Suit Says Freedom Mortgage Corporation’s ‘Inability’ to Service Loans Caused Consumers to Overpay

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Freedom Mortgage Corporation is facing a proposed class action that claims the loan servicing company misled a woman regarding the details of her mortgage and charged her improper and unlawful fees.

The plaintiff says she applied for loss mitigation in August 2016 and went through a months-long process during which the defendant failed to inform her that she was not eligible for loss mitigation and otherwise delayed her application to collect late fees “and other charges” from her. Between August and December 2016, the lawsuit alleges, the plaintiff “was not assigned a single point of contact for her loss mitigation efforts.” She claims the defendant insisted over and over that her application was incomplete without identifying what was missing and, after finally informing her that she would “hear a response soon,” assigned her a point of contact that only spoke with her once and never returned the “tens of messages she left for him.” The case claims the loan servicer encouraged the plaintiff to apply for loss mitigation but intentionally concealed the “true facts” from her “until long after she relied upon its representation(s),” all the while profiting from the extra fees it supposedly charged her.

The defendant allegedly sent the woman a Notice of Intent to Foreclose in February 2017 that the lawsuit claims listed an inaccurate amount owed, due to the addition of improper fees charged for property inspections, payments by phone, and a request for payoff statements. The case argues that the defendant was prohibited by law from adding these additional charges and claims the notice also incorrectly identified the entity to which the debt was supposedly owed.

The lawsuit alleges the defendant’s “unfair and deceptive practices” caused the plaintiff and others to pay amounts they never would have incurred absent “Freedom’s inability to properly service mortgage loans.” Citing several other lawsuits, the case argues that the defendant “has a pattern and practice of noncompliance” and has been the subject of “over 900 consumer complaints.”

This case was originally filed in Maryland state court and has since been removed to federal court.