Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357 Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp ...

Case 6:17-cv-02062-JR Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 9

Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357 Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204 michael@ Direct 503-201-4570

Kelly D. Jones, OSB No. 074217 kellydonovanjones@ Direct 503-847-4329

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

JULIE COLLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:17-cv-2062 COMPLAINT Unlawful Trade Practices 28 U.S.C. ? 1332 Demand for Jury Trial

COMPLAINT ? Page 1 of 9

Case 6:17-cv-02062-JR Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 9

1. THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC (Rushmore) is a Delaware limited liability company and a "person" as that term is defined at ORS 646.605(4) and a "mortgage loan servicer" as that term is defined at OAR 137-020-0800(3) that regularly conducts its mortgage servicing business in Lane County, Oregon.

2. Julie Collis (plaintiff) is an individual residing in Oregon and a "person" as that term is defined at ORS 646.605(4) and a "borrower" as that term is defined at OAR 137-020-0800(1).

3. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ? 1332 because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. This complaint's allegations are based on personal knowledge as to plaintiff's conduct and made on information and belief as to the acts of others. This complaint pertains solely to Rushmore's "servicing" of the "residential mortgage loan" securing plaintiff's residence, as those terms are defined at OAR 137-020-0800(4) and (5). This complaint does not pertain in any way to the origination of plaintiff's loan.

COMPLAINT ? Page 2 of 9

Case 6:17-cv-02062-JR Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 9

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS In or around February 2014, plaintiff contacted Rushmore because she had been alerted that she owed past due property taxes. Plaintiff faxed the tax collection form to Rushmore and was informed by Rushmore that it would pay the taxes at the quarterly payment date.

5. On or around April 21, 2014, plaintiff called Rushmore again to check in about the property tax issue. Rushmore ensured plaintiff that the property tax payment had already been made.

6. On or around February 10, 2015, plaintiff was made aware that the past due property taxes still had not been paid as Rushmore had promised. Plaintiff again submitted documentation to Rushmore showing that it had not addressed the issue.

COMPLAINT ? Page 3 of 9

Case 6:17-cv-02062-JR Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 9

7. On or around May 10, 2016, plaintiff called Rushmore and spoke to its agent Josh regarding the past due property tax amount, Rushmore's failure to timely pay the property tax, and Rushmore's general incompetence in handling the issue. Plaintiff faxed a delinquency notice from Lane County to Rushmore showing that past due taxes were due on May 16. Rushmore stated that it would research the issue again and call plaintiff back. Plaintiff never received a return phone call from Rushmore.

8. On or around June 28, 2016, plaintiff called Rushmore again and faxed another delinquency notice showing that property taxes and interest were owed back to 2013. Rushmore said it would take a couple of weeks to resolve the problem and that it would call her back. Again, there was no return phone call.

9. In or around January 2017, plaintiff was told that Rushmore had sent her a letter regarding an increase in her mortgage payments. When plaintiff requested a copy of the letter, Rushmore refused to provide it to her. Plaintiff further requested an accounting showing how her mortgage payments had been applied but Rushmore refused to provide an accounting.

COMPLAINT ? Page 4 of 9

Case 6:17-cv-02062-JR Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 9

10. In or around February 2017, plaintiff called Rushmore and spoke to its agent Raymond and made a payment over the phone. Rushmore said that it sent another letter regarding an increase in mortgage payments that would begin in March 2017.

11. On or around May 4, 2017, plaintiff again spoke with Rushmore and was told it was escalating the delinquent tax payment issue to its tax department and that it would call plaintiff back. Again, plaintiff was never called back. On May 6, 2017, plaintiff received a notice of foreclosure of her home.

12. On or around May 25, 2017, Rushmore told plaintiff that it would notify its attorneys that plaintiff had made her payments. About a week later plaintiff received an email from Rushmore agent Whitney that contained a motion to foreclose due to non-payment.

13. On or around June 27, 2017, plaintiff called Rushmore again. This time Rushmore told her that it was working on the problem and that it would call her back with a resolution. Plaintiff never received a return call. Plaintiff then made a direct payment to Lane County, Oregon in order to halt the foreclosure process.

COMPLAINT ? Page 5 of 9

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download