New Compliant Alleges Discrimination In Maintenance Of Foreclosed Properties

Fair-housing organizations have filed new complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, alleging discrimination in the marketing and maintenance of foreclosed properties in minority neighborhoods in nine major cities. The complaints, brought by the National Fair Housing Alliance and four of its members targets U.S. Bank and it’s parent company, U.S. Bancorp, along with Wells Fargo.

The complaints were the result of an investigation in which the housing groups said foreclosed properties in predominantly white areas were much better maintained than properties in predominantly African American or Latino neighborhoods. The groups examined more than 1,000 properties in Georgia, Maryland, Texas, Ohio, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Washington.

The report concluded that properties in communities of color were 42 percent more likely to have more than a dozen maintenance problems compared with properties in predominantly white neighborhoods. In many cases, the report added, the deterioration occurred while properties were under bank ownership and could be attributed to lender neglect.

The banks deny the allegations and question whether or n0t those properties mentioned in the complaints were even theirs to maintain. In the vast majority of cases where U.S. Bank is involved in a foreclosure, we serve as a trustee for an investment pool where the former mortgage was held, and have no role in servicing or maintaining the property,” Nicole Garrison-Sprenger, vice president of corporate public relations, said in a statement. “When we do own a property, we have a strong and comprehensive process in place to regularly inspect and maintain properties to marketing standards where we have legal access, regardless of their location.”

The dispute clearly illustrates the problems that come up with widespread lender ownership of troubled properties and the impact their neglect has on the surrounding communities. It’s another reminder of why we need comprehensive foreclosure reform. If you or a loved one is facing foreclosure please contact the attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation and let us guide you through the process and fight for your rights.

• 

Debt Collection Practice Including Calling Patients In Cancer Wards

Fairview Health Services has dropped an Illinois consulting company as a revenue manager after Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson alleged the group violated consumer protection laws and engaged in an unconventional collection practice that went after patients still in hospital emergency rooms, cancer wards and delivery rooms.

According to Swanson, Accretive Health Inc imposed “boiler-room-style sales atmospheres” at Fairview’s seven hospitals using collection quotas, cash inducements and in-house competitions to squeeze cash from patients before they were treated. The probe uncovered lengthy scripts written by the company that patient registration employees were told to follow 100 percent of the time to get credit card charges or cash payments from patients before they were seen by medical staff. The goal was to get money for projected co-pays and deductibles for that day’s visit or to collect any unpaid balances from previous treatment.

“The Accretive culture has converted the hospital culture from that of a charitable organization to that of a collection agency,” the report said. “Perhaps the most damaging act by Accretive was to undermine the basic premise that a hospital is a sanctuary to treat the sick and infirm.”

The state review of Fairview’s revenue management contract with Accretive was done as part of the attorney general’s oversight authority of public charities, including not-for-profit hospitals. Fairview issued a brief statement in response saying that it takes the allegations seriously. “We share many of her [Swanson’s] concerns and have already taken actions to address them,” the statement said, noting that Fairview has ended its “revenue cycle work” with Accretive.

Minnesota consumer protection laws exist specifically to prevent companies like this from taking advantage of our citizens, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable. The dedicated litigation attorneys of Lord & Faris applaud the attorney general’s actions and hope this is a practice that ends for good.

• 

Even Our Troops Can Be Victims In Foreclosure Fraud

The foreclosure crisis has touched just about everyone in some fashion, including our troops. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports on a federal lawsuit alleging that Minnesota National Guard member had his home illegally foreclosed upon while he was serving in Iraq.

Army Staff Sgt. Phillip Harry learned his home had been foreclosed upon and sold via a letter forwarded to him in Iraq in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The lawsuit alleges that Illinois-based HSBC Mortgage Services alleges that the company foreclosed on service members mortgages while they were on active duty and evicted them and their families without giving them a chance to challenge the foreclosures in court. It also claims that HSBC recklessly filed papers that said Harry was not a member of the military at the time of the sale despite the fact that an easy check of public records would have shown he was serving overseas.

The U.S. Treasury launched an investigation last year into 10 leading banks that may have illegally foreclosed on the mortgages of almost 5,000 members of the U.S. military, some of them activated to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the suit, Harry bought his house in Minneapolis in 2005 and the mortgage was later assigned to HSBC. On March 25, 2008, Harry was ordered to report to the National Guard training site at Camp Ripley and then to active duty on April 15 for training to deploy to Iraq. He served in Iraq until June 2009. On the day he reported for training at Fort Sill, Okla., HSBC began a foreclosure sale, and attempted to serve Harry the notice on April 21, according to the suit. The suit alleges that without Harry’s knowledge, HSBC bought the house at sheriff’s auction for $32,602.

As a result, Harry lost his house, personal property, the equity he had built up and suffered damage to his credit rating, the suit said.

Sadly, these stories are not unique. If you or a loved one has been the victim of a wrongful foreclosure, contact the experienced foreclosure attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation.

• 

Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Getting A Second Look

The newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced it will be investigating the mandatory arbitration clauses contained in most consumer financial products.

“Arbitration clauses are found in many contracts for consumer financial products,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray in a news release. “We want to learn how arbitration clauses affect consumers, and how effective arbitration is in resolving consumers’ issues. This inquiry will help the bureau assess whether rules are needed to protect consumers.”

The CFPB is now asking the public for input on the prevalence of arbitration clauses in consumer financial products and services; what claims consumers bring in arbitration against financial services companies; if claims are brought by financial services companies against consumers in arbitration; how consumers and companies are affected by actual arbitrations; and how consumers and companies are affected by arbitration clauses outside of actual arbitrations.

Responses are due by June 23. After the CFPB completes the study, the agency said it will “assess whether imposing conditions or prohibitions on arbitration clauses would better protect consumers and serve the public interest.”

Courts have generally upheld arbitration agreements, including last year in the Supreme Court decision AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB gives the agency explicit authority to study pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer financial products. The law also gives the CFPB the power to issue regulations to protect consumers based on the findings of the study.

This is a good first step in restoring the rights of individuals when dealing with the more powerful corporate interests behind things like their mortgages. Alternative dispute resolution methods can be very effective, but the problem with these mandatory arbitration provisions is they cut off access to the courts entirely for injured individuals, leaving them with very little recourse to address the truly egregious behavior some of these institutions engaged in.

If you or a loved one has a dispute involving a consumer financial product and is facing mandatory arbitration, contact the dedicated litigation attorneys at Lord & Faris and let us fight for your rights.

• 

First New Case Of Mad Cow Disease Detected In US

Reports from California confirm that the first new case of mad cow disease in the U.S. since 2006 has been discovered in a dairy cow. Despite the discovery health authorities insist the animal was never a threat to the nation’s food supply since no meat from the cow was bound for the food supply.

This cow is the fourth ever discovered in the United States and was found as part of an Agriculture Department surveillance program that tests nearly 40,000 cows a year for the fatal brain disease.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is fatal to cows and can cause a fatal human brain disease in people who eat tainted beef. The World Health Organization has said that tests show that humans cannot be infected by drinking milk from BSE-infected animals.

Dennis Luckey, executive vice president of Baker Commodities, told The Associated Press that the disease was discovered at its Hanford, Calif., transfer station when the company selected the cow for random sampling. Michael Marsh, chief executive of Western United Dairymen, said it was an adult cow over 30 months old, not a downed or sick animal, and it appeared normal when it was last observed. He said the cow was first tested on April 18.  Officials will continue to investigate but feel confident this case is an atypical one.

The good news here is that the regulatory and safety mechanism put in place to detect mad cow disease and eradicate it before it enters into the food system worked. The sick animal was discovered and dealt with before any likely further risk of contamination. Still, the problem with these kinds of contamination is that containing them is tricky. The personal injury attorneys at Lord & Faris have extensive experience representing people who have become ill as a result of eating contaminated food. If you or a loved one has recently become ill and you think it may be linked to food you ate, contact us for a free consultation.

• 

Plaintiffs In Toyota Sudden Acceleration Litigation Face Possible Setback

Plaintiffs in the litigation surrounding claims that Toyota vehicles were subject to sudden acceleration, causing crashes and in some cases even deaths, were dealt a substantial blow when a federal judge tentatively dismissed the economic damages claims of consumers in Florida and New York against Toyota Motor Corp. in the litigation over sudden acceleration by Toyota vehicles, on the ground that they hadn’t actually experienced the problem.

The April 23 tentative ruling by U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., would not affect consumers in California or other states, but, if finalized, could wipe out a substantial number of claims in the master class action complaint against Toyota.

If made final, the ruling would amount to a big win for Toyota, which is seeking to gut the claims that consumers in California, Florida and New York are entitled to economic damages because the company made false and misleading statements about the safety of its vehicles under the laws of each of those respective states. The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of Toyota’s alleged undisclosed defects associated with sudden acceleration, their vehicles lost value.

Such economic-damages claims represent 200 of the 300 cases in the multidistrict litigation. The rest would be unaffected because they were filed on behalf of individuals who were injured or died in accidents attributed to sudden acceleration.

The car accident attorneys at Lord & Faris have been watching these cases since the initial stages and agree that if this ruling becomes final it would be a serious loss to those injured by Toyota’s actions here. Toyota engaged in a widespread and systematic campaign of trying to stamp out and hush the problem related to sudden acceleration rather than address the matter head on. It wasn’t until regulators closed in that the true extent of the problem became clear and for many it was too late.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a crash involving a Toyota and you think sudden acceleration is to blame contact the litigation attorneys at Lord & Faris for a free consultation.

•