Bank of America Commits Fraud Against Florida Pro Se Couple During Prior Litigation By Concealing Parties, Evidence and Material Facts.

A Florida couple once again find themselves fighting in court a mortgage enterprise that concealed a scheme that involved concealed parties, facts, and evidence exposed in a recent investigation.

In late 2010, Mr. Echeverria and Mrs. Santamaria, pro se litigants found themselves fighting mortgage giant Bank of America for fraud committed against them during the servicing of their loan and for a loan modification that was unjustifiably denied for no apparent reason. The couple complied with all requirements to obtain the loan modification and found themselves between a rock and a hard place even though they practically begged for assistance because their payments became too high after their autistic childrens expenses became unmanageable and their income was decreased. The couple was told to default and they only missed one payment and continued to make payments every month. Bank of America would not post many of those payments to their account. The couple continued to submit documents regularly to who they thought was Bank of America. Nonetheless, Bank of America continued to find the way to lose their paperwork, ask for documentation over and over again, and ultimately deny them a loan modification even when they had the assistance of an attorney who they acquired through an employers plan. After getting governmental officials involved including the Attorney General of Florida, Congressman Bill Posey, news stations, senators, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, just to name a few, Bank of Americas Office of the President became involved and the investigations provided no help and all conclusions were ultimately lies given by Bank of America. Cases were closed and Bank of America came out smelling like a rose. The couple had no other choice than to file a lawsuit against Bank of America in December 2010 (Case No. 6:10-cv-01933-JA-DAB). In a lawsuit, a litigant is required to file a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosures Statement in which they are required to name all persons or corporations that has or may have an interest in the outcome of the case. Both Bank of America and the pro se litigants filed this document. During discovery, it was also never disclosed to the pro se couple that there was any other material facts, evidence or parties that would have an interest in this case even though the couple asked. The pro se couple acquired forensic evidence of fraud on the mortgage and wanted to present it as evidence. Bank of America did everything possible to delay the submission of documents to auditor so that the audit would not be completed on time. The couple tried to present it as evidence and Judge Antoon denied the introduction of the audit.Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs had to do something about the fraud on the mortgage and filed the suit in state court against Bank of America, MERS and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. The action was removed quickly to federal court where the same judge (Antoon) took the case. The second case was then quickly dismissed on alleged grounds of claim splitting (Case No. 6:12-cv-01360-JA-KRS). Merely two weeks before trial on October 22, 2012, Bank of America was granted summary judgment and the pro se couples first complaint was then dismissed with prejudice. The couple appealed and lost on appeal in July 2013. Shortly after, Mrs. Santamaria was contacted by Bloomberg who was conducting an investigation about Bank of Americas Office of the CEO and President. Mrs. Santamaria provided letters, documents, fax reports, and everything else she could get her hands on to the Bloomberg reporter. Initially, she thought it was an in-depth look at the CEOs office but what later surfaced was much worse. In December 2013, Mr. Echeverria and Mrs. Santamaria were finally told that they were not in contact with Bank of America or Bank of Americas Office of the CEO and President most of the time or even submitting paperwork to them but instead to Urban Lending Solutions and Carlisle & Gallagher Consulting Group who were hired to do much of Bank of Americas dirty work. Please read the article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/secret-inside-bofa-office-of-ceo-stymied-needy-homeowners.html. Based on this new evidence and other evidence that the couple acquired, they filed another lawsuit in state court in February 2014 which was once again removed to federal court by the defendants. This time, they named all the defendants that were concealed in the first lawsuit and the evidence that was never disclosed previously. Bank of America, Urban Lending Solutions, and Carlisle & Gallagher Consulting Group have all plead res judicata to once again escape the hands of justice. However, for res judicata to apply, fraud, new evidence or facts must not be present. In this case, the pro se Plaintiffs are able to prove that fraud was committed in prior litigation and that new evidence and facts would have greatly changed the outcome of the prior case. The pro se plaintiffs also have over seventy pages of computer entries of their account with Bank of America which are quite incriminating because they also involve the new defendants and further substantiate their claims of manipulating their records and payment account. The Plaintiffs have a new judge named Carlos E. Mendoza in this case and are hoping that he will look at the fraud that was committed against them during prior litigation along with new evidence, new facts, judicial notices, complaints and case law that substantiates their claims so that justice can be finally served against these corporate criminals.

Please follow more on this new case: Echeverria et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Urban Settlement Services d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions and Carlisle& Gallagher Consulting Group, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-00486-CEM-GJK.