KABOOM! Suing The Banks For Unfair And Deceptive Trade Practices….THE NEWEST BATTLE IN FORECLOSURE DEFENSE!

Plaintiff, Madelaine Martorella (” Martorella”), has brought this action against Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee for American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006″“1 (” Deutsche Bank”) and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (” AHMSI”) (collectively, ” Defendants”). This action arises out of Defendants’ participation in an alleged scheme to charge Martorella and the members of the putative classes for the cost of force-placed insurance coverage on their property at grossly excessive rates. Martorella alleges that Defendants acted in bad faith by charging for force-placed insurance at exorbitantly high premiums that bear no relationship to the insurable risk in return for kickbacks from the insurance carriers. As a result, Defendants and their insurance carriers allegedly reaped huge profits from insurance policies which cost mortgagors many times the market rate for competitively priced insurance policies while providing significantly less insurance coverage. Defendants move to dismiss the Class Action Complaint (” Complaint” or ” Compl.”) filed by Martorella and to strike the class action allegations contained therein.
Under the FDUTPA, an unfair practice is ” one that “˜offends established public policy’ and one that is “˜immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’ ” Samuels v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So.2d 489, 499 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001). The allegations that the lender/servicers have charged excessive and/or unreasonable amounts for force-placed insurance, for which they were paid commissions or other remunerations, supports Plaintiff’s claim under the unfairness prong of the FDUTPA. Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 461 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1269″“74 (S.D.Fla.2006) (although the Plaintiff may not properly argue that the allegedly unreasonable pricing scheme was deceptive, she may potentially raise the issue of whether the conduct is ” unfair” under the FDUTPA); Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 758 So.2d 699 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000) (reversing trial court’s order denying class certification where plaintiff alleged violations of FDUTPA because of the cruise line’s alleged failure to disclose that it would retain portions of the port charges).