Law firms begin addressing AMC fraud

[glenn walker]

The separation of fees has no financial impact to the bottom line of the AMC and so that's a nothing burger. But this will never get far as a deal will be made and the attorneys are the only one benefiting from these frivalious lawsuits.

 

[Mejappz]

62. Apart from relief for the Class Members, Plaintiff seeks public declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the general public of California pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 and Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a)(2) to stop Defendants’ ongoing and continuing unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices. Plaintiff’s claim for public injunctive relief is not 14

 

[Mejappz]

Can't imagine how the loan borrower is damaged. Appraisers were not supposed to discuss appraisal fees to the owner.

If you read the lawsuit, it mentions this.

 

[Mejappz]

76. Public Injunctive Relief for General Public: Plaintiff, on behalf of the general public of the State of California and pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a)(2) and McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017), seeks a court order for public declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from such future misconduct, and any other such order that may be necessary to prevent future harm and financial injury to members of the general public who have not yet transacted with Defendants but are likely to in the future. The general public is in need of protection from Defendants’ ongoing and continuing violations of the CLRA as described above. Such relief will create a public benefit. Plaintiff thus brings this action for public declaratory and public injunctive relief in her individual capacity and to vindicate and enforce important rights affecting the public interest. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(e) and Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1021.5 for bringing this action for public declaratory and injunctive relief.

 

[Mejappz]

Mama mia!

89. Plaintiff now seeks an award of restitution on behalf of herself and the Class Members, in an amount to be proved at trial.

 

[Fernando]

Mama mia!

89. Plaintiff now seeks an award of restitution on behalf of herself and the Class Members, in an amount to be proved at trial.

Still find it hard to determine damages. And if reach to Supreme Court, AMCs will win.

 

[Mejappz]

c. Defendants’ conduct is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendants’ practice exploits borrowers—who are required to pay misrepresented, inflated appraisal fees, without any opportunity to avoid such fees.

Yep and supported by industry leaders in the appraisal industry.

 

[Mejappz]

Still find it hard to determine damages. And if reach to Supreme Court, AMCs will win.

If you read the report set out by the AARC, damage nationwide is estimated to be between 12 and 20 billion.0 billion.

 

[Mejappz]

102. Count IV is brought pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Plaintiff brings Count IV individually and for the Class Members. 103. At all material times, Defendants were engaged in unfair competition by means of fraudulent business acts and practices, as described herein, supra ¶¶ 68, 81–83.

 

[glenn walker]

In California's court's it will take over a year even if it advances into full scale litigations and class action slows things down even more. 90% if these are settled outside of trial's and attorney's grab their fees and run so don't get too excited. We have seen cases linger for 3 to 5 years and not something Ca AG has time to mess with. You and i will be in adult day care facilities before the AMC are gone.