Clara, California 95050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
Robert David Humphreys (pro hac vice)
Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C.
9202 S. Toledo Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74137
[phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
[e-mail]
Lucius James Wallace (pro hac vice)
Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C.
9202 S. Toledo Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74137
[phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART
AND NANCY STEWART

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT

18
19

WILLIAM G. STEWART and NANCY
STEWART,

20
Plaintiffs,
21
v.

Case No. C10-01225-SI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

22
23
24
25
26

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and TRANS
UNION LLC

Trial Date: June 18, 2012
Hon. Susan Illston

Defendants.

27
28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
C10-01225-SI

1
2
3

WHEREAS, plaintiffs William G. Stewart and Nancy Stewart seek to file the Second
Amended Complaint which is attached hereto as Exhibit A
WHEREAS, the Second Amended Complaint adds claims under the Real Estate

4

Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C.2605, against Defendant Home Loans Servicing, LP

5

(“BACHLS”) only. A redlined comparison of the First Amended Complaint and the Second

6

Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit B hereto.

7

WHEREAS, defendants Defendants BACHLS, EXPERIAN INFORMATION

8

SOLUTIONS, INC. ("Experian"), TRANS UNION LLC ("Trans Union"), and EQUIFAX

9

INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC (“Equifax”) have agreed to stipulate to the filing of the

10

Second Amended Complaint within five (5) court days of entry of this Order.

11
12

Dated: July 11, 2011

13

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY
HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS
P.C.

14
15

By:_/s/__________________________
William E. Kennedy
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS WILLIAM G.
STEWART AND NANCY STEWART

16
17
18

Dated: July 11, 2011

REED SMITH, LLC
By: _/s/___________________________
David Reidy
Attorneys for Defendant BAC HOME LOAN
SERVICING, LP

Dated: July 11, 2011

JONES DAY
By: _/s/___________________________
Jason C. Wright
Attorneys for Defendant EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS

Dated: July 11, 2011

SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES
By: _/s/___________________________
Karen Butler Reisinger
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TRANS
UNION LLC

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
C10-001225 SI

1
2

Dated: July 11, 2011

3
4

KING & SPALDING LLP
By: _/s/___________________________
K. Ann Broussard
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC

5
6

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

7

William E. Kennedy, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been

8

obtained from the other signatories.

9
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
10
11

Executed on July 11, 2011 at Santa Clara, California.

12
13

Dated: July 11, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY

14
By:_/s/__________________________
William E. Kennedy
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS WILLIAM G.
STEWART AND NANCY STEWART

15
16
17
18
19

Pursuant to Stipulation, It is ORDERED that plaintiffs William G. Stewart and Nancy

20

Stewart may file the Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit A hereto within five (5)

21

court days of entry of this Order.

22
23
24

7/14/11
Date: ________________

___________________________________
Hon. Susan Illston
United States District Court

25
26
27
28
-3-

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Granting
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
C10-001225 SI

EXHIBIT A

4

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY
WILLIAM E. KENNEDY (CSB #158214)
2797 Park Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Clara, California 95050
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
[e-mail]

5

Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART AND NANCY STEWART

1
2
3

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WILLIAM G. STEWART AND NANCY
STEWART,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
)
vs.
)
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; EQUIFAX )
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN )
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and TRANS )
)
UNION LLC
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________________ )

17
18

Case No.: 10-01225SI
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR
CREDIT REPORTING ACT, THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER CREDIT
REPORTING AGENCIES ACT, AND
THE REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT
PROCEDURES ACT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Jurisdiction is proper in the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331,

19

on the basis that defendants, by an act or omission violated federal law, specifically the federal

20

Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.

21

2.

Venue is proper in the Federal District Court of Northern California pursuant to

22

28 U.S.C. §1391, because this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

23

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

24
25
26
27
28

PARTIES
3.

At all material times, Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART AND NANCY

STEWART were individuals residing in Marin County, California.
4.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at all material times, defendant BAC

HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP (hereinafter “Bank of America”) is a Texas Limited
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Partnership.
5.

Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (hereinafter “Equifax”) is a

“consumer reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).
6.

Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter “Experian”) is a

“consumer reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).
7.

Defendant Trans Union LLC (hereinafter “Trans-Union”) is a “consumer

reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).

8
9
10
11
12

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8.

In early 2007, plaintiffs took out a home equity line of credit from SBMC

Mortgage and drew approximately $84,000 from the credit line.

13

9.

14

only payments.

15

10.

The terms of the home equity line of credit allowed plaintiffs to make interest

In May 2007, the line of credit was assigned to Countrywide Savings. For

16

unknown reasons Countrywide Savings sent monthly statements to plaintiffs which requested

17

payment of principal and interest, rather than just interest. Although plaintiffs were only

18

obligated to pay interest, they paid principal and interest for several months. However, after

19

discovering this billing error in approximately November 2008, plaintiffs notified Countrywide

20

that they would only make interest payments. Beginning in December 2008, plaintiffs made

21

interest-only payments. Countrywide, which apparently continued to expect to receive principal

22

and interest payments considered plaintiffs’ loan to be delinquent and in subsequent monthly

23

statements, informed plaintiffs that they were past due.

24

11.

Mr. Stewart contacted Countrywide and again informed its representatives that

25

the line of credit required only interest payments. Ultimately, an audit was done on plaintiffs’

26

account. Countrywide acknowledged their continuing mistake and apologized to Mr. Stewart.

27

Mr. Stewart was told not to make payments until the audit was completed since the account was

28

overpaid. Throughout this process, Mr. Stewart spent many hours and experienced numerous
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

transfers from many different departments, supervisors, and divisions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

12.

In approximately May 2009, Bank of America acquired Countrywide and all

further actions concerning the account were taken by Bank of America.
13.

In June 2009, Bank of America issued a notice of intent to accelerate the loan to

plaintiffs.
14.

Mr. Stewart again spent numerous hours on the telephone with Bank of America,

explaining the situation to numerous employees who offered different explanations of why the
problem was occurring. Mr. Stewart was told not to worry, and was assured that there were notes
in the computer that the account was not marked delinquent. Mr. Stewart was also assured that
he had not been given any negative blemishes on his credit.
15.

In July 2009, Mr. Stewart received notification from Wells Fargo that due to

derogatory information on his credit reports, it had frozen their equity line with them.
16.

Bank of America also sent a letter to plaintiffs stating that it was freezing

plaintiffs’ line of credit due to alleged late payments.
17.

Mr. Stewart then discovered that Bank of America had, in fact, reported

delinquencies on his account. Specifically, Bank of America reported late payments on
plaintiffs’ line of credit in January, February, and June, 2009. These reports were made with
respect to both Mr. and Mrs. Stewart.
18.

On August 14, 2009, Mr. Stewart submitted a dispute letter to the three major

credit reporting agencies – Trans Union, Experian, and Experian. On August 17, 2009, Mr.
Stewart submitted the same dispute letter to Bank of America. The letter again explained that
plaintiffs were being improperly billed for interest and principal payments, leading to the
derogatory credit report.
19.

Thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2), each of the three credit reporting agencies conveyed Mr. Stewart’s dispute
to Bank of America.
20.

Bank of America verified to each of the three credit reporting agencies that the

derogatory information which it was reporting concerning Mr. Stewart was correct.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

3

21.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thereafter, each of the three credit reporting agencies reported back to Mr.

Stewart that the derogatory credit would not be removed from his credit report.
22.

On November 12, 2009, plaintiffs again sent a comprehensive dispute letter to the

credit reporting agencies.
23.

The November 12, 2009 letter was also sent to Bank of America.

24.

The letter explained the history of the dispute, and requested that the derogatory

information be removed from plaintiffs’ credit reports.
25.

Thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2), plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the three credit reporting
agencies conveyed Mr. Stewart’s dispute to Bank of America.
26.

Bank of America verified to each of the three credit reporting agencies that the

derogatory information which it was reporting concerning plaintiffs was correct.
27.

Thereafter, each of the three credit reporting agencies reported back to both

plaintiffs that the derogatory credit would not be removed from their respective credit reports.
28.

On December 14, 2009 Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them

that “We are in the process of obtaining the documentation and information necessary to address
your questions and concerns. We will provide a more complete response within twenty (20)
business days.”
29.

On December 21, 2009, plaintiffs again sent a comprehensive dispute letter to the

credit reporting agencies and Bank of America. The letter explained the history of the dispute,
and again requested that the derogatory information be removed from plaintiffs’ credit reports.
30.

Thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2), plaintiffs are informed and believe that Trans Union and Equifax conveyed
plaintiffs’ dispute to Bank of America.
31.

In response to plaintiffs’ December 21, 2009 correspondence, Experian responded

to William and Nancy Stewart as follows:
We are responding to your request to verify item(s) on your personal credit report. We
have already investigated this information and the credit grantor has verified its accuracy.
Please refer to the personal credit report you received for this name, phone number, and
address of the credit grantor who verified this information. Pursuant to Section
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

4

1

611(a)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we will not be investigating your dispute
again at this time.

2

32.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681i, Experian was required to conduct an investigation

3

by forwarding plaintiffs’ dispute to Bank of America. The investigation could be terminated

4

pursuant to section 611(a)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(3)(A))

5

only if Experian reasonably determined that the dispute by the consumer was frivolous or

6

irrelevant.

7

33.

8

Bank of America verified to Equifax and Trans Union that the derogatory

information which it was reporting concerning plaintiffs was correct.
34.

9

Thereafter, Equifax and Trans Union reported back to both plaintiffs that the

10

incorrect information had been verified, and that the derogatory credit would not be removed

11

from their respective credit reports.
35.

12

On January 26, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them

13

that “We are in the process of obtaining the documentation and information necessary to address

14

your questions and concerns. We will provide a more complete response within twenty (20)

15

business days.”
36.

16

On January 29, 2010, plaintiffs sent a certified letter to Bank of America asking

17

them if they had made a decision yet as to how their matter would be resolved, and resubmitting

18

the December 21, 2009 dispute letter.
37.

19

On February 5, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs which stated:

20

“Our records reflect your payments were delinquent for those months. Consequently, we are

21

unable to grant your request to remove the negative remarks on your credit file.” Although the

22

letter was dated in February 2010, the letter stated “Your next payment is due on September 25,

23

2009.”

24
25
26
27
28

38.

The February 5, 2010 letter also states that a loan history had been mailed to

plaintiffs under separate cover.
39.

A loan history was mailed to plaintiffs which showed numerous adjustments and

reversals to plaintiffs’ account.
40.

On February 11, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to Mr. Stewart requesting

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

5

more time to reply.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

41.

On February 25, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them

that “We are in the process of obtaining the documentation and information necessary to address
your questions and concerns. We will provide a more complete response within twenty (20)
business days.”
42.

On April 12, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them that

“We are in the process of obtaining additional information to complete the research to address
your concerns. Please allow an additional twenty (20) business days for a response to be sent.”
43.

During this process, and after plaintiffs first disputed the information on their

credit report with the credit reporting agencies, plaintiffs attempted to refinance several
properties to take advantage of historically low interest rates which were available. Because of
the credit blemishes, plaintiffs did not qualify for the low interest rates. Accordingly, plaintiffs
suffered substantial money damages.

13
14

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
(Fair Credit Reporting Act – 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b)

15
16

44.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

17

45.

15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b explains the responsibilities of furnishers of credit

18

information after they have been notified by a credit reporting agency that the consumer disputes

19

the credit information provided by the furnisher. Upon receiving notice of a dispute, the

20

furnisher is to review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency,

21

conduct a reasonable investigation and report the results to the appropriate consumer reporting

22

agencies. The consumer may bring a cause of action against the furnisher if it does not comply

23

with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b.

24

46.

Plaintiffs communicated their dispute regarding the derogatory credit information

25

to the Equifax, Experian and Trans Union on multiple occasions. Thereafter, plaintiffs are

26

informed and believe that each of these credit reporting agencies notified Bank of America of the

27

dispute in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).

28

47.

Thereafter, plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the 12+ times it was

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

6

notified of a dispute by a credit reporting agency, Bank of America failed to review all relevant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

information provided by the credit reporting agencies and/or conduct a reasonable investigation
to ascertain whether the derogatory information it had reported was incomplete or inaccurate, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b.
48.

In addition, plaintiffs are informed and believe that Bank of America notified the

credit reporting agencies that the derogatory credit information reported with respect to the
plaintiffs was correct, and failed to notify the credit reporting agencies that the account was
disputed.
49.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b by

Bank of America was willful. In the alternative, plaintiffs are informed and believe that the
violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b by Bank of America was negligent.
50.

Bank of America’s violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b caused damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.

13
14
15

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
(California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act --Civil Code §1785.25(a))

16

51.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

17

52.

Bank of America violated Civil Code §1785.25(a) by reporting credit information

18

to consumer credit reporting agencies, as that term is defined at Civil Code §1785.3(d). which it

19

knew or should have known was incomplete or inaccurate

20

53.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of Civil Code §1785.25(a) by

21

defendant was willful and in accordance with defendant’s standard business procedures. In the

22

alternative, plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of Civil Code §1785.25(a) by

23

defendant was negligent.

24
25

54.

Defendant’s violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act

caused damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

26
27

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST EQUIFAX, EXPERIAN, AND TRANS UNION
(Fair Credit Reporting Act – 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B))

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

7

55.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

56.

Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, at 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B), upon

receiving a dispute from the Stewarts concerning the derogatory credit information the three
credit reporting agencies were required to provide “all relevant information regarding the dispute
that is received by the agency” to the furnisher of the disputed credit information - in this case
Bank of America.
57.

Neither Equifax, Experian, nor Trans Union complied with 15 U.S.C.

§1681i(a)(2)(B). Rather, in response to receipt of a dispute letter from plaintiffs, the credit
reporting agencies generated and conveyed an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification form
(“ACDV”) to Bank of America. At least twelve ACDV forms were generated and conveyed to
Bank of America by the credit reporting agencies. In no case, did the credit reporting agencies
convey the dispute letter received from plaintiffs to Bank of America. The ACDV forms
generated did not explain the nature of plaintiffs’ dispute. Instead, the forms merely represented
the plaintiffs’ disputes as a generic “Dispute Code.” Most of the ACDVs generated by the credit
reporting agencies used the “106" Dispute Code, which translates to “disputes present/previous
account status.”
58.

On some of the ACDVs, the ACDVs included a section for text which

purportedly explained the nature of the dispute. The text provided, however, was nonsensical, or
incomplete. For example, in some ACDVs, the credit reporting agencies appeared to reproduce
one out-of-context sentence from the Stewarts’ dispute letters.
59.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the credit reporting agencies

routinely violate 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B) by failing to provide “all relevant information
regarding the dispute that is received by the agency” to the credit reporting agencies. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe that credit reporting agencies routinely use ACDVs to convey
consumer disputes to furnishers of disputed credit information, when the ACDVs are inadequate
to convey the nature and reasons for the consumers’ dispute.
60.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of 15 U.S.C.

§1681i(a)(2)(B) by the credit reporting agencies was willful. In the alternative, plaintiffs are

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

8

informed and believe that the violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B) by the credit reporting
1
2
3

agencies was negligent.
61.

The credit reporting agencies’ violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B) caused

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

4
5

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST EXPERIAN
(Fair Credit Reporting Act – 15 U.S.C. §1681i)

6
7

62.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

8

63.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681i, Experian was required to conduct an investigation

9

in response to plaintiffs’ December 14, 2009 dispute letter, and was required to forward

10

plaintiffs’ dispute to Bank of America. Experian failed to conduct the required investigation,

11

wrongfully citing section 611(a)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.

12

§1681i(a)(3)(A)) which only allows credit reporting agencies to terminate investigation of a

13

consumer dispute if it reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or

14

irrelevant. Plaintiffs’ dispute was not frivolous or irrelevant, and Plaintiffs are informed and

15

believe that Experian either made no such determination, or unreasonably made such a

16

determination.

17

64.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i by

18

Experian was willful. In the alternative, plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of

19

15 U.S.C. §1681i by Experian was negligent.

20
21

65.

Experian’s violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i caused damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.

22
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
(Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act – 15 U.S. C. §2605)

23
24
25
26
27

66.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

67.

Bank of America is a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan and therefore is

subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“ RESPA”) pursuant to 12
U.S.C.§2605(e);

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

9

68.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

RESPA imposes a duty on mortgage servicers such as Bank of America to

respond to consumer complaints that a mortgage account is in error by either making the
requested correction or explaining the reason they did not. RESPA further requires that loan
servicers cease reporting disputed credit information for 60 business days following a dispute.
69.

The August 17, 2009, November 12, 2009, December 21, 2009, and January 29,

2010 letters to Bank of America described above each constituted “qualified written requests”
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(1)(B) insofar as all four letters included, or otherwise enabled
Bank of America to identify the plaintiffs’ name and account, and included a statement of the
reasons for the plaintiffs’ belief that the account was in error.
70.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(1)(A) Bank of America was required to

acknowledge receipt of the dispute letters within 20 days (excluding legal public holidays,
Saturdays, and Sundays).
71.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605e(2), within 60 days (excluding legal public holidays,

Saturdays, and Sundays) after the receipt from plaintiffs of the each of the four dispute letters,
Bank of America was required to:
1) make appropriate corrections in plaintiffs’ account, including any late charges or
penalties, and
2) transmit to plaintiffs a written notification of such correction, which included the name
and telephone number of a representative of Bank of America who can provide assistance.
72.

Alternatively, if Bank of America determined to not make corrections to

plaintiffs’ account, it was required to:
1) conduct an investigation,
2) provide plaintiffs with a written explanation or clarification that included a statement
of the reasons for which Bank of America believed the account was correct, and
3) provide the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or
department of Bank of America who could provide assistance to the borrower.
73.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605e(3), during the 60-day period beginning on the date

of Bank of America’s receipt of the four dispute letters, Bank of America was prohibited from

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

10

providing information regarding any disputed overdue payments to any consumer reporting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

agency.
74.

With respect to the August 17, 2009 letter, Bank of America violated each of the

above-listed requirements.
75.

With respect to the November 12, 2009, December 21, 2009 and January 29, 2010

letters, plaintiffs did not receive any response until February 5, 2010. The letter plaintiffs
received stated that the account was not in error and would not be changed. The letter purported
to set forth the reasons why Bank of America rejected plaintiffs’ dispute, but in fact was nonresponsive to the nature of plaintiffs’ dispute, i.e. that plaintiffs were considered to be delinquent
only because Bank of America improperly demanded principal and interest payments, when only
interest payments were due. Further, the letter nonsensically stated that “Your next payment is
due on September 25, 2009.”
76.

Bank of America violated the following provisions with respect to the November

12, 2009, December 21, 2009 and January 29, 2010 letters:
1) Bank of America failed to promptly make appropriate corrections in plaintiffs’
account;
2) Bank of America failed to transmit to plaintiffs a written notification of such
correction;
3) Bank of America failed to conduct an investigation of the disputed credit reporting;
4) Bank of America failed to provide plaintiffs with a written explanation or clarification
that included a statement as to why Bank of America had determined that plaintiffs’ dispute was
without merit.
5) Bank of America failed to cease reporting derogatory information regarding the
disputed overdue payments during the sixty day period.
77.

Bank of America’s many violations of RESPA constitute a “pattern and practice”

of violation of the Act. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1), Bank of America is liable for
$1,000.00.
78.

Plaintiffs were damaged by Bank of America’s violations of RESPA. Plaintiffs

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

11

suffered emotional damages due to the continued reporting of the derogatory credit information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

on their credit reports, and Bank of America’s failure to communicate with plaintiffs in any
meaningful way as to the reasons it was continuing to destroy their credit rating. Plaintiffs also
suffered economic damages. Plaintiffs were unable to refinance some of their properties due to
the derogatory credit information. Plaintiffs were also unable to consummate a sale of co-owned
real property, which transaction required that they maintain excellent credit. The property was
ultimately sold to another buyer at a lower price, but the delay in receipt of the funds forced the
Stewarts to miss several payments on their real estate mortgages, thereby ruining their credit rating.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant the following relief:
Against Bank of America:
a) Actual damages, including emotional distress, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15
U.S.C. §1681o, California Civil Code §1685.31(a), and 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1)(A);
b) Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(a)(2) and Civil Code
§1785.31(a)(2)(B);
c) Additional damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1)(B) in an amount
not to exceed $1,000;
d) Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(c) California Civil
Code §1785.31(a)(1), §1785.31(d) and 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(3);
e) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Against Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union:
a) Actual damages, including emotional distress, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15
U.S.C. §1681o.
b) Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(a)(2);
c) Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(c) and Civil Code
§1785.31(a)(1) and §1785.31(d).
e) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

12

1
2

Dated: June 16, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY

3
/s/
William E. Kennedy
Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART
AND NANCY STEWART

4
5
6

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7
8
9

Please take notice that Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action.
Dated: June 16, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY

10
11
12

/s/
William E. Kennedy
Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART
AND NANCY STEWART

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

13

Exhibit B

1
2

WordPerfect Document Compare Summary

7

Original document: C:\Users\Will\Documents\My
Dropbox\Stewart.Bill+Nancy\Pleadings\Complaint.FAC.wpd
Revised document: @PFDesktop\:MyComputer\C:\Users\Will\Documents\My
Dropbox\Stewart.Bill+Nancy\Pleadings\Complaint.SAC.wpd
Deletions are shown with the following attributes and color:
Strikeout, Blue RGB(0,0,255).
Deleted text is shown as full text.
Insertions are shown with the following attributes and color:
Double Underline, Redline, Red RGB(255,0,0).

8

The document was marked with 12 Deletions, 18 Insertions, 0 Moves.

3
4
5
6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY
WILLIAM E. KENNEDY (CSB #158214)
2797 Park Avenue, Suite 201
Santa Clara, California 95050
[phone] phone
[phone] fax
[e-mail]

5

Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART AND NANCY STEWART

1
2
3

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

WILLIAM G. STEWART AND NANCY
STEWART,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
)
vs.
)
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; EQUIFAX )
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN )
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and TRANS )
)
UNION LLC
)
)
Defendants.
_________________________________________ )

17
18

Case No.: 10-01225SI
FIRSTSECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING
ACT AND, THE CALIFORNIA
CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING
AGENCIES ACT, AND THE REAL
ESTATE SETTLEMENT
PROCEDURES ACT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Jurisdiction is proper in the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331,

19

on the basis that defendants, by an act or omission violated federal law, specifically the federal

20

Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq.

21

2.

Venue is proper in the Federal District Court of Northern California pursuant to

22

28 U.S.C. §1391, because this is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

23

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

24
25
26
27
28

PARTIES
3.

At all material times, Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART AND NANCY

STEWART were individuals residing in Marin County, California.
4.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at all material times, defendant BAC

HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP (hereinafter “Bank of America”) is a Texas Limited
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Partnership.
5.

Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC (hereinafter “Equifax”) is a

“consumer reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).
6.

Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter “Experian”) is a

“consumer reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).
7.

Defendant Trans Union LLC (hereinafter “Trans-Union”) is a “consumer

reporting agency” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).

8
9
10
11
12

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8.

In early 2007, plaintiffs took out a home equity line of credit from SBMC

Mortgage and drew approximately $84,000 from the credit line.

13

9.

14

only payments.

15

10.

The terms of the home equity line of credit allowed plaintiffs to make interest

In May 2007, the line of credit was assigned to Countrywide Savings. For

16

unknown reasons Countrywide Savings sent monthly statements to plaintiffs which requested

17

payment of principal and interest, rather than just interest. Although plaintiffs were only

18

obligated to pay interest, they paid principal and interest for several months. However, after

19

discovering this billing error in approximately November 2008, plaintiffs notified Countrywide

20

that they would only make interest payments. Beginning in December 2008, plaintiffs made

21

interest-only payments. Countrywide, which apparently continued to expect to receive principal

22

and interest payments considered plaintiffs’ loan to be delinquent and in subsequent monthly

23

statements, informed plaintiffs that they were past due.

24

11.

Mr. Stewart contacted Countrywide and again informed its representatives that

25

the line of credit required only interest payments. Ultimately, an audit was done on plaintiffs’

26

account. Countrywide acknowledged their continuing mistake and apologized to Mr. Stewart.

27

Mr. Stewart was told not to make payments until the audit was completed since the account was

28

overpaid. Throughout this process, Mr. Stewart spent many hours and experienced numerous
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

3

transfers from many different departments, supervisors, and divisions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

12.

In approximately May 2009, Bank of America acquired Countrywide and all

further actions concerning the account were taken by Bank of America.
13.

In June 2009, Bank of America issued a notice of intent to accelerate the loan to

plaintiffs.
14.

Mr. Stewart again spent numerous hours on the telephone with Bank of America,

explaining the situation to numerous employees who offered different explanations of why the
problem was occurring. Mr. Stewart was told not to worry, and was assured that there were notes
in the computer that the account was not marked delinquent. Mr. Stewart was also assured that
he had not been given any negative blemishes on his credit.
15.

In July 2009, Mr. Stewart received notification from Wells Fargo that due to

derogatory information on his credit reports, it had frozen their equity line with them.
16.

Bank of America also sent a letter to plaintiffs stating that it was freezing

plaintiffs’ line of credit due to alleged late payments.
17.

Mr. Stewart then discovered that Bank of America had, in fact, reported

delinquencies on his account. Specifically, Bank of America reported late payments on
plaintiffs’ line of credit in January, February, and June, 2009. These reports were made with
respect to both Mr. and Mrs. Stewart.
18.

On August 14, 2009, Mr. Stewart submitted a dispute letter to the three major

credit reporting agencies – Trans Union, Experian, and Experian. On August 17, 2009, Mr.
Stewart submitted the same dispute letter to Bank of America. The letter again explained that
plaintiffs were being improperly billed for interest and principal payments, leading to the
derogatory credit report.
19.

Thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2), each of the three credit reporting agencies conveyed Mr. Stewart’s dispute
to Bank of America.
20.

Bank of America verified to each of the three credit reporting agencies that the

derogatory information which it was reporting concerning Mr. Stewart was correct.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

4

21.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thereafter, each of the three credit reporting agencies reported back to Mr.

Stewart that the derogatory credit would not be removed from his credit report.
22.

On November 12, 2009, plaintiffs again sent a comprehensive dispute letter to the

credit reporting agencies.
23.

The November 12, 2009 letter was also sent to Bank of America.

24.

The letter explained the history of the dispute, and requested that the derogatory

information be removed from plaintiffs’ credit reports.
25.

Thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2), plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the three credit reporting
agencies conveyed Mr. Stewart’s dispute to Bank of America.
26.

Bank of America verified to each of the three credit reporting agencies that the

derogatory information which it was reporting concerning plaintiffs was correct.
27.

Thereafter, each of the three credit reporting agencies reported back to both

plaintiffs that the derogatory credit would not be removed from their respective credit reports.
28.

On December 14, 2009 Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them

that “We are in the process of obtaining the documentation and information necessary to address
your questions and concerns. We will provide a more complete response within twenty (20)
business days.”
29.

On December 21, 2009, plaintiffs again sent a comprehensive dispute letter to the

credit reporting agencies and Bank of America. The letter explained the history of the dispute,
and again requested that the derogatory information be removed from plaintiffs’ credit reports.
30.

Thereafter, pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2), plaintiffs are informed and believe that Trans Union and Equifax conveyed
plaintiffs’ dispute to Bank of America.
31.

In response to plaintiffs’ December 21, 2009 correspondence, Experian responded

to William and Nancy Stewart as follows:
We are responding to your request to verify item(s) on your personal credit report. We
have already investigated this information and the credit grantor has verified its accuracy.
Please refer to the personal credit report you received for this name, phone number, and
address of the credit grantor who verified this information. Pursuant to Section
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

5

1

611(a)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, we will not be investigating your dispute
again at this time.

2

32.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681i, Experian was required to conduct an investigation

3

by forwarding plaintiffs’ dispute to Bank of America. The investigation could be terminated

4

pursuant to section 611(a)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(3)(A))

5

only if Experian reasonably determined that the dispute by the consumer was frivolous or

6

irrelevant.

7

33.

8

Bank of America verified to ExperianEquifax and Trans Union that the

derogatory information which it was reporting concerning plaintiffs was correct.
34.

9

Thereafter, ExperianEquifax and Trans Union reported back to both plaintiffs that

10

the incorrect information had been verified, and that the derogatory credit would not be removed

11

from their respective credit reports.
35.

12

On January 26, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them

13

that “We are in the process of obtaining the documentation and information necessary to address

14

your questions and concerns. We will provide a more complete response within twenty (20)

15

business days.”
36.

16

In lateOn January 29, 2010, plaintiffs sent a certified letter to Bank of America

17

asking them if they had made a decision yet as to how their matter would be resolved, and

18

resubmitting the December 21, 2009 dispute letter. The letter was received by Bank of America

19

on January 29, 2010.
37.

20

On February 5, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs which stated:

21

“Our records reflect your payments were delinquent for those months. Consequently, we are

22

unable to grant your request to remove the negative remarks on your credit file.” Although the

23

letter was dated in February 2010, the letter stated “Your next payment is due on September 25,

24

2009.”

25
26
27
28

38.

The February 5, 2010 letter also states that a loan history had been mailed to

plaintiffs under separate cover.
39.

A loan history was mailed to plaintiffs which showed numerous adjustments and

reversals to plaintiffs’ account.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

6

40.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

On February 11, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to Mr. Stewart requesting

more time to reply.
41.

On February 25, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them

that “We are in the process of obtaining the documentation and information necessary to address
your questions and concerns. We will provide a more complete response within twenty (20)
business days.”
42.

On April 12, 2010, Bank of America sent a letter to plaintiffs informing them that

“We are in the process of obtaining additional information to complete the research to address
your concerns. Please allow an additional twenty (20) business days for a response to be sent.”
43.

During this process, and after plaintiffs first disputed the information on their

credit report with the credit reporting agencies, plaintiffs attempted to refinance several
properties to take advantage of historically low interest rates which were available. Because of
the credit blemishes, plaintiffs did not qualify for the low interest rates. Accordingly, plaintiffs
suffered substantial money damages.

14
15

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
(Fair Credit Reporting Act – 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b)

16
17

44.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

18

45.

15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b explains the responsibilities of furnishers of credit

19

information after they have been notified by a credit reporting agency that the consumer disputes

20

the credit information provided by the furnisher. Upon receiving notice of a dispute, the

21

furnisher is to review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency,

22

conduct a reasonable investigation and report the results to the appropriate consumer reporting

23

agencies. The consumer may bring a cause of action against the furnisher if it does not comply

24

with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b.

25

46.

Plaintiffs communicated their dispute regarding the derogatory credit information

26

to the Equifax, Experian and Trans Union on multiple occasions. Thereafter, plaintiffs are

27

informed and believe that each of these credit reporting agencies notified Bank of America of the

28

dispute in accordance with 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2).
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

7

47.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Thereafter, plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the 12+ times it was

notified of a dispute by a credit reporting agency, Bank of America failed to review all relevant
information provided by the credit reporting agencies and/or conduct a reasonable investigation
to ascertain whether the derogatory information it had reported was incomplete or inaccurate, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b.
48.

In addition, plaintiffs are informed and believe that Bank of America notified the

credit reporting agencies that the derogatory credit information reported with respect to the
plaintiffs was correct, and failed to notify the credit reporting agencies that the account was
disputed.
49.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b by

Bank of America was willful. In the alternative, plaintiffs are informed and believe that the
violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b by Bank of America was negligent.
50.

Bank of America’s violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2b caused damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.

14
15
16

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
(California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act --Civil Code §1785.25(a))

17

51.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

18

52.

Bank of America violated Civil Code §1785.25(a) by reporting credit information

19

to consumer credit reporting agencies, as that term is defined at Civil Code §1785.3(d). which it

20

knew or should have known was incomplete or inaccurate

21

53.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of Civil Code §1785.25(a) by

22

defendant was willful and in accordance with defendant’s standard business procedures. In the

23

alternative, plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of Civil Code §1785.25(a) by

24

defendant was negligent.

25
26

54.

Defendant’s violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act

caused damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

27
28

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST EQUIFAX, EXPERIAN, AND TRANS UNION
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

8

(Fair Credit Reporting Act – 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B))
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

55.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

56.

Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, at 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B), upon

receiving a dispute from the Stewarts concerning the derogatory credit information the three
credit reporting agencies were required to provide “all relevant information regarding the dispute
that is received by the agency” to the furnisher of the disputed credit information - in this case
Bank of America.
57.

Neither Equifax, Experian, nor Trans Union complied with 15 U.S.C.

§1681i(a)(2)(B). Rather, in response to receipt of a dispute letter from plaintiffs, the credit
reporting agencies generated and conveyed an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification form
(“ACDV”) to Bank of America. At least twelve ACDV forms were generated and conveyed to
Bank of America by the credit reporting agencies. In no case, did the credit reporting agencies
convey the dispute letter received from plaintiffs to Bank of America. The ACDV forms
generated did not explain the nature of plaintiffs’ dispute. Instead, the forms merely represented
the plaintiffs’ disputes as a generic “Dispute Code.” Most of the ACDVs generated by the credit
reporting agencies used the “106" Dispute Code, which translates to “disputes present/previous
account status.”
58.

On some of the ACDVs, the ACDVs included a section for text which

purportedly explained the nature of the dispute. The text provided, however, was nonsensical, or
incomplete. For example, in some ACDVs, the credit reporting agencies appeared to reproduce
one out-of-context sentence from the Stewarts’ dispute letters.
59.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the credit reporting agencies

routinely violate 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B) by failing to provide “all relevant information
regarding the dispute that is received by the agency” to the credit reporting agencies. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe that credit reporting agencies routinely use ACDVs to convey
consumer disputes to furnishers of disputed credit information, when the ACDVs are inadequate
to convey the nature and reasons for the consumers’ dispute.
60.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of 15 U.S.C.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

9

§1681i(a)(2)(B) by the credit reporting agencies was willful. In the alternative, plaintiffs are
1
2
3
4

informed and believe that the violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B) by the credit reporting
agencies was negligent.
61.

The credit reporting agencies’ violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(2)(B) caused

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

5
6

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST EXPERIAN
(Fair Credit Reporting Act – 15 U.S.C. §1681i)

7
8

62.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

9

63.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681i, Experian was required to conduct an investigation

10

in response to plaintiffs’ December 14, 2009 dispute letter, and was required to forward

11

plaintiffs’ dispute to Bank of America. Experian failed to conduct the required investigation,

12

wrongfully citing section 611(a)(3)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.

13

§1681i(a)(3)(A)) which only allows credit reporting agencies to terminate investigation of a

14

consumer dispute if it reasonably determines that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or

15

irrelevant. Plaintiffs’ dispute was not frivolous or irrelevant, and Plaintiffs are informed and

16

believe that Experian either made no such determination, or unreasonably made such a

17

determination.

18

64.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i by

19

Experian was willful. In the alternative, plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violation of

20

15 U.S.C. §1681i by Experian was negligent.

21
22

65.

Experian’s violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i caused damages in an amount to be

proven at trial.

23
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA
(Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act – 15 U.S. C. §2605)

24
25
26
27

66.

Plaintiffs incorporate all other paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

67.

Bank of America is a servicer of a federally related mortgage loan and therefore is

subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“ RESPA”) pursuant to 12

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

10

U.S.C.§2605(e);
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

68.

RESPA imposes a duty on mortgage servicers such as Bank of America to

respond to consumer complaints that a mortgage account is in error by either making the
requested correction or explaining the reason they did not. RESPA further requires that loan
servicers cease reporting disputed credit information for 60 business days following a dispute.
69.

The August 17, 2009, November 12, 2009, December 21, 2009, and January 29,

2010 letters to Bank of America described above each constituted “qualified written requests”
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(1)(B) insofar as all four letters included, or otherwise enabled
Bank of America to identify the plaintiffs’ name and account, and included a statement of the
reasons for the plaintiffs’ belief that the account was in error.
70.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(1)(A) Bank of America was required to

acknowledge receipt of the dispute letters within 20 days (excluding legal public holidays,
Saturdays, and Sundays).
71.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605e(2), within 60 days (excluding legal public holidays,

Saturdays, and Sundays) after the receipt from plaintiffs of the each of the four dispute letters,
Bank of America was required to:
1) make appropriate corrections in plaintiffs’ account, including any late charges or
penalties, and
2) transmit to plaintiffs a written notification of such correction, which included the name
and telephone number of a representative of Bank of America who can provide assistance.
72.

Alternatively, if Bank of America determined to not make corrections to

plaintiffs’ account, it was required to:
1) conduct an investigation,
2) provide plaintiffs with a written explanation or clarification that included a statement
of the reasons for which Bank of America believed the account was correct, and
3) provide the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or
department of Bank of America who could provide assistance to the borrower.
73.

Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605e(3), during the 60-day period beginning on the date

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

11

of Bank of America’s receipt of the four dispute letters, Bank of America was prohibited from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

providing information regarding any disputed overdue payments to any consumer reporting
agency.
74.

With respect to the August 17, 2009 letter, Bank of America violated each of the

above-listed requirements.
75.

With respect to the November 12, 2009, December 21, 2009 and January 29, 2010

letters, plaintiffs did not receive any response until February 5, 2010. The letter plaintiffs
received stated that the account was not in error and would not be changed. The letter purported
to set forth the reasons why Bank of America rejected plaintiffs’ dispute, but in fact was nonresponsive to the nature of plaintiffs’ dispute, i.e. that plaintiffs were considered to be delinquent
only because Bank of America improperly demanded principal and interest payments, when only
interest payments were due. Further, the letter nonsensically stated that “Your next payment is
due on September 25, 2009.”
76.

Bank of America violated the following provisions with respect to the November

12, 2009, December 21, 2009 and January 29, 2010 letters:
1) Bank of America failed to promptly make appropriate corrections in plaintiffs’
account;
2) Bank of America failed to transmit to plaintiffs a written notification of such
correction;
3) Bank of America failed to conduct an investigation of the disputed credit reporting;
4) Bank of America failed to provide plaintiffs with a written explanation or clarification
that included a statement as to why Bank of America had determined that plaintiffs’ dispute was
without merit.
5) Bank of America failed to cease reporting derogatory information regarding the
disputed overdue payments during the sixty day period.
77.

Bank of America’s many violations of RESPA constitute a “pattern and practice”

of violation of the Act. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1), Bank of America is liable for
$1,000.00.

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

12

78.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiffs were damaged by Bank of America’s violations of RESPA. Plaintiffs

suffered emotional damages due to the continued reporting of the derogatory credit information
on their credit reports, and Bank of America’s failure to communicate with plaintiffs in any
meaningful way as to the reasons it was continuing to destroy their credit rating. Plaintiffs also
suffered economic damages. Plaintiffs were unable to refinance some of their properties due to
the derogatory credit information. Plaintiffs were also unable to consummate a sale of co-owned
real property, which transaction required that they maintain excellent credit. The property was
ultimately sold to another buyer at a lower price, but the delay in receipt of the funds forced the
Stewarts to miss several payments on their real estate mortgages, thereby ruining their credit rating.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court grant the following relief:
Against Bank of America:
a) Actual damages, including emotional distress, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15
U.S.C. §1681o, andCalifornia Civil Code §1685.31(a), and 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1)(A);
b) Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(a)(2) and Civil Code
§1785.31(a)(2)(B);
cc) Additional damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(1)(B) in an amount
not to exceed $1,000;
d) Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(c) andCalifornia
Civil Code §1785.31(a)(1) and, §1785.31(d) and 12 U.S.C. §2605(f)(3);
de) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Against Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union:
a) Actual damages, including emotional distress, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n and 15
U.S.C. §1681o.
b) Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(a)(2);
c) Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(c) and Civil Code
§1785.31(a)(1) and §1785.31(d).

28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

13

e) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
1
2
3

Dated: June 16, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY

4
/s/
William E. Kennedy
Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART
AND NANCY STEWART

5
6
7

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8
9
10

Please take notice that Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action.
Dated: June 16, 2011

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM E. KENNEDY

11
12
13

/s/
William E. Kennedy
Attorney for Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. STEWART
AND NANCY STEWART

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

14