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 children‟s 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 employer‟s 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 America‟s 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 couple‟s 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 America‟s 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 CEO‟s 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 America‟s 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 America‟s 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.