Ditech Lawsuit Filed in Bankruptcy Court

On April 2, 2019, Attorney General Letitia James filed a brief against Ditech Holding Corporation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The company has 880 pending foreclosure actions in New York State. The plaintiff claims that Ditech illegally charged her for a property inspection that never occurred. The loan was assigned to Fannie Mae in May 2012, and Ditech began servicing the loan two years later. A proposed class action was filed in February by O’Neal.

Consumer Action has a list of notable and pending class actions related to Ditech. Each case is unique and can receive compensation based on the number of victims and the type of harm.

A representative plaintiff may file a lawsuit on behalf of many Ditech homeowners in a single case. The lawsuit is filed in the state of South Carolina. The filing of the complaint is not a guarantee of success in a court. However, it will be the best chance a homeowner has to have a voice in their situation.

The lawsuit will require the tech firm to fix the problem before it will be eligible for compensation. In this case, the lawsuit will require the company to pay back consumers who were harmed by its practices. This lawsuit is filed in South Carolina, the state where Ditech operates. A representative plaintiff can also file a claim on behalf of the entire class. In addition, the company must agree to fix the problem before the suit is filed.

The Connecticut Fair Housing Center and Atlanta Legal Aid are among the organizations filing a petition.

The plaintiffs also include individual attorneys, including one who represents over 800 consumer creditors. The petition was filed in Bankruptcy – Chapter 11 and will include a summary of the case. The plaintiffs’ attorneys have yet to decide whether to settle the lawsuit or continue the litigation. A settlement is expected to occur in mid-2019. But this isn’t the end of the story. The company has a long way to go.

While Ditech did comply with the Single-Family Servicing Guide, it did not follow its own rules. The guide, published by Fannie Mae, allows companies to conduct property inspections every twenty days. But the plaintiff alleges that Ditech conducted drive-by property inspections on her home. The company then hid these fees as “Corp Adv Disb” charges on her billing statements. The complaint is against both Fannie Mae and Ditech, and it is seeking class-action status.

Although the Ditech lawsuit has been filed in South Carolina, the case was originally filed in New York State.

As part of the investigation, the Attorney General’s Office of New York State has concluded that Ditech is using the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to avoid a potential lawsuit. The company has been suspended from making additional filings with the SEC since its second bankruptcy, further clouding its financial status. Its deregistration further complicated matters.

While the lawsuits were filed in New York State, the complaint is still ongoing. The plaintiffs have yet to receive their settlement yet. They are suing Ditech on behalf of consumers in other states as a class action. The suit is not limited to New York; it is being filed in several states, including Pennsylvania. A recent class action against a California company was also dismissed. A similar case was filed against Fannie Mae.

The plaintiffs in the Ditech lawsuit claim that the company violated the rules governing the foreclosure process in New York.

The Ditech action is an illegal attempt to strip homeowners of legitimate claims and eviscerate a carefully constructed foreclosure process. As a result, the Ditech action is already being sued in several states, including the state of New York. The lawsuits are important for the victims of foreclosure, and they should not be dismissed lightly.

The lawsuit is a class action, and the plaintiffs are demanding a monetary settlement. The lawsuit has been filed against Ditech because the company failed to provide consumers with adequate information about the process and its fees. The company’s response to the lawsuit focuses on the legal process. The company has not provided information on the status of the lawsuit. The New York Attorney General’s Office’s letter is a warning to the companies to follow the rules and to avoid violating the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.