ANZ fails to respond to $150 Million lawsuit
ANZ Amerika Samoa Bank has yet to respond to a lawsuit filed by Tapai Tervola, a customer who is asking for $150 million on allegations of fraud, discrimination, forgery, identity theft, fraudulent concealment or non disclosure of material facts, negligent misrepresentation, predatory lending service, insurance fraud, usury law violation and unethical lending practice. Tervola is also suing for punitive damages.
The lawsuit was filed through Tervola’s attorney Matailupevao Leupolu Jr last week, and Samoa News reported on the first part of the 18-page lawsuit in Monday’s edition.
According to the lawsuit, on November 3, 2010 the loan was approved, where plaintiff and her husband met the same loan officer and as soon as the parties sat down, the officer right away slid a pen and the document to plaintiff’s husband to sign, no word was said, just a smile and awaiting the plaintiff’s husband to sign. “The plaintiff looked over and saw that only her husband’s name was on the Loan Disclosure Document and Plaintiff’s name was nowhere to be seen.”
“Plaintiff, right away told her husband to wait and don’t sign the document and asked the officer her name. The officer admitted the Bank took plaintiff’s name out saying it will stall the Loan Process, adding that the Bank will need to do a background check on the plaintiff,” alleges the suit.
“The plaintiff then told the officer even if her credit is unfavorable, her husband’s Loan is current and they only wanted to add plaintiff’s name on the loan.
“The plaintiff noticed anther document that was faced down in-front of the Loan Officer and asked if Plaintiff could see that document.
On the document were all fees, and disbursements of the Loan that mostly benefit the defendant and not the Plaintiff and her husband.
The following were noticeable, states the complaint:
LOAN INTEREST HIGHER 7.385%- HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT 5.025%
2ND MORTGAGE LOAN WAS ROLLED INTO THE REFINANCE WHEN THIS LOAN IS ALMOST PAID OFF.
LOAN PAYMENT HIGHER [$956.47] THAN THE CURRENT [$818.00]
APPRAISAL FEE [$350.00] WHEN NO APPRAISAL SERVICE WAS DONE
[$799.40] INSURANCE PREMIUM TO BE DISBURSED TO NPI WHEN PLAINTIFF AND HUSBAND ALREADY HAVE THEIR HOME INSURANCE.
NO SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT NEEDED ON THIS SHEET TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO ALL FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS
The plaintiff in the lawsuit noted that she knew something was wrong and advised her husband not to sign the loan disclosure given that they needed to go over the documents.
The couple left and allegedly gave the officer $20 for lunch.
According to the suit, the bank owed a duty of due care in representing to the Plaintiff and her husband true facts and information but the bank violated that duty of due care and breached that duty in their dealings with the plaintiff and her husband, in which the plaintiff suffered tremendously and they are entitled to reasonable damages.
PREDATORY LENDING SERVICE
According to Mrs. Tervola, in the suit, they decided that a crime was already committed in their joint application and it serves no purpose to proceed with the revelations of the action done by the bank.
“Plaintiff’s husband later wrote a letter to cancel our application but reflected his request to add his spouse (Plaintiff) on the Loan Contract and that he and his wife (Plaintiff) would come in to update the loan payments made and update the balance of the Loan.”
The plaintiff delivered the letter on November 9, 2010 and the bank responded the following day and sent a decline letter to the mailing address that plaintiff used on their authentic application.
“The Defendant failed to state any information needed from Plaintiff’s husband on this letter and now the defendant claims that Plaintiff’s husband was contacted by phone and that the only mechanism to add the Plaintiff’s name on the Loan Contract is to re-write the Loan Application as a Re-Finance.
“This act of the defendant violates the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Section 6 in that the defendant must respond back to the Borrower in writing, not a hearsay response on the telephone.”
The complaint says, the bank claimed that plaintiff’s husband instructed them to hold off on re-writing the Application. However the plaintiff claims this is false because on the letter the plaintiff’s husband specifically wrote a telephone number for the defendant to contact them and the bank failed to call the number.
It’s alleged the plaintiff and her husband assumed the letter solved the problem and that plaintiff’s name was already added to the Loan Contract.
When the Plaintiff’s husband passed away, “The Plaintiff met with the supervisors at the Loan Department and was told then her name is not on the Loan and to look for an Attorney to Probate the Estate of her husband.”
The suit says, “the Plaintiff then questioned the Letter her husband signed and sent to defendant. The Bank official and/or loan officer stated that the Letter is of no use to them nor was it used because it was not a WILL.”
The suit explains that “the Plaintiff told the Bank that the Letter was not a WILL but was written when her husband was alive,” and “the Plaintiff considers the Letter to be a valid conveyance of her husband’s intent at the time and there was no reason why the Bank rejected the Letter.”
Samoa News will report on the final part of the lawsuit in later editions.