Originally posted by Chowder
View Post
You mean besides extorting my husband by threatening our mortgage and house to make him pay a debt that wasn't ours? When I say "wasn't ours" I'm not only talking about it being fraudulent in the first place, but the bank itself cannot even attach this debt to my husband.
I mentioned earlier that this debt is NOT on my husband's credit report. Apparently, his brother began to default on the debt in 2007 and the line of credit was converted to an amortizing loan. When they did the conversion, my husband wasn't included! He is literally not on the account. It's not on his credit report, visits to the branches, calls to the 1-800 number, all say the only account my husband has with this bank is our mortgage. This bank had made a secondary agreement which paid off the first, fraudulent account! The statement of the original fraudulent account show the balance $0.00 and that it was paid off by the amortizing loan which is in his brother's name only.
Our attorney wrote a couple of demand letters for them to return the money paid. Lucky for us, they lied to our attorney in writing. They weakly said there was only one account (the original) and completely dropped it and turned it over to collections. The collections called us ONCE asking for the brother and his wife and never mentioned my husband. I've never heard from them again, so he is truly not attached to this secondary account that they collected on. We now have the secondary account number--so our attorney was enraged to find out this bank LIED to him.
There are other problems with the original contract....technicalities, but totally in our favor.
So yes, we have an excellent case against the bank. We have retained attorneys and should be filing that soon. Our lawyers want to sue under civil RICO, consumer fraud, and a few others. So we should hopefully recover what this bank STOLE and get damages.
If that occurs, we'll obviously satisfy what his brother owes us. We're not out to rip anyone off. We just want our money back and people to be responsible for their actions. Obviously we have a better chance of recovery from the bank...not the broke in-laws. But we're holding them responsible in the meantime.
Comment