Today, my firm, in cooperation with Progressive Law Group, filed a class-action lawsuit against Fisher & Shapiro. The lawsuit is pending in the Federal District Court for the Nothern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Fisher & Shapiro is the law firm that previously admitted to falsifying affidavits to get foreclosure judgments. In Cook County, Illinois, alone, the firm has admitted to submitting false affidavits in 1,700 cases. The lawsuit, in essense, asks for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on the firm having made false representations in an effort to collect a debt.
The devastation caused by firms like Fisher & Shapiro is clear in this case. Many of the addresses affected have been abandoned by homeowners fearing they will be evicted or even illegally locked out of their home by the bank--as has happened to so many others.
This story is not about a single foreclosure. Fighting single foreclosures is a challenge, and I continue to do it. In case after case, the law falls to the side in favor of expediency, with the bank eager to take over a home, evict the homeowner, and begin the process of letting the property rot into the ground without being secured, without utilities, without weatherization, and without any maintenance. The banks turn away thousands of dollars offered in good faith by homeowners seeking to stay in their homes, anxious to modify their loans and make regular payments while maintaining the property.
This story is about a simple example I use almost every time I talk to the public. Homeowners understand. Maybe this time the court will agree.
My example is this: A driver who is accused of rear-ending another car in an auto accident faces certain presumptions. The law assumes, in many states, that the car in the rear caused the accident. However, the person seeking damages must still follow the proper procedures. The plaintiff must file a proper complaint that sets out the required allegations needed for a "tort" (injury) case. The plaintiff must serve the defendant with a summons and complaint in the way mandated by state law. The defendant can answer, and can even deny every allegation the plaintiff makes. The defendant and plaintiff can go through the discovery process to gather facts. In the end, there may even be a trial. The defendant who looked so negligent in the beginning may be able to prove the plaintiff was at fault. For example, the plaintiff may have been backing up and may have driven into the defendant. Even if the defendant loses, he or she still received due process of law, a legal idea of fairness pre-dating the Constitution.
In foreclosure cases, however, due process is not always followed. I have written about violations of due process in other blog posts.
In this case, the false affidavits that were filed represented perjury. They enabled the Plaintiff to get a larger judgment than that to which it may have been entitled.
The bank's attorneys admitted to altering affidavits signed by bank employees after the fact. In some cases, they would unstaple the affidavits, insert more pages, and re-staple the affidavits before submitting them to the judge.
Like the driver in the "rear-end" car accident, a person accused of failing to pay his or her mortgage may look guilty. However, the homeowner is still entitled to due process. In the foreclosure arena, due process has been run over in the interest of banks receiving quick judgments. It is time to back up. We already ran over at least 1,700 people.
