Fight Within The Fight In NYC Homeowners' Lawsuit Brought To Undo Damage Caused By Sale Leaseback, Equity Stripping Ripoff
A recent ruling by a New York City trial court on a motion to dismiss in ongoing litigation provides an illustration of the kind of 'sub-battles' that can potentially occur when defendants named in a lawsuit brought by a screwed-over homeowner in a sale leaseback equity stripping
The ruling did not address any of the merits of the homeowners' case, but rather, addressed the viability of certain crossclaims asserted by the bank who funded the ripoff (on behalf of the sale leaseback peddler) against the homeowners' attorney, both of whom were named as defendants by the homeowners in their lawsuit.
Frankly, the ruling doesn't make for interesting reading unless, of course, you're really into this stuff.
For the ruling, see Richards v. Cesare, 2011 NY Slip Op 30207 (NYS Supreme Court, New York County, January 19, 2011).
(1) Go here for the homeowners' lawsuit, which seeks to recharacterize the sale leaseback agreement as an equitable mortgage, and asserts violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act, Home Ownership Equity Protection Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), New York Real Property Law $265-a (ie. the Home Equity Theft Protection Act), New York State General Business Law Sec. 349 (“the Deceptive Practices Act”), Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Professional Malpractice, common law claims of Fraud, Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, Conversion, Negligence, and Quiet Title to the subject property by having declared as void the fraudulent deed transfer.
Go here for links to the filed answers to the complaint and some other documents filed in this case.Representing the homeowner is City Bar Justice Center, a nonprofit
No comments:
Post a Comment