The Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - News Feed

Coalition Aims to Protect Homeowners from Scams

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0800

12-year prison term in mortgage swindle

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

On Tuesday, November 17, Maria Glod of the Washington Post reported that U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus of the District of Maryland had sentenced the perpetrator of an elaborate foreclosure rescue scam to over twelve years in prison in a case brought by the Maryland U.S. Attorney's office. The court found that Joy Jackson, President of Lanham, Maryland's Metropolitan Money Store, had defrauded hundreds of homeowners of tens of millions of dollars of equity. Her company promised distressed homeowners relief from foreclosure as well as credit repair. In exchange for these purported services, Metropolitan asked its customers to transfer title to their homes to third-party buyers. The scamming operation then borrowed heavily against the properties, leaving victims without equity and no safer from foreclosure than they were before having contacted Metropolitan. According to a press release from the Maryland U.S. Attorney's office, six of Jackson's partners have been sentenced to prison terms of varying lengths, and the court is scheduled to sentence three more in December. Foreclosure rescue scams that strip equity from distressed homeowners' properties have grown increasingly common as the foreclosure crisis has proliferated. Victims of foreclosure rescue scams may file complaints at the Lawyers' Committee's PreventLoanScams.Org website.

Click here to read the November 17 Washington Post article.
Click here to read the Maryland U.S. Attorney's November 16 press release.
Click here to file a complaint regarding a foreclosure rescue scam.
Click here to find out more about foreclosure rescue scams from NeighborWorks America.

Mortgage-modification alert: Scammers prey on at-risk homeowners

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

As The Columbus Dispatch reports in its Nov. 19 article "Mortgage-modification alert: Scammers prey on at-risk homeowners," yesterday numerous state, local and federal officials and nonprofits gathered at the Ohio Statehouse to discuss ways of putting the growing number of people being affected by mortgage-loan modification scammers to an end.

Eric Marshall, manager of legal mobilization for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, also participated in the event. He highlighted the fact that it is hard for local law-enforcement officials to track down loan-modification scammers since they often operate across state lines and urged all those who think they have become a scam victim to report it. "That's the only way we'll know about them and help law-enforcement officials crack down and put them out of business," Marshall said.

If you have been approached by, or entered into an agreement with a person who promised loan modification services that seems suspicious please report it to the Lawyers' Committee through our online complaint form.

Click here to read the full article.

Click here to find out more about foreclosure rescue scams from NeighborWorks America.

Loan Modification Scams On The Rise-New Web Site Launched To Help Homeowners

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Mississippi's Failure

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

In a September 21 editorial, the New York Times highlighted the state of Mississippi's failure to adequately address the affordable housing needs of low- and moderate-income residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina through the use of $5.5 billion in federal recovery funds. Instead of striving to build back the Gulf Coast with expedience and equity, the state has failed to provide adequate housing programs for low- and moderate-income residents and has repeatedly reprogrammed funds from housing programs to infrastructure and economic development programs that have moved at a snail's pace. Most egregiously, the state reprogrammed, with HUD's approval, $570 million from a grant program for homeowners to a program to finance a major expansion of the commercial Port of Gulfport. Construction activity on the port is not expected to begin for another five to seven years. HUD's decision to approve the state's request to shift that money to the port is the subject of a lawsuit against the agency - Mississippi State Conference NAACP v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - brought by the Lawyers' Committee, the Mississippi Center for Justice, and the law firm of Mintz Levin on behalf of the Mississippi State Conference NAACP, the Gulf Coast Fair Housing Center, and several individual plaintiffs. The editorial cites evidence of substantial rebuilding shortfalls that was published in a recent report by the Steps Coalition, a community-based coalition of non-profit groups working on recovery issues, and used the example of Katrina survivor James Johnson, a member of the NAACP, to illuminate the human toll of the state's misplaced priorities. In closing, the editorial called on Congress to act to prevent such mishandlings of federal funds from occurring in the future.

Click here to read the New York Times' September 21 editorial.
Click here to read the Steps Coalition's August 28 report.
Click here to read more about Mississippi State Conference NAACP v. HUD.

Is Jeffers Road legally a private road?

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Lawsuit Against Port Wentworth Finally Over

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Judges' Frustration Grows With Mortgage Servicers

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Bobbie Giguere’s unfortunate situation illustrates the importance of the bankruptcy court as source of authority for residential mortgage loan modifications. Giving bankruptcy judges the power to modify residential mortgage loans would provide a tremendous incentive for banks to clean up their loan mod pipelines and give timely and complete attention to borrowers who are seeking the help. It is disappointing that a provision of last year’s TARP legislation that carried this reform failed to obtain Congressional approval. With the end of the foreclosure crisis not yet in sight, perhaps it is time for Congress to seriously revisit this important issue.
--Commuity Development Director Deborah Austin, Lawyers' Committee

Click here for article.

St. Bernard Parish Needs to Stop Defiance on Fair Housing

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

At a St. Bernard Parish Planning Commission hearing on August 25, local officials continued to deny approval of four proposed mixed-income apartment buildings despite multiple rulings by Judge Ginger Berrigan that decreed that by blocking the development the parish has violated the federal Fair Housing Act and the terms of a February 2008 consent decree in the case of Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. St. Bernard Parish. In an August 31 editorial, the editorial board of the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote that the parish's attempts to avoid compliance with federal law and the judge's rulings will prove futile and urged the parish to allow the development to go forward. On August 28, the plaintiffs in the case filed a Motion for Contempt that will be heard on September 9.

Click here to read the New Orleans Times-Picayune's August 31 editorial.

Click here to read more about Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. St. Bernard Parish.

Legal Action Taken Against Loan Modification Firms

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Peter Goodman reports in the New York Times that the Federal Trade Commission has brought legal action against five loan modification firms, several of which were formerly operating as mortgage brokers.

After the real estate bubble burst, many companies that formerly specialized in delivering high risk mortgages have taken advantage of those in need by re-creating themselves "into a new industry focused on selling loan modifications."

A suit has been filed against the Federal Loan Modification Law Center (FedMod), charging that they exaggerated the companies success rate, advised clients to cease making their mortgage payments, did little or nothing to modify loans, and upon failure to help their clients also failed to promptly refund fees. Paul Pejman, a former employee of FedMod, recounts:

"I had people calling me crying, and we were telling them, ‘You can pay me or you can lose your house.' People were giving me every dime they had, opening credit cards. But I never saw one client come out of it with a successful loan modification.... Our big sales pitch was that an attorney could do a better job with you loan modification.... It was misleading to the client. Attorneys never touched files."

FedMod is only one of the several dozen similar companies that has been accused of fraudulent business practices by both state and federal authorities.

Click here to read the full article.

NOTICE: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Smithtown Settlement

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

On August 28, 2009, a fairness hearing will be held for potential class members in the case of Vargas v. Smithtown to have the opportunity to express their thoughts and ask any questions regarding the fairness of the proposed settlement. Individuals who would like to appear at the hearing must send by first-class mail certain information in writing postmarked by August 14, 2009. If you think the proposed settlement is fair, then you do not have to attend the hearing.

Click here for more information.

All subprime mortgages are not equal

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Lawyers' Committee Executive Director Barbara Arnwine is a "Braintruster" for New Deal 2.0 (ND2.0), a one-stop-shop for current news, fresh insight, sharp analysis of the country's fiscal crisis - and the people and policies that offer potential solutions. A new and defining project of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, ND2.0 features commentary from the country's leading thinkers: economists, historians, political scientists, policy experts and elected officials.

Click here to read Barbara's post.

Lawyers' Committee Commends HUD's Decision to Withhold Funds from Westchester County, New York

Mon, 11 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Miss. Plaintiffs to Fight HUD's Motion to Dismiss

Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Sound the Alarm ... Civil Rights, Still At Risk

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

With the historic election of Barack Obama as this nation's first African American president, we still are in a time where we must "sound the alarm" and heighten awareness of the ongoing struggle for racial justice and equality across the country as never before. The racial contradictions in our society are in many ways peaking instead of waning. Nowhere is this truer than in this term of when the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear nine civil rights cases, almost a record number. All Americans, particularly minorities, must make their voices heard. The time to "sound the alarm" is long overdue as key voting rights, education and employment cases with far-reaching impact take center stage in the high court. The decisions, especially considering the conservative makeup of the court, most likely will significantly affect how federal discrimination and voting rights laws are applied in future cases.

Over more than four decades, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has been at the forefront of securing equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment discrimination, democracy and voting, educational opportunities and environmental justice.

We have been actively involved in many of the civil rights cases on the Supreme Court's docket this term, submitting amicus, "friends of the court," briefs in most.

Given the results of the 2008 Presidential and Congressional elections, the right-wing and anti-civil progress forces are concentrating upon the Supreme Court to further their agenda. Insulated from public pressure and dominated by conservatives the Supreme Court is the perfect branch of government for these forces to direct their messages of "white victimization", "reverse discrimination" and a "post-racial society." It's interesting that Texas attorney Gregory Coleman is the lead lawyer in both the Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (MUD) and Ricci v. DeStefano cases. Having no shame, with Obama's election, some, such as Coleman attempt to turn this victory into defeat by asserting this as proof of a post-racial society where there is no continued need for protections under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965.

This backward right-wing anti-civil rights Court campaign is on a collision course with true change in our nation. It's commendable and significant that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., the nation's first African American to so serve, is defending the VRA and that President Obama has noted that despite progress since the VRA, "he does not presume that his election or those advancements have wiped out the need for laws that protect the voting rights of all Americans." The Lawyers' Committee is also pleased with the Senate's confirmation of Elena Kagan as the 45th solicitor general of the United States - and as the first woman to hold the position. It's truly meaningful to the civil rights community to have her as the government's chief advocate before the Supreme Court.

Below is more detailed information on important cases in which the Lawyers' Committee is leading the charge in the areas of voting rights, employment and fair lending as well as what you can do to help. With all the gains our nation has made of the past several decades, now is no time to lose our focus on the struggle for racial equality.

Voting Rights
On March 18, 2009, the Lawyers' Committee, along with other civil rights organizations, filed a major brief before the U.S. Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The brief was filed on behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and the Austin Branch of the NAACP to defend the voting rights of racial and language minorities and drafted in partnership with pro bono counsel from the Washington office of the law firm of WilmerHale.

Section 5, widely recognized as one of the most effective civil rights laws ever passed by Congress, requires federal review before new voting procedures can be used in states with histories of discriminatory voting practices. Section 5 was

one of the original provisions of the Voting Rights Act that Congress passed in 1965; since then, Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 1970, 1975, 1982 and most recently, with broad bipartisan support, in 2006. Days after Congress' 2006 reauthorization was signed into law by President Bush, advocates who intend to limit minority voting rights picked this little water district to challenge the constitutionality of this significant civil rights act.

At the urging of these right-wing advocates, the utility district, located in Travis County, Texas, sought to be exempted from Section 5 coverage via the so-called "bailout" provision of the Voting Rights Act, or, in the alternative, to have the reauthorized Section 5 declared unconstitutional. The Texas State Conference of the NAACP and Austin Branch of the NAACP intervened in the case as defendants, along with other interested organizations. A three-judge panel dismissed the utility district's case, ruling last year that the district was ineligible to "bail out" from Section 5 coverage, and more importantly, that Section 5 remains constitutional. The utility district then directly appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Lawyers' Committee/WilmerHale brief, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, explains the critical role that Section 5 has played since 1965 in allowing minority voters to enter the political process after decades of discrimination and exclusion, and the wide variety of evidence supporting Congress' conclusion that those gains would be undone if Section 5 expired. Because Section 5 enforces both the Fifteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination in voting and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition of racial discrimination, Congress acts at the height of its powers when it decides what legislation is needed to remedy and deter such discrimination.

The case will be argued before the Supreme Court on April 29, 2009, and a decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in June.

Anxiety and anticipation regarding the MUD case is heightened by the Supreme Court's negative opinion, decided March 9, 2009, in Bartlett v. Strickland, which held (5-4 decision) that a requirement in a minority vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a numerical majority in a single-member district. As a result, minority voters will not be protected under Section 2 in future redistrictings unless they can make up a majority of voters in a district.

Employment

The case of Ricci v. DeStefano was argued before the court on April 22, 2009. In this case, the city of New Haven, Connecticut declined to certify the results of a firefighter promotion test based on evidence that the test discriminated on the basis of race. The city sought to explore less discriminatory alternatives, in keeping with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, this case has become a "cause celebre" of the right and has been repeatedly misrepresented in the media as a "reverse discrimination" case where innocent white firefighters were denied promotions because of their race.

A joint brief of the Lawyers' Committee, NAACP, National Urban League and the Equal Justice Society filed in this case urged the Court to uphold the Second Circuit's decision in favor of the city, arguing that the city's actions were entirely consistent with its obligations to provide equal employment opportunity and to refrain from discrimination under both Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Questions asked by the members of the Court showed a deep division between the conservative justices who clung to the "reverse discrimination" arguments and the more liberal justices who contended this case was about voluntary non-discrimination efforts.

Afterwards, African American firefighters from throughout the nation rallied at the Supreme Court in protest of the injustices that could be wrought by an unfavorable decision.

Fair Lending

Besides the key voting and employment cases which the Court is considering this term, attention must be paid to the fair lending case which was argued on April 28th. Again, the Lawyers' Committee and two other national civil rights organizations, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., filed an amicus curiae, "friend of the court," brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cuomo v. The Clearing House Association, L.L.C. The brief supports the New York Attorney General's continued efforts to enforce state fair lending laws against national banks and asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling halting such enforcement. This case questions if New York and other states should investigate racial and ethnic disparities in the mortgage rates charged by national banks, or if only the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have that power. A holdover from the anti-civil rights regime of the Bush Administration, this case is still proceeding under the new Administration.

For more information about the other leading civil rights pending before the Supreme Court this term which also may significantly impact racial and ethnic justice, click here.

Although our nation has made tremendous progress in eradicating racial and ethnic discrimination in voting, employment and housing since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, these gains are fragile and unfinished. Unless the courts, Congress and the President continue to enforce civil rights, there is risk that those opposed to equality for all could revert to old practices of discrimination or as we have seen with recent voting suppression techniques, create new ones.

Therefore, alarms, bells and whistles need to be sounded across the country at the highest possible decibels. Civil rights of minorities continue to be threatened at disturbing rates. Let your voices, and your alarms be heard!

What You Can Do

Attend or encourage friends in the Washington, D.C. area to attend the April 29th VRA Rally being sponsored by the NAACP at the Supreme Court.
Spread awareness of the threat to the VRA and prepare for a new legislative fight in the Congress.
Following the end of the Supreme Court's term, urge Congress to consider corrective legislation to address the Bartlett decision.
Visit the Lawyers' Committee's Web site for updates, www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Click here to download this as a PDF.