Docstoc

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY_ ILLINOIS.rtf

Document Sample
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY_ ILLINOIS.rtf Powered By Docstoc
					IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
      COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION?



MURELIN and JAMES BELL and GARY and ELIZABETH COY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

            Plaintiffs

            vs.

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION, and BENEFICIAL
CORPORATION,

                   Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)           Case No.:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)     DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)

                                            )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Murelin and James Bell and Gary and Elizabeth Coy, on their own behalf
and as representatives of a class of persons similarly situated, complain of the
Defendants Household International, Inc., Household Finance Corporation, and
Beneficial Corporation, upon information and belief and upon their own personal
knowledge and allege as follows:
1. Defendants are sub-prime lenders engaged jointly in a course of predatory lending,
primarily to low- and moderate-income borrowers, throughout the United States.
Their corporate strategy and goals are to: (a) target home-owners who are carrying
both a mortgage and significant credit card and/or other consumer debt, (b) persuade
these individuals, through deliberately misleading, confusing, and unfair sales
promotions, that consolidating their debts into one or more secured loans with one
or more of the Defendants will save them money when it in fact it will not, and then
(c) make secured loans to these individuals in amounts high enough in relation to
the value of their homes that the resulting debt-to-value ratio (coupled with
pre-payment penalties and other restrictions) prevents the borrowers from
refinancing their loans with Defendants' competitors and thereby ensure themselves
continued profit-making from their own high-cost loans with these individuals.
2. In furtherance of these goals, Defendants intentionally and systematically mislead
potential borrowers through sales promotions that contain misrepresentations and
material omissions, and engage in other practices that are deliberately and
materially misleading, confusing, and unfair, in violation of the Illinois Consumer
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 505/2, the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510/2, and common law.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiffs Murelin and James Bell are residents of Chicago, Illinois.
4. Plaintiffs Gary and Betty Coy are residents of Apple Valley, Minnesota.
5. Defendant Household International is headquartered in Prospect Heights, Illinois.
Household International is a sub-prime lender engaged in the business of extending
high-cost credit to consumers throughout the nation. As the parent of a network of
Household Finance and Beneficial corporations operating throughout the country,
Defendants International participates actively in its subsidiaries' lending
activities by establishing lending practices, developing potential customer lists,
initiating loan relationships, establishing underwriting standards and lending
goals, providing strong incentives to its account executives for achieving these
goals through its compensation practices and other activities.
6. Defendant Household Finance Corporation is headquartered in Prospect Heights,
Illinois. Household is a sub-prime lender engaged in the business of extending
high-cost credit to consumers throughout the nation. Household Finance Corporation
is a subsidiary of, and is directed by Defendant Household International.
7. Defendant Beneficial Corporation is, and at all times relevant herein has been,
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
Beneficial is a sub-prime lender engaged in the business of extending high-cost credit
to consumers throughout the nation. Beneficial has been a subsidiary of, and has
been directed by, Defendant Household International since June of 1998.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. Defendants Household International and Household Finance Corporation are
headquartered in Prospect Heights, Illinois. Defendants Household International,
Household Finance Corporation, and Beneficial Corporation transact business in the
state of Illinois, and in Cook County, and make loans such as those at issue here
to thousands of residents of Cook County. Plaintiffs Murelin and James Bell reside
in Cook County.
DEFENDANTS' WRONGFUL CONDUCT
9. Defendants pursue their overall business goals in three steps. The first is to
target as potential customers homeowners who are struggling with high credit card
debt. The second is to trick these potential customers, by systematically telling
them that they can save money by refinancing their debt, providing them with false
information, and deliberately and systematically omitting from their sales
promotions material information about the costs and terms of debt consolidation. The
final step is to trap the potential borrowers into Defendants' high-cost loans by
deliberately "upselling" loans in amounts that are so high in relation to the value
of the borrowers' home that the borrowers will not be able to sell or refinance their
home, thus ensuring the borrowers will not be able to refinance with a competitor
of Defendants, despite the high costs Defendants charge.
Target Practice
10. In carrying out the initial target step of the process, Defendants secure lists
of potential customers who are carrying significant credit card or other debt from
the credit records of affiliated retailers (including Best Buy, Wickes Furniture,
K-Mart, Costco and Home Base) and other sources. Defendants solicit potential
customers on these lists and other potential customers, identified as carrying both
mortgage and other consumer debt, by aggressive mailings and telephone contacts
promoting the benefits of loan consolidation with Defendants' subsidiaries.
11. Another of Defendants' methods for targeting potential customers is through the
mailing of "live checks" to potential customers nationwide. The "live checks" are
bait. The mailings that contain the checks tell potential customers that they can
access small loans merely by cashing the check enclosed. Cashing the check obligates
the borrowers to repay the money at high interest rates, and more importantly, it
immediately lands the check-casher on Defendants' "hot list" of potential customers,
which is immediately circulated to the appropriate branch offices. These "hot list"
potential customers and others identified through other means are contacted by branch
office account executives (some of whom refer to these contacts as "target practice")
who propose to refinance the new loans at lower rates by consolidating the new debt
with the customers' other existing debt (including credit card and mortgage debt).
The Sales Promotion
12. In carrying out the trick step of the process, the account executives gain computer
access during the first contacts with the customers to the target customers' credit
histories, including comprehensive information on the customers' long and short-term
debts, by using their Social Security numbers.
13. The account executives use this personal information to promote the benefits of
loan consolidation by comparing the customers' total monthly payments on existing
debt and the "lower" monthly payment they would pay under a consolidation with
Defendants. In making these comparisons, Defendants' account executives represent
that consolidation will save the customers money when in fact it will not. Their
presentations intentionally focus exclusively on the "lower" monthly payments. This
is misleading because, among other things, the payments will be made over a
significantly longer period than the customers' existing short-term consumer debt
and the overall debt amount will significantly increase. Defendants' account
executives routinely and deliberately do not disclose that loans created by the
proposed consolidation will be substantially more costly overall than the customers'
existing debt relationships.
14. It is Defendants' standard practice, for example:
a) To tell potential borrowers that consolidating their debt with loans from
Defendants will save them money when it will not;
b) Not to disclose the existence or amount of up-front finance charges (including
fees and points) or the rates of interest (which are substantially higher than the
average interest rate on the borrowers' existing debt);
c) Not to disclose that these finance charges will be added to the amounts of the
total debt secured against the customers' home, significantly increasing the
customers debt load and reducing the customers' equity in their homes;
d) Not to disclose that any escrowed taxes or homeowners' insurance included in the
customers' original mortgage payments will not be included in payments under the
consolidated loans, and that the customers will thus have additional monthly
obligations for these taxes and insurance over and above the monthly payments
projected by the account executives for the consolidated loans;
e) Not to disclose that the projected monthly payments under the consolidated loans
may include payments toward separate, so-called "revolving" loans made at interest
rates around 20 percent, or that these loans, which will amortize significantly more
slowly than the borrowers' existing loans (if it amortizes at all), could result in
balloon payments;
f) Not to disclose, with respect to credit life insurance promoted with the loans,
the total cost of the insurance, or that the insurance policy being sold provides
protection for a limited period only (the first five years of the customers' 15- to
30-year mortgage), or that the borrowers are paying additional up-front points based
on the cost of the insurance, which are not refunded even if the insurance is
cancelled;
g) Not to disclose that many of the loans contain prepayment penalties and that those
penalties reduce the borrowers' ability to refinance the loan.
15. Through these misrepresentations and omissions of material information,
Defendants' account executives have routinely and systematically misled potential
borrowers into believing that loan consolidation with Defendants will save them
money, when it will actually substantially increase the amount of money that they
owe.
16. At the loan closings, Defendants' account executives carefully avoid discussion
of loan terms that would alert borrowers to the fact that, contrary to the message
conveyed in the promoting of the loans, loan consolidation would substantially
increase the amount of money that they owe, not save them money.
Closing The Back Door
17. In carrying out the trap step of the process, Defendants "upsell" the loans using
the promotion techniques previously described, or by making repeated loans to the
same customers to accomplish Defendants' goal of making the loan amounts so high in
comparison to the value of the borrowers' homes that the customers will be unable
to refinance their loans with Defendants' competitors. Defendants sometimes refer
to this final step as "closing the back door." Defendants' goal is to increase the
amounts loaned out to the maximums permitted by Defendants' underwriting goals (as
high as 125 percent of equity, plus points, closing costs and credit insurance),
irrespective of the amounts requested by borrowers. This goal is supported by
Defendant Household International's employee incentive systems, under which account
executives are rewarded for making loans that cannot be refinanced by Defendants'
competitors. Further, the loans contain pre-payment penalties that significantly
reduce the borrowers' ability to refinance the loans.
Other Unlawful Conduct
18. Defendants also engage in other unlawful conduct.
19. In billing customers monthly, Defendants' billing statements deliberately
misrepresent the amount owed, in that the amount stated does not reflect all of the
interest accrued since the customer's previous payment, with the result that, when
the customer pays the amount stated in the bill, unpaid interest accumulates,
increasing the customers' indebtedness and the overall cost of the customers' loans.
20. Defendants do not disclose to the customers either that unpaid interest has
accumulated or that if the customer pays the amount given in the bill as the amount
owed, his account will continue to be "interest short," thereby increasing his total
indebtedness and the cost of the loan.
21. Defendants fail to maintain an accounting system adequate to ensure the customers'
payments are credited to their accounts. As a result Defendants retain customers'
money, but customers receive no credit for their payment.
22. Defendant Household International directs the daily lending activities of the
network of Household Finance and Beneficial corporations operating throughout the
country by, for example, establishing lending practices. This direction from
Household International results in above-described actions being uniform across the
nation.
Plaintiffs Murelin and James Bell
23. Defendants mailed a live check to Plaintiffs Murelin and James Bell, who cashed
it.
24. By October 1999, Defendants had upsold the Bells from this relatively small,
unsecured loan to a loan consolidating the Bells' existing mortgage and other consumer
debt into a secured loan for $ 98,508.43.
25. In promoting the benefits of loan consolidation to the Bells, Household:
a) Told the Bells that consolidating their outstanding debts would save them money,
when it would not;
b) Did not disclose that the loans included up-front finance charges and interest
rates substantially higher than the average interest rate on their existing debt;
c) Did not disclose that these points and additional costs were added to the amount
of the total debt secured against the Bells' home, significantly decreasing the Bells'
equity in their home;
d) Did not disclose, with respect to credit life insurance sold with the first
mortgage, either the cost of the insurance or that the insurance provided protection
for a limited period only (the first five years of the Bells' 20-year mortgage), and
did not disclose that points were charged on the insurance and that the points would
not be refunded if they cancelled the policy;
e) Did not disclose that the loans contained prepayment penalties that further reduced
the Bell's ability to refinance.
26. In combination, the upselling of the loans and the undisclosed prepayment
penalties reduced the Bells' ability to refinance the loan with other lenders.
27. In billing the Bells, Defendants have misrepresented the amount owed, in that
the amount stated did not reflect all of the interest accrued since the Bells' previous
payment, with the result that, even though the Bells paid the amount stated in the
bills, unpaid interest accumulated, increasing the Bells' indebtedness and the
overall cost of their loan.
28. Defendants did not disclose to the Bells either that unpaid interest had
accumulated or that by paying the amount given in the bill as the amount owed, their
account was "interest short," so that their total indebtedness and the cost of the
loan increased.
Plaintiffs Gary and Elizabeth Coy
29. In June 2000, Household sold the Coys two loans: one for $132,859.27 and a
so-called "revolving" loan for $25,000.
30. In promoting the benefits of loan consolidation to the Coys, Household:
a) Told the Coys that consolidating their outstanding debts would save them money,
when it would not;
b) Did not disclose that the loans included up-front finance charges and interest
rates substantially higher than the average interest rate on their existing debt;
c) Did not disclose that these points and additional costs were added to the amount
of the total debt secured against the Coys' home, significantly decreasing the Coys'
equity in their home;
d) Did not disclose that the refinanced mortgage payments did not include the taxes
or homeowners' insurance that were included in the Coys' original mortgage payments;
e) Did not disclose that the monthly payments projected by Household on the so-called
"revolving loan" part of their loan package had an interest rate of 21.75 percent
and that the loan would not completely amortize so that the Coys would have to make
a balloon payment after 15 years;
f) Did not disclose, with respect to credit life insurance sold with the first
mortgage, either the cost of the insurance or that the insurance provided protection
for a limited period only (the first five years of the Coys' 30-year mortgage), and
did not disclose that points were charged on the insurance and that the points would
not be refunded when they cancelled the policy;
g) Did not disclose that the loans contained prepayment penalties that further reduced
the Coys' ability to refinance.
31. In combination, the upselling of the loans and the undisclosed prepayment
penalties reduced the Coys' ability to refinance the loans with other lenders.
32. In billing the Coys, Defendants have misrepresented the amount owed, in that the
amount stated did not reflect all of the interest accrued since the Coys' previous
payment, with the result that, even though the Coys paid the amount stated in the
bills, unpaid interest accumulated, increasing the Coys' indebtedness and the overall
cost of their loan.
33. Defendants did not disclose to the Coys either that unpaid interest had
accumulated or that by paying the amount given in the bill as the amount owed, their
account was "interest short," so that their total indebtedness and the cost of the
loan increased.
34. Defendants retained at least three payments made by the Coy and did not credit
these payments to their account.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
35. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all individuals nationwide
who, like them, have been induced to enter into secured loan transactions with one
or more of the Defendants in order to consolidate existing debt.
36. The class is so numerous that joinder of all class members' claims is
impracticable.
37. The Plaintiffs and the class share many common questions of law and fact,
including:
a) Whether Defendants have deliberately and systematically misled the class into
believing that consolidating their existing debts with Defendants would save them
money;
b) Whether Defendants deliberately misrepresent the amount owed in their billing
statements in order to increase the customers' indebtedness and the overall cost of
the customers' loans;
c) Whether Defendants fail to consistently credit customers' payments to their
accounts;
d) Whether such conduct violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act;
e) Whether such conduct violates the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
f) Whether Defendants' conduct constitutes common law fraud and deceit;
g) Whether Defendants' conduct constitutes negligent misrepresentation; and
h) Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched.
38. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect
the interests of the class and have made arrangements with counsel experienced in
consumer protection and class action litigation to provide vigorous representation.
39. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this controversy.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS
CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege allegations of Paragraphs 1-39 as if fully set
forth herein.
41. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act ("the Consumer Fraud Act)
815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. prohibits:
unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including
but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense,
false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression or omission of any
material fact . . . in the conduct of trade or commerce . . . whether any person has
in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.
42. As described above, Defendants violated the Consumer Fraud Act by intentionally
and systematically misleading potential borrowers through sales promotions that
contain misrepresentations and material omissions, with the intent that Plaintiffs
and the Class rely on the deception. These representations were of material fact
concerning the type of information on which a borrower would be expected to rely in
making a decision whether to take out a loan. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs
and the Class to exercise due care to assure that representations they made and
assurances they provided were completely truthful and not misleading.
43. Defendants' above-described conduct was also unfair under the Consumer Fraud Act
for the reasons stated above.
44. Defendants violated the Consumer Fraud Act also by:
a) Willfully representing that the loans offered had characteristics and benefits
they did not have and were for amounts which they are not for in violation of the
Uniform Act § 510/2(5);
b) Willfully advertising loans with intent not to extend them as advertised in
violation of the Uniform Act § 510/2(9);
c) Willfully making false and misleading statements of fact concerning the costs of
the loans in violation of the Uniform Act § 510/2(11);
d) Willfully engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or
misunderstanding about the costs and terms of the loans in violation of the Uniform
Act § 510/2(12).
45. Defendants' actions were willful.
46. By reason of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class
were damaged.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
A. Enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class and
against the Defendants finding that the Defendants jointly and severally violated
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
B. Find that the Defendants acted willfully and wantonly;
C. Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in the illegal
practices described above;
D. Enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from commencing
any foreclosure proceedings against the Plaintiffs and members of the Class;
E. Grant the Plaintiffs and members of the Class restitution by disgorgement of all
monies wrongfully received by Defendants;
F. Enter an order
a) Rescinding individual Plaintiffs' loans;
b) Voiding any lien and/or any security interest obtained by Defendants against the
property of the Plaintiffs;
c) Establishing a sufficient time period for Plaintiffs to return the principal of
their loans to Defendants;
G. Enter an order
a) Declaring all members of the Class entitled to rescind their loan transactions
with Defendants;
b) Requiring Defendants to notify all such individuals of their right to rescind each
of their respective loan transactions with Defendants;
c) Establishing a sufficient time period for such individuals to return the principal
of their loan to Defendants;
d) Providing whatever other relief this Court deems thereafter to be appropriate to
effect the rescission of such individuals' mortgage loan transactions;
H. Award actual damages to Plaintiffs and the Class and against Defendants;
I. Award punitive damages to Plaintiffs and the Class;
J. Award prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
K. Award Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses, including
Attorneys' and expert fees and expenses;
L. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
47. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1-46 of the
Complaint.
48. Defendants violated the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("the Uniform Act")
by:
a) Willfully representing that the loans offered had characteristics and benefits
they did not have and were for amounts which they are not for in violation of the
Uniform Act § 510/2(5);
b) Willfully advertising loans with intent not to extend them as advertised in
violation of the Uniform Act § 510/2(9);
c) Willfully making false and misleading statements of fact concerning the costs of
the loan in violation of the Uniform Act § 510/2(11);
d) Willfully engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or
misunderstanding about the costs and terms of the loans in violation of the Uniform
Act § 510/2(12).
49. Defendants' conduct has caused and is likely to continue to cause confusion or
misunderstanding among its present and future customers by inducing them to enter
into loan transactions believing that the transactions would provide benefits and
services they did not have, that the costs of the transactions would be significantly
less than the transactions' actual costs, and that the transactions had general
characteristics that they did not have, and thereafter billing customers in a
confusing manner with the result that customers' paid more interest than they were
led to believe they would pay and paid off less principal than they believed they
would be paying off.
50. Defendants' conduct has harmed Plaintiffs and the Class, other customers and
future customers and will continue, through the course of the loan transaction, to
cause harm to its borrowers by compelling payment of finance costs they were
fraudulently induced to pay and engaging in deceptive billing practices and impeding
borrowers ability to refinance with Defendants' competitors.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
A. Enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class and
against the Defendants finding that the Defendants jointly and severally violated
the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
B. Find that the Defendants acted willfully and wantonly;
C. Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in the illegal
practices described above;
D. Enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from commencing
any foreclosure proceedings against the Plaintiffs and members of the Class;
E. Enter an order granting the Plaintiffs and members of the Class restitution by
disgorgement of all monies wrongfully received by Defendants;
F. Enter an order
a) Rescinding individual Plaintiffs' loans;
b) Voiding any lien and/or any security interest obtained by Defendants against the
property of the Plaintiffs;
c) Establishing a sufficient time period for Plaintiffs to return the principal of
their loans to Defendants;
G. Enter an order
a) Declaring all members of the Class entitled to rescind their loan transactions
with Defendants;
b) Requiring Defendants to notify all such individuals of their right to rescind each
of their respective loan transactions with Defendants;
c) Establishing a sufficient time period for such individuals to return the principal
of their loan to Defendants;
d) Providing whatever other relief this Court deems thereafter to be appropriate to
effect the rescission of such individuals' mortgage loan transactions;
H. Award prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
I. Award Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses, including
Attorneys' and expert fees and expenses;
J. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
COUNT III
Fraud and Deceit
51. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-62 as
if fully set forth in herein.
52. The misrepresentations and material omissions of Defendants described above, and
each of them, constitutes fraud. Defendants, directly or through their agents and
employees, made false representations, concealments, and nondisclosures to the
Plaintiffs and the Class knowing the falsity of their representations, concealments,
and nondisclosures, and with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class.
Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon these false representations, concealments, and
nondisclosures by Defendants in executing credit transactions and paying under them,
which reliance was justified. As a result, the individual Plaintiffs and the Class
sustained damages.
53. Defendants, and each of them, aided and abetted, encouraged and rendered
substantial assistance in accomplishing the wrongful conduct described herein. In
taking such actions, as particularized herein, to aid and abet and substantially
assist the commission of these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained of,
each of the Defendants acted with an awareness of its primary wrongdoing and realized
that its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful
conduct and wrongful goals.
54. As a result of Defendants', and each of their, wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and
the Class have suffered and continue to suffer economic injury.
55. The wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, were done maliciously,
oppressively, and with intent to defraud, and Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled
to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant relief as set forth below.
COUNT IV
Negligent Misrepresentation
56. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-62 as
if fully set forth in herein.
57. Defendants are in the business of providing financial and other information about
its customers' credit and the services it provides.
58. Defendants owe a duty to Plaintiffs and the Class to exercise due care to assure
that representations they make and assurances they provide are completely truthful
and not misleading.
59. Defendants have routinely failed in this duty of care by its standard practice
of inducing Plaintiffs and the Class to consolidate their debt with Defendants by
misrepresenting to them that consolidation will save them money, by omitting material
facts from their sales presentations that would make clear that the consolidations
would not in fact do so, and by engaging in the deceptive billing practices described
heretofore.
60. Defendants had no reasonable ground for believing that the proposed
consolidations would save Plaintiffs and the Class money, as Defendants have known
for years that their agents designed their sales promotions to omit material
information in order to mislead potential customers into believing that they will
save money and induce them to enter into the proposed consolidations, did nothing
to change their practice, and in fact rewarded their employees and agents for their
results. Defendants knew that their billings practices would result in higher cost
loans.
61. Plaintiffs and the Class were ignorant of the truth and were justified in relying
on the misrepresentations in the sales promotions and on the billing statements.
62. Defendants' incomplete and misleading representations in their sales promotions
and in their billing practices were a proximate and actual cause of injury to
Plaintiffs and the Class, and Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages as a result
of Defendants' actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant relief as set forth below.
COUNT V
Unjust Enrichment
63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-62 as
if fully set forth in herein.
64. By their misrepresentations, omissions, and other wrongful acts alleged
heretofore, Defendants, and each of them, were unjustly enriched at the expense of
Plaintiffs and the Class, for the payments made to Defendants; and thus Plaintiffs
and the Class were unjustly deprived.
WHEREFORE, with respect to Counts III, IV, and V, Plaintiffs request that the Court:
A. Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in the illegal
practices described above;
B. Enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from commencing
any foreclosure proceedings against the Plaintiffs and members of the Class;
C. Enter a judgment against Defendants jointly and severally holding that Defendants
committed one or more acts of fraud and deceit.
D. Enter a judgment against Defendants jointly and severally holding that Defendants
committed one or more acts of negligent misrepresentation.
E. Enter a judgment against Defendants jointly and severally holding that Defendants
were unjustly enriched;
F. Grant the Plaintiffs and members of the Class restitution by disgorgement of all
monies wrongfully received by Defendants;
G. Enter an order
a) Rescinding individual Plaintiffs' loans;
b) voiding any lien and/or any security interest obtained by Defendants against the
property of the Plaintiffs;
c) establishing a sufficient time period for Plaintiffs to return the principal of
their loans to Defendants;
H. Enter an order
a) declaring all members of the Class entitled to rescind their loan transactions
with Defendants;
b) requiring Defendants to notify all such individuals of their right to rescind each
of their respective loan transactions with Defendants;
c) establishing a sufficient time period for such individuals to return the principal
of their loan to Defendants;
d) providing whatever other relief this Court deems thereafter to be appropriate to
effect the rescission of such individuals' mortgage loan transactions;
I. Award actual damages to Plaintiffs and the Class and against Defendants;
J. Award punitive damages to Plaintiffs and the Class;
K. Award prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
L. Award Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses, including
Attorneys' and expert fees and expenses;
M. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Dated this ___ day of March, 2002.

                                            ____________________________
                                            One of Plaintiffs' Attorneys
SARAH E. SISKIND
CHARLES BARNHILL
WILLIAM P. DIXON
ELIZABETH J. EBERLE
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.
44 East Mifflin Street; Suite 803
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-5200 (telephone)
(608) 255-5380 (telefacsimile)




1

1




25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:9/7/2011
language:English
pages:10
yanyan yan yanyan yan
About