Caliber Home Loans Facing Multi-Count FDCPA Suit Over Allegedly Illegal Foreclosure Proceeding

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. has been named as the defendant in a 52-page lawsuit that alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case concerns an allegedly defaulted mortgage loan that, according to the complaint, the defendant attempted to collect using “false, deceptive and misleading” means.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s creditor accelerated the loan on March 6, 2010, after which it supposedly filed a foreclosure proceeding against him that was eventually dismissed. The defendant allegedly obtained the debt after it went into default and sent the plaintiff a collection letter in July 2017 demanding payment and threatening legal action, the suit explains. The case argues that by this point, the statute of limitations had expired and the debt was unenforceable, meaning the defendant’s threat of litigation was false and deceptive.

The case then explains that Caliber sent the plaintiff an additional letter in September 2017 that supposedly failed to clearly state the man’s debt amount. The suit argues that the defendant threatened the possibility of accruing interest and late fees while knowing full well that the balance would never increase.

The complaint continues by stating that Caliber, through an attorney, filed a foreclosure proceeding against the plaintiff that falsely claimed “no prior action was commenced at law or otherwise for the recovery” of the man’s debt. The case argues that the defendant was aware of the prior foreclosure proceeding that had been dismissed and another lawsuit filed against a previous servicer of the man’s loan over its allegedly illegal attempts to collect on his time-barred debt. On top of that, the case argues that the lawsuit was filed within the plaintiff’s 30-day validation period during which he was permitted to dispute his debt or request validation.

The lawsuit takes further issue with the supposedly unlawful debt collection voicemails the defendant left on the plaintiff’s phone that failed to identify the caller and state that the communication concerned the collection of a purported debt.