ILNews

AG discusses settlement of mortgage lender suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A civil deceptive practices suit against the former Countrywide Home Loans has ended with a $2.83 million settlement, as well as other components designed to address the state and country's mortgage foreclosure crisis.

The Indiana Attorney General's Office announced the settlement on Thursday, about nine months after filing a suit against the mortgage lender in Steuben Circuit Court. The suit alleged that Countrywide and its parent company - bought out late last year and now called Bank of America Home Loans - engaged in deceptive and misleading practices that put borrowers in potentially risky and costly loans. Specifically, the AG's investigation found that homeowners were misled about some terms of their loans, including pre-payment penalties and the time period that interest rates would be recalculated.

Indiana was the fifth state to take action against the company, and brought actions under Indiana's Home Loan Practices Act in Indiana Code Section 24-9-8, and Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act in I.C. Section 24-5-0.5.

A comprehensive 38-page final judgment and consent decree was entered by Steuben Circuit Judge Allen N. Wheat on April 23, part of Bank of America's sweeping multi-state settlement announced late last year that could be worth more than $8.6 billion.

With this settlement, a National Homeownership Retention Program is created to help offer affordable mortgage payments to homeowners who financed their homes through subprime loans. Bank of America also expects to modify as many as 5,000 Indiana-based loans that could exceed $54 million in savings for Hoosier families, according to consumer protection spokeswoman Molly Butters in the Indiana AG's office.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller dedicated $50,000 of the settlement to the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network, part of a larger effort in which the Indiana Supreme Court has joined to prevent foreclosure, offer mortgage counseling, educate trial court judges about these issues, and train volunteer attorneys to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

Part of the settlement includes $200,000 to Indiana for attorney fees and costs, the decree states.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT