ILNews

State files suit against mortgage lender

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter has filed a lawsuit against mortgage lender Countrywide Home Loans Inc. for questionable practices, making Indiana the fifth state to take action against the largest lender in the country. The suit, No. 76C01-0808-PL-652, was mailed to Steuben Circuit Court Aug. 22 and filed the same day.

The suit, which includes Countrywide's parent company, Countrywide Financial Corporation, alleges the company engaged in deceptive and misleading practices that put borrowers in potentially risky and costly loans.

Carter's investigation of the company showed homeowners were misled about some terms of their loans including pre-payment penalty terms and the time period in which interest rates would be recalculated.

The state wants the court to order Countrywide to end the deceptive practices listed in the suit, void the prepayment penalties on Countrywide originated loans, and void any portion of the Countrywide originated loans that resulted from deceptive acts.

The state is also seeking civil penalties of up to $15,500 per violation in addition to investigative costs and consumer restitution. The penalties are allowed under Indiana's Home Loan Practices Act, Indiana Code Section 24-9-8, and Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, I.C. Section 24-5-0.5.

California, Connecticut, Florida, and Illinois also have pending actions against the mortgage company.
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT