US v. Bank of America – 12-00361

National Debt

national debt

Regulators

Mortgage Related

Government Sponsored

Announcement Date: October 12, 2016

court_system

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Defendants.

1. This is a civil action filed jointly by the United States; the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; the Commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia; and the District of Columbia against Residential Capital, LLC, Ally Financial, Inc., and GMAC Mortgage, LLC; Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Mortgage Ventures, LLC, and Countrywide Bank FSB; Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and CitiMortgage, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Chase & Company and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; and Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for misconduct related to their origination and servicing of single family residential mortgages.

2. As described in the allegations below, Defendants’ misconduct resulted in the issuance of improper mortgages, premature and authorized foreclosures, violation of service members’ and other homeowners’ rights and protections, the use of false and deceptive affidavits and other documents, and the waste and abuse of taxpayer funds. Each of the allegations regarding Defendants contained herein applies to instances in which one or more, and in some cases all, of the Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged.

THE PARTIES

3. This action is brought by the United States of America, on behalf of its agencies and departments, acting through the United States Department of Justice.

4. This action is also brought by the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; the Commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia; and the District of Columbia. Collectively the plaintiffs identified in this paragraph are referred to here as the “plaintiff States.” This action is brought by the Attorneys General of the plaintiff States pursuant to consumer protection enforcement authority conferred on them by state law and pursuant to parens patriae and common law authority. The Attorneys General are authorized to seek injunctive relief, restitution for consumers, and civil penalties for violation of the consumer protection laws of their States.

5. Defendant Bank of America Corporation is a diversified global financial services company and a bank holding company. It is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Defendant BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. was a servicing company that had formerly been known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. It was a Texas limited partnership with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. It was, for a time, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A. In July 2011, it was merged into Bank of America, N.A. This action is also brought against Countrywide Financial Corporation, a financial services company headquartered in Calabasas, California, and three of its subsidiaries, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Mortgage Ventures, LLC, and Countrywide Bank, FSB (collectively, with Countrywide Financial Corporation, “Countrywide”). On April 23, 2009, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency approved Countrywide Bank, FSB’s (“CWB”) request to convert its charter back to that of a national bank and the request by Bank of America, N.A. to then immediately acquire CWB by merger. These transactions were executed on April 27, 2009, as a result of which CWB ceased to exist. Bank of America, N.A. was the surviving institution resulting from this merger. Thus, Bank of America, N.A. is the successor in interest to CWB. Collectively the defendants identified in this paragraph are referred to here as “BOA.” The business of BOA and its subsidiaries and affiliates includes origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

6. Defendant Citigroup Inc. is a diversified global financial services company. It is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City. Defendant Citibank, N.A. is a national banking association. It is Citigroup Inc.’s primary U.S. subsidiary depositor institution. It is headquartered in New York City. Citibank, N.A. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. It provides residential real estate lending. Defendant CitiMortgage is a New York corporation, wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc., and is a residential mortgage loan servicing company headquartered in O’Fallon, Missouri. Collectively the three defendants identified in this paragraph are referred to here as “Citigroup.” The business of Citigroup and its subsidiaries and affiliates, includes the origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

7. Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Company is a diversified global financial services firm. It is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in New York, New York. On May 30, 2008, J.P. Morgan Chase & Company acquired The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (now the Bear Stearns Companies LLC) by merger, including its subsidiary EMC Mortgage Corporation (now EMC Mortgage LLC). Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national banking association. It is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. On September 25, 2008, Washington Mutual Bank., F.S.B., a federal savings bank headquartered in Henderson, Nevada, failed, and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., purchased substantially all of the assets and assumed all deposit and substantially all other liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank., F.S.B., pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, F.S.B. Collectively the two defendants identified in this paragraph are referred to here as “J.P. Morgan.” The business of J.P. Morgan and its subsidiaries and affiliates includes the origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

8. Defendant Residential Capital, LLC is a residential real estate finance company. It is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC. Defendant Ally Financial, Inc. (formerly GMAC, Inc.) is a diversified financial services firm. It is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. Defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC is a financial services company that engages in origination and servicing of residential mortgages. It is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. It was formerly known as GMAC Mortgage Corporation. Defendant GMAC Residential Funding Co. LLC is a residential mortgage servicing company. It is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Collectively the four defendants identified in this paragraph are referred to here as “GMAC.” The business of GMAC and its subsidiaries and affiliates, includes origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

9. Defendant Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services company. It is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in San Francisco, California. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association and a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company. Wells Fargo & Company is the successor in interest to Wachovia Corporation, a diversified financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Wachovia Corporation was acquired by Wells Fargo & Company in 2008. Collectively the two defendants identified in this paragraph are referred to here as “Wells Fargo.” The business of Wells Fargo and its subsidiaries and affiliates includes the origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

10. For this Complaint, defendants GMAC, BOA, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo and all of their affiliated entities, during or prior to such time as they were affiliated, are referred to collectively as the “Banks” or “Defendants.”

us-v-boa-doc-1-nmsa-complaint-march-12-2012

us-v-boa-doc-2-other-jpm-settlements-may-13-2012

us-v-boa-doc-3-case-reassigned-to-collyer-march-3-2012

us-v-boa-doc-10-jpmc-consent-judgment-april-4-2012

us-v-boa-doc-53-collyers-opinion-wells-fargo-february-12-2013

us-v-boa-doc-72-jpmc-monitors-compliance-report-june-16-2013

us-v-boa-doc-106-monitors-interim-consumer-relief-october-16-2013

us-v-boa-doc-106-2-irg-assertion-by-jp-morgan-october-16-2013

us-v-boa-doc-119-jpmc-monitors-compliance-report-december-4-2014

us-v-boa-doc-126-1-wray-motion-to-intervene-december-24-2013

us-v-boa-doc-126-5-wray-motion-to-intervene-december-24-2013

us-v-boa-doc-126-6-wray-motion-to-intervene-december-24-2014

us-v-boa-doc-126-motion-to-intervene-wrayguttman-harpootlian-december-24-2013

us-v-boa-doc-126-wray-motion-to-intervene-december-24-2013

us-v-boa-govt-motion-opposition-wray-january-22-2014

us-v-boa-doc-127-notice-of-appearance-william-edgar-january-7-2014

us-v-boa-doc-129-motion-pro-hac-harpootlian-january-8-2014

us-v-boa-doc-138-us-motion-in-opposition-wray-january-22-2014

us-v-boa-doc-139-reply-motion-to-intervene-wrayguttman-harpootlian-january-28-2014

us-v-boa-doc-143-jpmc-monitors-final-consumer-relief-march-18-2014

us-v-boa-doc-143-2-irg-assertion-by-jp-morgan-march-18-2014

us-v-boa-doc-147-collyer-order-denying-motion-to-intervene-wrayguttman-harpootlian-march-18-2014

us-v-boa-doc-147-judge-collyer-order-denying-wrays-motion-march-18-2014

us-v-boa-doc-148-judge-collyer-order-denying-wrays-motion-march-18-2014

us-v-boa-doc-154-jpmc-final-consumer-relief-ca-may-6-2014

us-v-boa-doc-155-monitors-final-consumer-relief-report-fl-may-6-2014

us-v-boa-doc-160-jpmc-monitors-compliance-report-may-14-2014

us-v-boa-doc-173-transcript-august-11-2014

us-v-boa-doc-174-joint-filing-govt-august-13-2014

us-v-boa-doc-177-us-memorandum-points-enforcement-provisions-of-nms-august-20-2014

us-v-boa-doc-205-jpmc-monitors-complaince-report-june-30-2015

us-v-boa-doc-219-jpmc-monitors-final-report-complaince-march-3-2016