17 Class Action Against Mortgage Servicer

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

[Ms.] Glover, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania,

Civil Action No. GD 08-011474 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., Washington Mutual Home Mortgage, [Mr.] Udren, Udren Law Offices, COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION P.C., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Defendants Filed on behalf of Plaintiff, [Ms.] Glover, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania

Counsel of Record for this Party: [Counsel Name] PA Id. No. XXXXX [Street address] [Telephone]

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

[Ms.] Glover, individually ) and on behalf of other similarly ) situated former and current ) homeowners in Pennsylvania, ) ) Civil Action No. GD 08-011474 Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., ) Washington Mutual Home Mortgage, ) [Mr.] Udren, Udren Law Offices, ) P.C., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, ) ) Defendants )

NOTICE TO DEFEND

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

Lawyer Referral Service Allegheny County Bar Association 11th Floor Koppers Building 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-5555 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

COMPLAINT IN CLASS ACTION

INTRODUCTION

. Named Plaintiff, [Ms.] Glover, brings this action on behalf of herself and a class of homeowners similarly situated (“Homeowners”), seeking, inter alia, damages that resulted from

Defendants’ unlawful conduct, including charging, collecting, servicing, and wrongly allocating payments under their residential mortgage loan agreements.

PARTIES

. Named Plaintiff, [Ms.] Glover, is an adult individual residing at [street address].

. Defendant, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (“Washington Mutual”), is a federal association licensed under the laws of the United States to engage in mortgage-related activities in

Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. Its principal office is located at [street address].

It entered into a loan transaction secured by a mortgage with Ms. Glover on August 2, 2002.

(Exhibit. A). Washington Mutual was the only creditor identified on Ms. Glover’s August 2, 2002 note and mortgage. At no time thereafter did Washington Mutual notify Ms. Glover that her note had been assigned or that it was no longer the creditor under her note.

. Defendant, Washington Mutual Home Loans (“Washington Home Loans”), is entirely controlled by Washington Mutual, with a principal office at [street address]. At relevant times, it held itself out as a “debt collector” under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)

(see 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(6)). At other relevant times, it held itself out as a “creditor” and as the only creditor.

. Defendant, [Mr.] Udren, is a New Jersey attorney whose principal office is located at [street address]. Attorney Udren is a debt collector for Washington Mutual and other creditors.

He is licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania and has filed a number of foreclosure actions in

Pennsylvania. Attorney Udren and Udren Law Offices, P.C. are both Defendants, and hereinafter will be referred to as “Attorney Udren.”

. Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), is a federal bank licensed under the laws of the United States to engage in mortgage-related activities in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is believed to be an instrumentality of

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Both have a principal office at [street address]. Washington Mutual authorized Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to service its mortgage with Ms. Glover, beginning with the monthly payment due December 1, 2006. Wells Fargo and/ or Wells Fargo Home Mortgages were FDCPA “debt collectors” for Washington Mutual during at least part of the relevant time period. During some of the relevant time period, they purported to have a creditor interest as well.

FACTS

. Defendant Washington Mutual and Ms. Glover entered into a loan transaction

(Exhibit A) on August 2, 2002 secured by a mortgage (Exhibit B). As required by HUD, Ms. Glover’s residence was appraised. See the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (excerpted,

Exhibit C) showing her residence was appraised at $24,000.

. Ms. Glover borrowed $9,997 from Washington Mutual at 7.125%, and agreed to repay $67.35 in principal and interest payments on a monthly basis for 30 years, beginning on

September 1, 2002, and ending August 1, 2032. Monthly escrow payments for taxes and insurance in amounts to be determined by Washington Mutual subject to the limitations contained in the mortgages and in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., were also required. In this connection, Washington Mutual or Wells Fargo had to determine and notify Ms. Glover of the amount of her monthly escrow payments on at least an annual basis but did not.

. Washington Mutual and Ms. Glover may have entered into a Loan Modification

Agreement dated June 7, 2006. (Exhibit D). Ms. Glover signed this document on June 8, 2006.

It increased her unpaid principal balance from an alleged $9,997 to an alleged $11,941.30, and increased her monthly principal and interest payments from $67.35 to $84.08. The maturity date of that thirty-year loan remained the same, i.e., August 1, 2032.

. On January 4, 2008, another entity, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, and Ms. Glover entered into a document labeled a Loan Modification Agreement. (Exhibit E). At that time, Wells

Fargo held itself out as the only creditor. Under this loan, Ms. Glover’s unpaid principal balance was increased from an alleged $9,508.36 to an alleged $12,152.02, and her monthly principal and interest payments were increased from $67.35 to $81.87. Thus, Wells Fargo failed to honor Ms.

Glover’s June 7, 2006 loan modification with Washington Mutual. The maturity date under Wells

Fargo’s loan modification was February 2, 2038, i.e., six years longer than under her loan with

Washington Mutual. See Washington Mutual’s August 2, 2002 note (Exhibit A) and loan modification dated June 7, 2006. (Exhibit D). Washington Mutual’s Foreclosure Complaint (2005)

. Ms. Glover was injured in an automobile accident in March 2005 and as a result, suffered a significant loss of income. She promptly notified Washington Mutual and respectfully requested a “work-out” agreement (i.e., a loan modification) to reduce her monthly payments.

See Ms. Glover’s April 4, 2005 request at Exhibit F.

. Washington Mutual responded by a threat to evict her from her home. See

Washington Mutual’s Notice of Intention to Foreclose Mortgage on August 18, 2005 at Exhibit

G, which advised her that her home “will be sold by the Sheriff to pay off the mortgage debt” unless she promptly paid an alleged amount of $551.08, which, in the aggregate, consisted of three monthly payments overdue from June 1, 2005, July 1, 2005 and August 1, 2005 plus $8.07 for three late charges, i.e., an aggregate amount of $559.15. Late fees were $2.69 per late monthly payment. (Under her August 2, 2002 note, late fees had been set at 4% of an overdue monthly principal and interest payment of $67.35 per month (.04 x $67.35)).

. Thereafter, Washington Mutual and Ms. Glover entered into a Special Forbearance

Agreement effective December 1, 2005. See Exhibit H. (Ms. Glover, after a reasonable search, has been unable to locate a signed copy). Under this agreement, they agreed that no attorney fees would be charged. At this time, Washington Mutual and Ms. Glover further agreed that her monthly payments, otherwise due and owing on December 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, February 1,

2006 and March 1, 2006, would be postponed, i.e., the lender would forebear. It was also agreed that on or about April 1, 2006, Washington Mutual would reevaluate Ms. Glover’s application for financial assistance through a work-out agreement.

. In breach of the forbearance agreement (i.e., during the time period when no monthly payments were due and owing), Washington Mutual notified Ms. Glover by letter dated March 14, 2006 that her application for a loan work-out had been denied. See Exhibit I (the handwriting on Exhibit I was provided by Ms. Glover).

. On a date now unknown, but before April 10, 2006, [Mr.] Murray, Esquire, an attorney with Udren Law Offices advised Ms. Glover that she had to pay $1,700 for about eleven missed monthly principal payments and in addition, pay attorney fees and costs of about

$1,697.28. The aggregate amount Washington Mutual and the Udren Law Offices demanded was

$3,397.28. See Ms. Glover’s handwriting on Exhibit I.

. At that time, Ms. Glover’s equity interest in her home exceeded 42% ($10,000 loan  $24,000 appraised value). Washington Mutual was thus fully secured.

. Next, on April 10, 2006, Washington Mutual caused its outside counsel, Attorney

Udren (debt collectors), to file a foreclosure action against Ms. Glover at GD-06-8510 (Allegheny

County, PA) (the “Foreclosure Complaint”). (Exhibit J).

. As shown by its Foreclosure Complaint, Washington Mutual accelerated Ms.

Glover’s entire unpaid principal debt and asserted a claim for $12,652.36, that it (and its debt collector, Attorney Udren) calculated as follows:

Principal of debt due $ 9,703.57

Unpaid Interest at 7.125% from 5/1/05 to 4/1/06 (the per diem interest accruing on this debt is $1.89 and that sum should be added each day after 4/1/06) $ 633.71

Title Report $ 325 .00

Court Costs (anticipated, excluding Sheriff’s Sale costs) $ 280 .00*

Escrow Overdraft/ (Balance) (The monthly escrow on this account is $141.09 and that sum should be added on the first of each month after 4/1/06) $ 436.04

Late Charges (monthly late charge of $2.69 should be added in accordance with the terms of the note each month after 4/1/06) $ 16.14

MIP $ 7.90

Attorney Fees (anticipated and actual to 5% of principal) $ 1,250 .00*

TOTAL $ 12,652.36

(Underlining added; asterisks provided).

. As underscored above, a substantial portion of Washington Mutual’s foreclosure claims consisted of $1,855 for collection costs (i.e., title report ($325), court costs ($280) and attorney fees ($1,250)). These amounts alone were over three-fold the three missed monthly payments that had precipitated Washington Mutual’s threat to evict Ms. Glover from her home.

. Two of Washington Mutual’s other substantial costs (highlighted by an asterisk (*) above) were in part labeled as “anticipated.” Thus, these amounts were based on speculation.

The attorney fees alone that Washington Mutual claimed ($1,250) were equal to about eighteen of

Ms. Glover’s monthly principal and interest payments of $67.35.

. Washington Mutual’s earlier August 18, 2005 demand for $559.15 (Exhibit G) had now, less than a year later, allegedly morphed into $12,652.36. Although Washington Mutual’s

Foreclosure Complaint was based on the key documents identified or referred to therein, relevant documents were not attached, in direct violation of Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(i). That Rule provides:

When any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the reason, and to set forth the substance in writing. . Specifically, Washington Mutual’s Foreclosure Complaint, inter alia, failed to attach the note (Exhibit A) or even an account statement that showed how Washington Mutual calculated the claimed unpaid principal debt of $9,703.57. (Under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(g), the

Complaint did refer Ms. Glover to the public records with reference to its mortgage).

. In addition, Washington Mutual’s Foreclosure Complaint failed to distinguish between actual and speculated foreclosure costs and attorney fees, including the times when those attorney fees were allegedly incurred, the attorney involved and hourly rates.

. The Foreclosure Complaint on its face contained a multitude of other errors. It was not verified by Washington Mutual (but by its counsel, [Mr.] Udren), in direct violation of Pa.

R. Civ. P. 1024. For another example, Washington Mutual alleged under Attorney Udren’s verification that the note (Exhibit A) capped attorney fees at 5% of the face amount of the note

(i.e., $485.18 (.05 x $9,703.57)) but nonetheless claimed $1,250 in actual and so-called

“anticipated” attorney fees.

Washington Mutual’s Belated Loan Modification (2006)

. By letter dated May 9, 2006, Washington Mutual for a second time denied Ms.

Glover’s request for a loan work-out. See Exhibit K.

. On or about June 7, 2006, Washington Mutual flip-flopped and offered Ms. Glover a work-out or loan modification agreement. (Exhibit L). Under Washington Mutual’s newest position, and largely as a result of Washington Mutual’s earlier Foreclosure Complaint (seeking attorney fees and costs), Ms. Glover’s alleged debt had increased by thousands of dollars.

. Washington Mutual in its proposed loan modification agreement dated June 7,

2006, advised Ms. Glover that her unpaid principal balance would be increased by $2,237.73

(sic), to a total of $11,941.30. The $2,237.73 (sic) consisted of an alleged delinquent interest amount of $806.45 and an alleged escrow advance of $1,431.19. Washington Mutual also demanded that she immediately pay $3,696, which amount included its alleged foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs.

. Washington Mutual’s June 7, 2006 loan modification demands for foreclosure- related attorney fees and costs substantially exceeded its earlier April 10, 2006 actual and speculated attorney fees and costs although this litigation had largely remained dormant.

. Washington Mutual, in its transmittal letter dated June 7, 2006 simultaneously and inconsistently demanded a certified or cashier’s check, payable to Washington Mutual “in the amount of $0.00.” (Exhibit L). Ms. Glover accepted.

. Under Washington Mutual’s loan modification dated June 7, 2006 (Exhibit L), Ms.

Glover’s monthly principal and interest payments were increased $67.35 to $84.08 (an increase of about 25%). Ms. Glover’s total monthly payments under this loan modification agreement

($170.31) included escrow payments of $86.23. Washington Mutual’s scheduled maturity date

(August 1, 2032) was retained.

. After Ms. Glover accepted Washington Mutual’s loan modification offer, she began to make monthly payments of $170.31. Washington Mutual accepted those payments.

. Although escrow shortages had appeared in Ms. Glover’s escrow account,

Washington Mutual failed to notify Ms. Glover of those shortages, as required under its mortgage.1

. Moreover, Washington Mutual failed to apply her monthly payments to reduce her principal or interest but instead, applied those payments (if at all) to inter alia, so-called escrow advances, foreclosure fees and expenses, miscellaneous corporate distributions, advances,

1 Washington Mutual’s June 7, 2006 transmittal letter (Exhibit L) was Ms. Glover’s first notification that her required monthly escrow payments for taxes and insurance had substantially increased and that her escrow account contained a substantial negative balance, far in excess of the $436.04 that had been claimed by Washington Mutual a short time earlier in its Foreclosure Complaint. miscellaneous corporate distribution(s). Washington Mutual’s reallocation of payments was sua sponte and without the requisite advance notice designed to provide Ms. Glover a first opportunity to budget for and pay for such escrow account payments under paragraph 7 of

Washington Mutual’s mortgage. Alternatively, Ms. Glover’s monthly payments of $170.31 oftentimes were simply “unapplied,” i.e., not applied to either her principal or interest or escrow account.

. Washington Mutual’s disregard of its mortgage commitments caused Ms. Glover to incur additional interest costs, late fees and at other times deprived her of the benefit of excess money that she had been wrongly required to pay into Washington Mutual’s non-interest-bearing escrow account.

Washington Mutual Designated Wells Fargo as its Servicer Beginning with Payments as of December 1, 2006

. In a November 15, 2006 letter to Ms. Glover, Washington Mutual designated Wells

Fargo as its “servicer” with respect to monthly payments beginning on December 1, 2006. See

Exhibit M. Its letter stated that “the servicing of [Ms. Glover’s] mortage loan, that is, the right to collect payments . . . [had been] assigned, sold or transferred from Washington Mutual Bank,

N.A. to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., effective December 1, 2006.” Id. Its letter highlighted that

“The assignment, sale or transfer of the servicing of your mortgage loan does not affect any terms or conditions of the mortgage documents, other than terms directly related to the servicing of your loan.” (Emphasis in original). Thus, Washington Mutual made it clear that it had retained its ownership of Ms. Glover’s note and mortgage.

. Ms. Glover was never notified by Washington Mutual that it had assigned her note

(or mortgage) to Wells Fargo or that Wells Fargo had become her “creditor” or mortgagee. It is currently unknown when, if ever, Washington Mutual assigned Ms. Glover’s note and mortgage to Wells Fargo and when, if ever, Wells Fargo became the owner (or mortgagee) of Ms. Glover’s note and mortgage. Strict proof of Wells Fargo’s ownership will be demanded.

. After Wells Fargo became Washington Mutual’s servicer, it sent Ms. Glover a letter dated December 9, 2006 that stated she now owed $5,715.18. See Exhibit N. (The following year Wells Fargo admitted that the escrow debits had been double-billed, as explained infer).

. Next, Wells Fargo sent Ms. Glover a so-called “statement of activity” dated

December 16, 2006 that purported to show the debits and credits in her escrow account for the

July 1, 2005 through December 16, 2006 time period. Wells Fargo in this letter alleged:

Your monthly mortgage payment for the past year was $208.44 of which $67.35 was for principal and interest and $87.20 went into your escrow account. Over this period, an additional $.00 was deposited into your escrow account for interest on escrow.

Exhibit O. As evidenced by the above quote, Wells Fargo elected not to honor Washington

Mutual’s June 7, 2006 loan modification agreement with Ms. Glover (Exhibit L) under which Ms.

Glover’s monthly principal and interest payments had been set at $84.08 a month and her new monthly escrow payments had been set at $86.23, i.e., the $170.31 per month that she had been paying. Neither Washington Mutual nor Wells Fargo had previously notified Ms. Glover (1) that she should have been paying $208.44 per month instead of the $170.31 per month as required by

Washington Mutual and as paid from June 20, 2006 to March 4, 2008, i.e., for about the last two years.

. Finally, Wells Fargo in its December 16, 2006 statement candidly acknowledged that “An asterisk (*) indicate[s] a difference from a previous estimate either in the date or in the amount.” Virtually every entry in Wells Fargo’s statement contained an asterisk (43 in total) during this short time period (July 1, 2005 - December 16, 2006). That fact (and others) seems to highlight that neither Washington Mutual nor Wells Fargo had determined her monthly escrow payments in 2003, 2004 or 2005 as required under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2609(a)(2) and § 2609(c)(2).

. On January 13, 2007, Wells Fargo sent a correction letter to Ms. Glover in which it candidly acknowledged that its earlier December 9, 2006 statement had substantially overstated her escrow shortage. (Exhibit P):

On December 9, 2006 Wells Fargo Home Mortgage sent you a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Notification. Some of the figures in that letter were not accurate. Those figures have been corrected and are shown below on this Revised Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Notification.

This correction letter eliminated Wells Fargo’s earlier December 9, 2006 escrow “double-billing.”

. Wells Fargo’s January 13, 2007 correction letter also notified Ms. Glover that,

“You were previously notified that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage . . . became your creditor effective December 1, 2006.” (Emphasis added). Instead, Washington Mutual’s only prior notifications had advised her that Washington Mutual had assigned “servicing” rights to Wells

Fargo. See Exhibit M. Significantly, neither Washington Mutual nor Wells Fargo had amended

Washington Mutual’s Foreclosure Complaint at GD-06-8510 (Allegheny Cty., PA) to show that

Wells Fargo was the “new” creditor. Thus, the public records would show she owed well over

$12,000 that in fact, she did not owe. This, too, constituted a form of “double billing.”

. Wells Fargo in its January 13, 2007 correction letter substantially reduced its previous claims but nonetheless demanded immediate payment of $4,012.68, calculated as follows:

As of the date of this letter [January 13, 2007], the total amount needed to bring your loan current is as follows:

Principal and Interest Payments $ 1,347.00 (Payment of which will reduce unpaid principal balance) Escrow Payments $ 2,116.52 (This is the sum of all past due escrow payments) Total of Escrow Advances $ 1,722.41 (This is the total funds previously advanced on your behalf) Escrow Advance amounts in excess of outstanding Escrow $ 0.00 (This is the total funds previously advanced on your behalf) Payments or shortage of Escrow payments Corporate Advances $ 697.95 (As reported by the previous servicer and includes but is not limited to attorney fees/costs, inspections, etc.) Accrued Late Charges [for eight months] $ 21.52 NSF Fees $ 0.00 Less Suspense $ (170.31) (Funds not yet applied to your unpaid principal balance) Total to bring your loan current $ 4,012.68

. Finally, Wells Fargo in its January 13, 2007 correction letter (Exhibit P) advised

Ms. Glover, as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, of her statutory right to

“dispute the debt in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter.” In this letter, it held itself out as a FDCPA “debt collector.”

. However, before Washington Mutual’s thirty-day statutory right to dispute the debt expired, Wells Fargo offered Ms. Glover a loan modification agreement on January 24, 2007 that required acceptance within five days. See Exhibit Q. Wells Fargo’s loan modification offer expired before Ms. Glover’s thirty-day statutory FDCPA right to dispute the debt expired. Thus,

Wells Fargo effectively thwarted Ms. Glover’s FDCPA statutory right to dispute. At this time,

Wells Fargo held itself both as an FDCPA “debt collector” and as a “creditor.”

. Wells Fargo’s January 24, 2007 proposed loan modification (Exhibit Q) demanded that Ms. Glover:

a. Authorize Wells Fargo to increase her unpaid principal balance to

$13,626.93 (although the unpaid principal allegedly due was only $9,703.57);

b. Authorize Wells Fargo to increase her monthly principal and interest payments from $67.35 to $96.83 per month, i.e., an increase of about 44%; c. Authorize Wells Fargo to increase her monthly escrow payment to $107.83 per month. (Acceptance would have increased Ms. Glover’s total monthly payment, including escrow payments, from $170.31 per month as demanded by Washington Mutual (as of June 7,

2006) to $204.66 per month);

d. Agree to immediately pay Wells Fargo a “contribution” of $394.61. This so-called “contribution” was only identified by a generalized grouping of items labeled, “Corp

Recover/ Title/ Mod Fees/ Attorney/ FC/ BPO/ Appraisal.” Ms. Glover declined to accept Wells

Fargo’s offer.

. Next, Wells Fargo, by letter dated October 2, 2007, provided Ms. Glover a second loan modification offer under which it was purported she would be able to “retain [her] home.”

See Exhibit R. However, Wells Fargo again made acceptance financially impossible by requiring her to pay $4,167.10 over the next short four month period, as follows:

Date Amount 11/1/07 $ 154.55 12/1/07 $ 154.55 1/1/08 $ 154.55 2/1/08 $ 3,703 .45

$ 4,167.10

. In its letter offer, Wells Fargo once again held itself out both as a creditor and an

FDCPA “debt collector.” Ms. Glover declined to accept.

. By letter dated January 4, 2008, Wells Fargo made Ms. Glover a third loan modification offer. To avoid eviction from her home, Ms. Glover accepted. See Exhibit E.

. Wells Fargo and Ms. Glover agreed to a new loan under which Wells Fargo obtained authorization (a) to increase her unpaid principal balance from an alleged $9,508.36 to

$12,152.02; (b) to increase her monthly principal and interest payments from $67.35 to $81.87; and (c) to make the increased monthly payments over an entirely new thirty-year period which would now end on February 1, 2038, i.e., a repayment period six years longer (i.e., an additional seventy-two monthly payments) than under her initial Washington Mutual August 2, 2002 note.

This would require Ms. Glover to make monthly payments beyond her 81st birthday. (Ms. Glover was 45 at the time of her original August 2, 2002 Washington Mutual loan in the amount of

$9,997, as evidenced by her August 2002 loan application).

. The alleged $12,152.02 unpaid principal balance was used to finance not only allegedly overdue principal, interest and escrow amounts, but in addition, those previously- claimed attorney fees and costs (both actual and speculated) and court costs (both actual and speculated) in Washington Mutual’s Foreclosure Complaint (Exhibit J).

. Significantly, Wells Fargo’s earlier October 2, 2007 (Exhibit R) and January 4,

2008 (Exhibit E) transmittal letters both had recognized that “If a Truth In Lending statement is enclosed with your modification agreement, please sign and return all items and contribution as disclosure of your interest rate being raised through this modification.” No Truth-In-Lending Act statement explaining these costs of credit, however, was enclosed or otherwise provided.

. Although Wells Fargo labeled its offer a “Loan Modification Agreement,” it was a refinancing of a debt with an entirely new creditor (Wells Fargo) for an entirely new time period

(i.e., to February 1, 2038). See generally Reg. Z, § 226.20(a), “Refinancing.”

. Although the monetary claims in Washington Mutual’s Foreclosure Complaint have now long been resolved as a result of Wells Fargo’s and Ms. Glover’s January 4, 2008 loan modification, neither Washington Mutual nor Wells Fargo have withdrawn that Complaint. Thus, the now existing public record shows that Washington Mutual is pursuing a claim for well over

$12,652.36 that, according to Wells Fargo’s January 24, 2008 agreement, is neither due nor owing. This again is a form of “double billing.”

Key Contractual Provisions Governing Ms. Glover’s Payments in Washington Mutual’s Original Note and Mortgage . Washington Mutual’s August 2, 2002 note and mortgage with Ms. Glover

(Exhibits A and B) contained key contractual provisions that are of particular relevance in this case and are, therefore, highlighted below.

. The note (Exhibit A, & 6) authorized Washington Mutual (and any assignor) to charge for and collect reasonable and customary foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs from, inter alia, “the date of disbursement” (emphasis added), but not before. It provided:

C. Payment of Costs and Expenses If Lender has required immediate payment in full, as described above, Lender may require Borrower to pay costs and expenses including reasonable and customary attorneys’ fees for enforcing this Note to the extent not prohibited by applicable law. Such fees and costs shall bear interest from the date of disbursement at the same rate as the principal of this Note. (Emphasis added).

. The mortgage (Exhibit B) authorized Washington Mutual (subject to various prerequisites) to charge for and collect foreclosure-related attorney fees incurred, consistent with federal and state laws. It provided:

18. Foreclosure Procedure. If Lender requires immediate payment in full under paragraph 9, Lender may foreclose this Security Instrument by judicial proceeding. Lender shall be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this paragraph 18, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs of title evidence. (Emphasis added).

. The mortgage (Exhibit B) required that Washington Mutual allocate Ms. Glover’s monthly payments as follows:

All payments under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied by Lender as follows: First, to the mortgage insurance premium to be paid by Lender to the Secretary or to the monthly charge by the Secretary instead of the monthly mortgage insurance premium; Second, to any taxes, special assessments, leasehold payments or ground rents, and fire, flood and other hazard insurance premiums, as required; Third, to interest due under the Note; Fourth, to amortization of the principal of the Note; and Fifth, to late charges due under the Note. (The amounts referenced in the “second” category, i.e., taxes, insurance, etc., are referred to in the mortgages by the following sentence “Except for the monthly charges of the Secretary [of

Housing and Urban Development], these items are called ‘Escrow Items’ and the sums paid to

Lender are called ‘Escrow Funds.’”).

. Thus, Washington Mutual’s mortgage required that a pre-determined portion of

Ms. Glover’s monthly payments (i.e., for taxes, insurance, etc.) be escrowed. See Mtg., & 2.

. Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo failed to allocate Ms. Glover’s monthly mortgage payments as required. Instead, they wrongfully diverted Ms. Glover’s monthly payments from principal and interest to her escrow account and at other relevant times, did not allocate the payment to any of Ms. Glover’s accounts. In reallocating her payments, they failed to provide the advance notice(s) required by mortgage paragraph 7, quoted infer.

. Moreover, Washington Mutual could not charge interest on any escrow advance prior to the time it notified Ms. Glover and requested her to pay the alleged shortage. This initially-required notification would have allowed Ms. Glover to exercise her first right to pay the additional amounts directly to the taxing authority or insurer. See Mtg., & 7:

Charges to Borrower and Protection of Lender’s Rights in the Property. Borrower shall pay all governmental or municipal charges, fines and impositions that are not included in paragraph 2. Borrower shall pay these obligations on time directly to the entity which si owed the payment. If failure to pay would adversely affect Lender’s interest in the Property, upon Lender’s request Borrower shall promptly furnish to Lender receipts evidencing these payments.

. In addition, Washington Mutual, under its mortgage, could not charge interest on escrow advances that it paid (directly or through an escrow account) before the funds were actually disbursed to the taxing authority or insurer. A mere “bookkeeping” debit to the escrow account did not constitute a disbursement that would entitle Washington Mutual to charge

Homeowners interest. See Mtg., & 7, which provides:

Any amounts disbursed be Lender under this paragraph shall become an additional debt of Borrower and be secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest from the date of disbursement, at the Note rate, and at the open of Lender, shall be immediately due and payable.

. Finally, until Washington Mutual provided Ms. Glover and other homeowners notice to increase their monthly escrow payments, and until escrow payments were actually paid third parties (i.e., the taxing authority or insurer), Washington Mutual could not charge Ms.

Glover interest on any so-called advances but could only add those advances to Homeowners’ unpaid principal balance or alternatively, demand immediate payment.

. To state this differently, if Washington Mutual determined there was an escrow shortage, it had to first notify Ms. Glover and request her to make a payment, as required by

RESPA. See Mtg., & 2:

Lender may, at any time, collect and hold amounts for Escrow items in an aggregate amount not to exceed the maximum amount that may be required for Borrower’s escrow account under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. and implementing regulations, 24 CFR Part 3500, as they may be amended from time to time (“RESPA”), except that the cushion or reserve permitted by RESPA for unanticipated disbursements or disbursements before the Borrower’s payments are available in the account may not be based on amounts due for the mortgage insurance premium.

. Defendant lenders were required to annually determine and provide a RESPA

“escrow determination” once a year. See Wells Fargo’s RESPA Escrow Disclosure Statement and Notice of New Mortgage Payment dated March 17, 2008 projecting escrow payments of $114.85 per month. Id. (Exhibit W).

. Significantly, Ms. Glover was not annually notified of any new projected escrow increases or of the alleged shortages in her escrow account, as required under RESPA. This lack of required notice caused Ms. Glover to incur additional interest and late charges, and also prevented her from avoiding escrow “shock” (more precisely, an escrow shortage) which results from an inability to monitor and budget for required escrow payments.

. Earlier, Washington Mutual without using a correct RESPA formula to determine projected escrow advances, made the following false escrow projections:

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. Foreclosure Complaint (April 10, 2006) $ 141.09 per month

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.Washington Mutual Loan Modification Agreement (June 7, 2006) $ 86.25 per month

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Wells Fargo Escrow Statement (December 16, 2006) $ 87.20 per month

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Wells Fargo Loan Modification Agreement (January 24, 2007) $ 107.83 per month

. The difference between the Defendant lenders’ projected and actual escrow payments between August 2002 and March 2008 was substantial. Because Ms. Glover was overcharged, Wells Fargo refunded $1,169.45 to Ms. Glover on March 17, 2008. See Exhibit S.

It is believed and therefore averred that other Homeowners received escrow overpayment refunds during this time period.

. To state this differently, Wells Fargo in its January 4, 2008 agreement had projected escrow payments at $87.20. Wells Fargo’s escrow refund (without interest) represented about 13.5 months of its determined escrow payments ($1,169.45  ($87.20 per month). To state this another way, the $1,169.45 represented about 14.26 of Ms. Glover’s principal and interest payments ($1,169.45  ($81.87 per month).

. Wells Fargo’s escrow refund of $1,169.45 also shows that Washington Mutual’s and Wells Fargo’s earlier escrow demands were excessive and therefore false. See, e.g.,

Washington Mutual and Attorney Udren’s escrow demand for monthly escrow payments of

$141.09 and Washington Mutual’s June 7, 2006 escrow demand for $1,431.19 resulting from an alleged escrow shortage. (Exhibit L).

. It is believed and therefore averred that former and current homeowners in

Pennsylvania were subject to identical or virtually identical attempts to collect escrow payments under virtually identical notes and mortgages.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

. This class action is brought pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1701(c) since, in two of the counts (Counts VI and VII), declaratory and injunctive relief is requested.

. The class consists of all former or current homeowners who obtained residential financing from Washington Mutual, secured by a first mortgage on property located within the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (sometimes referred to as “Homeowners”). This class includes

Homeowners who made monthly payments to Washington Mutual or Wells Fargo within the six- year time period preceding the filing of this Complaint, including:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Former and current homeowners whose notes or mortgages were assigned by

Washington Mutual to Wells Fargo; and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Former and current homeowners whose notes and mortgages were serviced by

Wells Fargo at Washington Mutual’s request; and

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

Former and current homeowners that were named as defendants in foreclosure actions filed by Udren Law Offices and/ or attorneys of that lawfirm on behalf of Washington

Mutual.

Numerosity

. The class is so numerous that it is impracticable to bring all Homeowners before this Honorable Court. The exact number of Homeowners is unknown, but is believed to include well over 1,000. The exact number and identity can be determined from Defendants’ records. In many instances, class members either are unaware that their claims exist or have sustained individual damages too small to economically justify the attorney fees and other costs of maintaining individual lawsuits. When aggregated, however, individual damages are sufficiently large to justify this class action.

Predominance and Commonality

. Washington Mutual entered into standardized notes and mortgages with

Homeowners that contained identical or virtually identical monthly payment and escrow provisions, except as to the numerical amount.

. Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo used standardized electronic programs and therefore the type of charges (as opposed to numerical amounts) that were charged to and collected from Homeowners were identical or virtually identical to the charges imposed on and collected from Ms. Glover throughout the relevant time period. Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo also used standardized electronic programs to allocate Homeowners’ monthly payments when received.

. Defendant, Udren Law Offices, used standardized billing practices in the foreclosure complaints that it caused to be filed for Washington Mutual in Pennsylvania that included demands for attorney fees (actual and anticipated) and costs (actual and anticipated).

. Common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over any individual questions of law or fact and include, but are not limited to, the following:

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

Did Defendant lenders breach their mortgages (paragraph 7) when they misallocated Homeowners’ monthly payments? (Count I);

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

Did Defendant lenders breach their mortgage (paragraph 7) when they failed to provide advance notice to Homeowners before disbursing escrow-related payments? (Count II);

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.

Did Defendant lenders breach their mortgages (paragraph 2) when they contracted to abide by RESPA’s escrow provisions but did not? (Count III);

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Did Defendant debt collectors’ collection practices violate the Pennsylvania Fair

Credit Extension Uniformity Act (“FCEUA”), 73 P.S. § 2270.4? (Count IV);

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Did Defendant lenders= collection practices violate the Pennsylvania Fair Credit

Extension Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. § 2270.5? (Count V); oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Did Defendants charge, attempt to collect and collect foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs prohibited by the Loan Interest and Protection Act (“LIPA”), 41 P.S. § 404(b)(3) and § 406? (Count VI);

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp.

Did Defendants charge, attempt to collect and collect foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs that were not contractually authorized? (Count VII);

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq.

Did Defendant lenders fail to disclose mandated material terms in connection with the offer and sale of extensions of credit or the provision of escrow services in violation of the

Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.? (Count VIII); and

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.Did Defendant lenders breach other provisions of their mortgages?

(Count IX).

Typicality

. Ms. Glover’s claims are identical or at least typical to the class claims. Ms. Glover and the class of Homeowners have sustained virtually identical types of damages and their claims arise from identical or virtually identical provisions in their notes and mortgages (except for numerical amounts), and are based on identical legal theories. Damages can be mechanically and mathematically determined from Defendants’ business records.

Adequacy of Representation

. Ms. Glover will assure the adequate representation of members of the Homeowner class. Ms. Glover’s economic interest and the interests of the class members are squarely aligned. Ms. Glover’s claims are typical of the class’s claims and she has no conflict with class members in the maintenance of this action, and her interests are antagonistic to Defendants’ interests.

. Ms. Glover is determined to vigorously pursue class members’ claims. Ms. Glover can acquire the financial sources to litigate this action. In this connection, undersigned counsel have agreed to initially advance all reasonable costs to litigate this action and otherwise protect the class members.

. Undersigned counsel are experienced in litigating consumer class actions in the state courts. Class counsel are handling this case on a contingent basis as awarded by this

Honorable Court.

. There is a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication if individual actions are maintained that could create incomparable standards of conduct for Defendants. Moreover, adjudication of Ms. Glover’s claims would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the class claims.

There is no other known litigation presenting the complex, contractual and/ or state statutory issues presented by this case. Ms. Glover’s claims and many of the other class members’ claims arose in this judicial district.

. A class action provides the only known fair and efficient method of adjudicating this controversy. The substantive claims of the class are virtually identical in all material respects, and will require evidentiary proof of the same kind and application and interpretation of the same mortgages and notes and state laws. Since Defendants have treated and are treating members of the class in an identical or virtually identical manner, declaratory and injunctive relief (under counts VI and VII) in addition to damages is appropriate.

. There are no unusual legal or factual issues which would cause management problems not normally and routinely handled in class actions because, inter alia, damages can be calculated mechanically, and with mathematical precision, without the need for individual class member testimony. Therefore, the cost of administering any class fund will be relatively cost effective. Ms. Glover believes, and therefore avers, that because members of the class are unaware that their contractual and statutory rights have been violated, or, if aware, would be unable to economically retain counsel to pursue their claims individually because of the relatively small nature of their individual damages in relation to the value of the professional services that would be needed, a class action is the only practical proceeding in which Homeowners can recover their losses.

COUNT I Defendant Lenders Breached Paragraph 7 of Their Mortgages When They Misallocated Homeowners’ Monthly Payments

. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated.

. Defendant lenders’ mortgages (paragraphs 1 and 2) required Homeowners to pay principal, interest, taxes, insurance and other charges on a monthly basis. The mortgages state:

1. Payment of Principal, Interest and Late Charge. Borrower shall pay when due the principal of, and interest on, the debt evidenced by the Note and late charges due under the Note. 2. Monthly Payment of Taxes, Insurance and Other Charges. Borrower shall include in each monthly payment, together with the principal and interest as set forth in the Note and any late charges, a sum for (1) taxes and special assessments levied or to be levied against the Property, (b) leasehold payments or ground rents on the Property, and (c) premiums for insurance required under paragraph 4.

. The mortgages required the Defendant lenders to allocate the monthly payments in a specific manner. See Mtg., & 3, which states:

3. Application of Payments. All payments under paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied by Lender as follows: First, to the mortgage insurance premium to be paid by Lender to the Secretary or to the monthly charge by the Secretary instead of the monthly mortgage insurance premium; Second, to any taxes, special assessments, leasehold payments or ground rents, and fire, flood or other hazard insurance premiums, as required; Third, to interest due under the Note; Fourth, to amortization of the principal of the Note; and Fifth, to late charges due under the Note.

. Monthly payments remain fixed under mortgage paragraph 1 unless the note is modified. In contrast, escrow payments oftentimes may be increased as taxes and insurance charges increase, subject to the limitations imposed by the mortgage itself and the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2609.

. Defendant lenders’ mortgages authorized escrow accounts under RESPA.

Paragraph 2 states:

Lender may, at any time, collect and hold amounts for Escrow Items in an aggregate amount not to exceed the maximum amount that may be required for Borrower’s escrow account under the real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. and implementing regulations, 24 CFR Part 3500, as they may be amended from time to time (“RESPA”), except that the cushion or reserve permitted by RESPA for unanticipated disbursements or disbursements before the Borrower’s payments are available in the account may not be based on amounts due for the mortgage insurance premium.

If the amounts held by Lender for Escrow Items exceed the amounts permitted to be held by RESPA, Lender shall account to Borrower for the excess funds as required by RESPA. If the amounts of funds held by Lender at any time are not sufficient to pay the Escrow Items when due, Lender may notify the Borrower and require Borrower to make up the shortage as permitted by RESPA. (Emphasis added).

. Defendant lenders’ mortgages (& 7) explicitly regulated how the parties would handle non-payments and escrow costs and expenses that had not been required by the lender under paragraph 2 (quoted above) as follows:

If Borrower fails to make these payments or the payments required by paragraph 2, or fails to perform any other covenants and agreements contained in this Security Instrument, or there is a legal proceeding that may significantly affect Lender’s rights in the Property (such as a proceeding in bankruptcy, for condemnation or to enforce laws or regulations); then Lender may do and pay whatever is necessary to protect the value of the Property and Lender’s rights in the Property, including payment of taxes, hazard insurance and other items mentioned in paragraph 2. Any amounts disbursed by Lender under this paragraph shall become an additional debt of Borrower and be secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest from the date of disbursement, at the Note rate, and at the option of Lender, shall be immediately due and payable.

. A bookkeeping entry such as an advance payment by the lender to a Homeowner’s escrow account did not constitute a paragraph 7 disbursement that would enable the lender to begin charging the Homeowner interest at the note rate.

. Defendant lenders were not contractually authorized to charge Homeowners interest on escrow-related amounts until the lender made an actual disbursement to the third party.

. Defendant lenders could not debit paragraph 7 payments against a Homeowner’s monthly principal and interest payments. Defendant lenders, as contracted for, could only demand immediate payment or debit the Homeowners’ unpaid principal balances.

. Here, Defendant lenders (1) required Homeowners to pay paragraph 7 escrow amounts prior to the time such payments were disbursed to third parties and (2) failed to apply their paragraph 2 monthly payments to their principal or interest accounts, or, at other times, even their escrow accounts.

. The Defendant lenders’ escrow fund demands resulted in the payment of excessive escrow amounts. See Wells Fargo’s belated refund check to Ms. Glover dated March 17, 2008 in the amount of $1,169.45. (Exhibit S).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request contractual damages to be awarded against Defendants Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo for violations of their mortgages for the time period preceding four years from the date of this Complaint.

COUNT II Defendant Lenders Breached Their Mortgages When They Failed to Provide Advance Notice to Homeowners Before Advancing Paragraph 7 or Escrow Payments

. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated. . In order to monitor their own escrow accounts and to protect themselves from escrow shortages or surpluses, Homeowners contracted for advance notice of the need for paragraph 7 disbursements before the lender could make the disbursement. See paragraph 7, which provided “Borrower shall pay all governmental or municipal charges, fines and impositions that are not included in Paragraph 2.”

. In this connection, in the event of an escrow account shortage, the Defendant lenders were required to first “notify the [Homeowners] and require the [Homeowner] to make up the shortage as permitted by RESPA.” Mtg., & 2. Defendant lenders, however, failed to provide the Homeowners the required notice. Instead, Defendant lenders advanced paragraph 7 and escrow disbursements before providing Homeowners the contracted-for notice.

. Under Homeowners’ mortgages, a paragraph 7 disbursement could not occur prior to (1) the requisite notification to the Homeowner and (2) until (or simultaneously with) disbursement to the third party.

Defendant lenders breached both contractual requirements.

COUNT III Defendant Lenders Also Breached Paragraph 2 of Their Mortgages When They Failed to Comply With RESPA’s Escrow Provisions

. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated.

. As recognized by Congress, escrow surpluses may create economic advantages to lenders (and disadvantages to borrowers) resulting from money held in (or in the case of

Homeowners, money required to be paid into) non-interest-bearing escrow accounts. . Defendant lenders in their mortgages contracted to “collect and hold amounts for

Escrow Items in an aggregate amount not to exceed the maximum amount that may be required for Homeowners’ escrow funds under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12

U.S.C. § 2601 et. seq.” Mtg., & 2.

. Defendant lenders in their mortgages also contracted that if escrow shortages occurred, they would “notify the Borrower and require Borrower to make up the shortage as permitted by RESPA.” Id.

. Defendant lenders also contracted to abide by the escrow terms and conditions contained in RESPA which (with exceptions not applicable here) required Defendant lenders to annually provide Homeowners with escrow account determinations that showed the projected escrow amounts that Homeowners would be required to pay over the next twelve months

(including, if contracted for, an allowable “cushion”). See RESPA, § 2609(c)(c)(2)). Reg. X, 24

C.F.R. § 3500.17(i)(1). If the escrow determinations showed an escrow surplus, lenders under

RESPA were required to refund the surplus to the Homeowners within thirty days after the determination. Reg. X, 24 C.F.R. § 3500.17(f)(2)(i).

. Homeowners recognize that Defendant lenders contracted that “If the amounts held by Lender [i.e., collected and held in accordance with RESPA] exceed[ed] the amounts permitted to be held by RESPA, Lender shall account to borrower for the excess funds as required by RESPA” (Mtg., & 2). However, because the Defendant lenders failed to make the required determinations annually, it is respectfully submitted that by their conduct, they are estopped from now asserting this provision.

. Because Defendant lenders failed to “collect and hold” the escrow money as required by their mortgages and RESPA, they are not entitled to retain a Homeowner’s escrow surplus without an accounting and the payment of interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request contractual damages against

Defendants Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo for violations of their mortgages for the time period preceding four years from the date this Complaint was filed.

COUNT IV Defendant Debt Collectors Violated the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act

. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated. This count is brought against

Defendant debt collectors under the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (“FCEUA”), 73 P.S.

§ 2270.4(a).

. The FCEUA makes it illegal under state law for a debt collector to violate the provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

See FCEUA, § 2270.4(a).

. Debt collectors that make false representations about the “character, amount or legal status of any debt” violate the FDCPA, § 1692e(2)(A) and therefore, violate the FCEUA,

§ 2270.4(a).

. Debt collectors that charge, attempt to collect or collect any amount that is not

“expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law” violate the FDCPA,

§ 1692f(1) and therefore, violate FCEUA, § 2270.4(a).

. In addition, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage recognized in its communications that it was required to warn Homeowners that the debt collector “is attempting to collect a debt” and

“that any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” FDCPA, § 1692e(11). See, e.g.,

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s December 9, 2006 letter that erroneously demanded payment of

$5,715.18. Exhibit N.

. After the initial debt collection communication, a debt collector is only required to identify itself as a debt collector. See FDCPA, § 1692e requiring in “subsequent communication

[a statement] that the communication is from a debt collector . . .” Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, however, sent Ms. Glover and other Homeowners debt collection notices that failed to identify itself as a debt collector in violation of § 1692e(11) and therefore, also violated FCEUA, §

2270.4(a). See Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s December 19, 2006 Monthly Mortgage Statement

(Exhibit T) under the rubric of “Important Messages” wherein Wells Fargo states:

Foreclosure preparation has begun to protect our interest in the property. If you wish to retain ownership in the property, the loan must be brought current immediately. Please contact a loan representative at 1-800-222- 0238 to discuss reinstatement of your loan.

. Wells Fargo’s statement also acknowledges, as many of its other statements, that many of the monthly payments that Ms. Glover made were “unapplied,” i.e., not paid toward her unpaid principal balance, interest, or escrow account.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request an award of triple damages and attorney fees against Defendant debt collectors as provided for in FCEUA, 73 P.S. § 2270.5(a), which Act incorporates the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

(“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 statutory remedy provisions.

COUNT V Defendant Lenders Violated the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act

. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated. This count is brought against

Defendant lenders under the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (“FCEUA”), 73 P.S.

§ 2270.4(b) which Act, unlike its federal counterpart, strictly regulates the debt collection activities of creditors like Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo.

. Defendant lenders that make false representations about the “character, amount or legal status of any debt” violate the FCEUA, § 2270.4(b)(5)(ii).

. Defendant lenders that charge, attempt to collect or collect any amount that is not

“expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law” violate the

FCEUA, § 2270.4(b)(6)(i). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request an award of triple damages and attorney fees against Defendant lenders, as provided for in FCEUA, 73 P.S. § 2270.5, which Act incorporates the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,

(“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-9.2.

COUNT VI Defendants Charged, Attempted to Collect and Collected Foreclosure-related Attorney Fees and Costs that Were Prohibited by the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Act

. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated. This count excludes Homeowners who paid foreclosure attorney fees and costs as a result of a state judgment signed by a Court, but not so-called state judgments not signed or signed only by a Prothonotary or its Deputy.

. This count against all Defendants arises under the Loan Interest and Protection Act

(“LIPA”), 41 P.S. § 101 et seq. (sometimes also called “Act 6”).

. The LIPA (after the closing) creates three distinct stages for which foreclosure- related attorney fees and legal expenses that may be charged and collected from homeowners in foreclosure proceedings. See 41 P.S. § 406 which provides:

With regard to residential mortgages, no residential mortgage lender shall contract for or receive attorney's fees from a residential mortgage debtor except as follows:

(1) Reasonable fees for services included in actual settlement costs. (2) Upon commencement of foreclosure or other legal action with respect to a residential mortgage, attorney's fees which are reasonable and actually incurred by the residential mortgage lender may be charged to the residential mortgage debtor.(3) Prior to commencement of foreclosure or other legal action attorneys' fees which are reasonable and actually incurred not in excess of fifty dollars ($50) provided that no attorneys' fees may be charged for legal expenses incurred prior to or during the thirty-day notice period provided in section 403 of this act.

. Here, it is believed and therefore averred that all Defendants attempted to collect and/ or collected excess money in violation of state law. See LIPA, §§ 501 and 502. The excess money that Defendant lenders contracted for and collected included the following: a. Foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs (in excess of $50) that were charged or collected before the expiration of the 30-day right to cure, in violation of LIPA, § 404;

b. Foreclosure-related attorney fees (in excess of $50) that were charged or collected after the thirty-day right to cure expired but before a foreclosure complaint or other legal proceeding was filed, in violation of LIPA, § 406(3);

c. Foreclosure-related attorney fees that were charged or collected before they were “actually incurred,” in violation of LIPA, § 406;

d. Defendant lenders “reserved or contracted for,” charged and received excess money in violation of LIPA, § 501;

e. In addition, the foreclosure-related attorney fees that were charged or collected were percentage-fee based instead of hourly based, in violation of LIPA, § 406(2) which only authorizes “reasonable” fees.

. Moreover, attorney fees that include anticipated or speculated amounts are not

“due” and therefore, cannot be properly charged or collected in a foreclosure complaint.

. Finally, where the Homeowner/ creditor relationship is ongoing (i.e., it has not terminated), the Homeowner may elect, inter alia, to “deduct such excess from the amount of such debt providing the borrower or debtor gives notice of the asserted excess to the creditor.”

LIPA, § 501. (There is no statute of limitations for this set-off remedy).

. The LIPA authorizes any person who paid interest or other charges for a loan in excess of that permitted by Act 6 or other “law” to recover from the “person who has collected such interest or charges” triple the excess amount “limited to a four-year period of the contract.”

41 P.S. § 502. The statutory triple damage claims in the LIPA, 41 P.S. § 503, have a four-year statute of limitations. The statutory actual damage claims under the LIPA have a six-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5527(b). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request an award of actual or statutory damages under LIPA, § 501 and § 502 against Defendants Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo and

Attorney Udren. Plaintiff-Homeowners also seek declaratory and injunctive relief under this count.

COUNT VII Defendant Lenders Charged and Collected Foreclosure-Related Attorney Fees and Costs That Were Not Contractually Authorized

. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated. This breach of contract count focuses on Defendant lenders charging and collecting foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs from

Homeowners, without contractual authorization. This count excludes Homeowners who paid attorney fees and costs as a result of a state judgment signed by a Court as opposed to alleged state judgments never signed at all, or signed only by the Prothonotary or its deputy.

. Defendant lenders collected foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs from

Homeowners prior to disbursement or when such fees were actually paid to their outside counsel, i.e., debt collectors

. Moreover, Defendant lenders collected foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs from Homeowners that had not been “incurred.” See Mtg., Exhibit B, & 18. See also Mtg., &

14, which provided that the mortgage would be “governed by federal law and the law of the jurisdiction in which the Property is located.” In this case, the property is located is Pennsylvania, and foreclosure fees and costs are strictly limited by the Loan Interest and Protection Law

(“LIPA”), 41 P.S. & 404(b)(3) and § 406. Thus, Defendant lenders contracted to abide by the terms and conditions of the LIPA, but did not. Contractual waivers of the LIPA provisions are strictly prohibited. LIPA, § 408. . Finally, Defendant lenders, without contractual authorization, charged and collected foreclosure-related attorney fees and costs from Homeowners on a percentage basis instead of an hourly basis.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners request contractual damages to be awarded against

Defendants Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo for the time period preceding four years from the date this Complaint was filed. Plaintiff-Homeowners also seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to this count.

COUNT VIII Defendant Lenders Charged, Attempted to Collect and Collected Payments from Homeowners in Violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated. This count arises under the

Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-

9.2, which Act has a six year statute of limitations.

. The Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Act (“LIPA”), 41 P.S. § 401 requires a mortgage lender to provide mortgage debtors those disclosures required by the federal

Truth-In-Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.

. Defendant lenders failed to disclose mandated material credit terms in connection with their offer and sale of new loans and/ or in determining the correct required escrow amounts

(i.e., a “service”).

. Defendant Wells Fargo in connection with its refinancing failed to provide Ms.

Glover and other Homeowners the required TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1638 and § 1639 finance charge/

APR disclosures. . In addition, Defendant lenders failed to provide Ms. Glover and other

Homeowners annual escrow determinations, which statements also contained material facts. See

RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2609.

. Non-disclosures of material facts required to be disclosed by federal law (as incorporated into state law) constitutes per se violations of the Pennsylvania UTPCPL, § 201-2(4)

(v) and § 201-2(4)(xxi).

. In addition, representing, charging and collecting foreclosure fees and costs in excess of that permitted by the mortgages and state law (i.e., the LIPA), as pled above, also constitute per se violations of the UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(v) and § 201-2(4)(xxi).

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff-Homeowners request an award of actual or statutory damages against Defendants Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo for the time period proceeding six years from the date this Complaint was filed.

COUNT IX Defendant Lenders Also Breached Other Provisions of Their Mortgages

. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated.

. Defendant lenders’ account activity statements are not a model of clarity and will require discovery to be fully understood. A copy of Wells Fargo’s partial account statement from about February 4, 2005 through February 1, 2008 is attached as Exhibit U and a recapitulation of that statement is attached hereto as Exhibit V.

. Wells Fargo’s account statement (Exhibit U) evidences a number of overcharges as well as disbursements not actually made, or if made, not authorized by the mortgage, or if authorized, made without the requisite advance notice to Homeowners, as required by their mortgages. Representative examples include so-called “statutory expenses” and “Misc Corp Dsb” or the one “Property preservation” as identified below: 05/08/06 $ 200.00 Statutory expenses 05/08/06 100.00 Statutory expenses 05/08/06 2,000.00 Statutory expenses 05/08/06 250.00 Statutory expenses Total statutory Expenses $2,550.00 07/19/06 125.00 Misc Corp Dsb 09/18/06 50.00 Misc Corp Dsb 10/03/06 50.00 Misc Corp Dsb 12/08/06 15.00 Property preservation Total $2,790.00

. Wells Fargo’s account statement (Exhibit U) likewise evidences a number of so- called corporate advance adjustments that were not applied to reduce Ms. Glover’s principal or interest or placed into her escrow account. Representative examples of such “corporate advance adjustments” include:

06/14/06 $ 999.99 06/14/06 190.51 10/11/06 50.00 11/09/06 681.24 11/09/06 170.31 05/31/07 ( 681.24) Payment reversal 05/31/07 ( 170.31) Payment reversal Total $1,240.50

. Finally, during long time periods, Wells Fargo failed to apply Ms. Glover’s monthly payments to reduce her unpaid principal balance or pay her accrued interest or even place her money into her escrow account, as required by her note and mortgage. Representative examples of such monthly payments include:

06/20/06 $ 170.31 08/09/06 170.31 11/09/06 170.31 09/14/06 340.62 12/08/06 170.31 01/15/07 154.55 02/12/07 170.31 03/14/07 170.31 04/13/07 170.31 04/30/07 50.00 05/14/07 170.31 12/31/07 170.35 02/01/08 170.35 03/04/08 1,289.11 Total $3,537.46 Payments from above 1,240.50 $4,777.96

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Homeowners respectfully request an accounting and contractual damages against Defendants Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo for violations of their mortgages for the time period preceding four years from the date this Complaint was filed.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

[Attorneys for Ms. Glover and the class she represents]