An improper foreclosure class action may be avoided if mortgage companies accused of robo-signing are successful at contacting borrowers and correcting the alleged misdeeds.  Fourteen mortgage companies in all were told by federal regulators to send letters to potential victims of wrongful foreclosure practices.

These letters from the mortgage companies will invite the borrowers and former borrowers to submit their foreclosure cases to be reviewed by legal counsel.  If it is found that they were financially harmed, they may get some money back.  It’s the next to last step before a full blown improper foreclosure class action could take place, according to legal analysts.

The matter is serious for the mortgage servicers but potentially better than if there were an improper foreclosure class action against them.  As this goes to press, state attorneys general in several states are trying to reach their own separate improper foreclosure settlement.

A MERS filing fee class action against Bank of America and MERS, which stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc.  The issue at hand is unpaid filing fees, which plaintiffs in the MERS filing fee class action allege were not paid to counties in Texas.

One county, Dallas County, is seeking to be the lead plaintiff in the MERS filing fee class action, which names Bank of America in an alleged plan to avoid paying filing fees when a mortgage is transferred between banks.  According to some, MERS blurs the line around the question of who owns the interests in mortgage loans.  That makes it difficult for counties to collect filing fees and substantial loss of revenues has affected county coffers statewide in Texas, according to the MERS filing fee class action.

MERS claims it only tracks mortgages, and that no interests are transferred when a bank uses their company to file a deed of trust.  MERS maintains a registry of mortgages that tracks servicing rights and ownership interests between banks.  In other words, they keep track of mortgage transfers so the banks don’t really have to file the transfers with counties, thereby avoiding fees, according to critics of the system and the MERS filing fee class action. Estimate Tax Payments Federal Tax Rates

This week we saw yet another mortgage class action, this time filed in the State of California.  The Wells Fargo class action was filed in the Northern District  of California, claiming the mortgage provider misrepresented the federal HAMP rules.

Wells Fargo is one of the largest mortgage-providing banks in the United States.  Like other mortgage banks, it participated in the Homeowner Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which is funded by taxpayer  money.  The Wells Fargo class action alleges the bank refused to make loan modifications permanent after trial periods were over for many borrowers.

The papers filed in courts in California stated the official alleged misdeeds were breach of contract and violations of consumer protection laws in the State of California.

The HAMP was set up to bring default home loan borrowers up to date with their payments by modifying their loans.  After a trial period, the reduced loan payments are supposed to become permanent.  The Wells Fargo class action alleges the bank did not grant this permanent status, even though it had told borrowers it would do so if borrowers fulfilled the requirements of the trial period.

Borrowers who completed the trial period, which included making payments for several months on loan whose amount was far greater than the value of the home, were then faced with foreclosure anyway.  The Wells Fargo class action claims the bank used HAMP to tease payments out of loan holders but had no intention of ever granting loan modification on a permanent basis.

The Wachovia class action lawsuit is technically a securities lawsuit, but the heart of the matter lies in the low quality mortgages that damaged the firm’s bonds and securities.  Institutional investors in Wachovia’s bonds and securities sued the bank and their auditors for failing to disclose negative information concerning their financial holdings.  Specifically, they downplayed or hid the fact that the bank held multi bilion dollars’ worth of low quality adjustable rate mortgages.

Wachovia Bank’s “Pick a Pay” mortgage loan portfolio was such low quality that it almost brought the bank into bankruptcy in 2008.  The nature of these holdings was allegedly not disclosed properly according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principals, according to the Wachovia class action.

Plaintiffs were institutional bond holders and securities purchasers who purchased between July 31, 2006, and May 29, 2008.  They include a Sheriff pension fund, a public employees’ retirement plan and a Transportation Authority, spread across the nation.

A U.S. District Court ordered Wachovia Bank to pay $590 million to cover losses to the plaintiffs.  Their auditor, KPMG, will pay another $37 million.

Bank of America has been sued in a HAMP lawsuit that is currently seeking class action status.  The lending giant has already been named defendant in a HAMP program lawsuit, back in February of this year.  Now this month again the bank’s practices are under fire as plaintiffs sue over treatment of their cases in a national loan modification program.

President Obama initiation the Home Affordable Modification Program, which was mean to encourage banks holding mortgages going into foreclosure to modify rather than foreclose.  At Bank of America and other banks, loan officers got $100o for every mortgage they modified on a five year permanent basis.  The modifications consist mainly of cuts in interest rates and forbearance of principal.  There is a three month trial modification, after which the bank will decide whether the modification goes permanent.

The Bank of America HAMP lawsuit alleges the defendant basically kept stringing the temporary status along, delaying permanent modification status to the plaintiffs.  This was allegedly done by requiring applicants to the HAMP program to resubmit financial documentation, sometimes each time they called to inquire about status.  The class action accuses Bank of America of hindering the modification process after contractually agreeing to put at-risk mortgages into permanent modification.  They accepted billions of dollars from the Federal government to do so, also.

Bank of America is facing a foreclosure class action from some of its shareholders who believe the bank hid important information from them.  This Bank of America foreclosure class action was filed in February 2011 and claims the bank hid problems with foreclosures in order to mislead investors about the true state of its finances. A law firm known for its work in securities lawsuits has brought the class action on behalf of the group of shareholders involved.

The plaintiff is a union benefit plan that purchased 25,000 shares of Bank of America stock over a three month period of time.  This occurred in 2010 when the price of Bank of America shares was at an all time high.  The union benefit plan, the plaintiff, purchased at a high of $ 19.01 per share.

After the plaintiff bought shares, the US Attorney General announced that it would be investigating Bank of America and other lending giants over their foreclosure practices.  After that announcement, Bank of America shares fell $ .69 cents, according to the Bank of America foreclosure class action documents.

The class action alleges that Bank of America did not have enough manpower to process the enormous load of paperwork that came with the wave of foreclosed mortgages last year.  The suit also alleges that Bank of America hid billions of dollars in debt from its shareholders.