Skip to main content
Ivan E. Young
Avvo
Pro

Ivan Young’s Legal Cases

13 total


  • BOFA-Aurora Appraisal Fraud $1.8Million Lawsuit Filed in New York for One Homeowner

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    Use this form under the heading “Best Practices” — Excellent in every respect. Hats off to Ivan Young of the Young Law Group in Bohemia, New York. I say the Defendants have a collective exposure of several million dollars. If I can find one lawyer that writes a complaint for identity theft on a client like this, we will have completed our forms library. They never could have done this without falsely inflated appraisals, falsely inflated ratings and without stealing the identity of credit worthy borrowers. Talk about a lawyer who gets it!! These lawyers all get it and they are after the the biggest players, weaving together the fraud and the participants in the fraud in an artful way that will in my opinion easily get past a motion to dismiss. My only regret is that these lawyers are so good at pleading and most likely so good at discovery that the case will settle before we get much more out of this case. I am fairly certain that these lawyers were probably threatened with all sorts of consequences if they file the suit. This lawsuit says “Bring it on!” Here are the things I like about this lawsuit: 1. It puts appraisal fraud front and center in the complaint. Nothing timid about this. 2. The Defendants include everyone in the securitization chain including, counter-intuitively but factually correct, the Aurora Lehman Nexus with BOA and Countrywide. 3. The point is that but for the appraisal fraud none of these players would have played the game at all, and this is clear from the complaint. 4. BOA “expected or should reasonably have expected its acts and business activities to have consequences within the State of New York, County of Nassau.” 5. Paragraph 7 correctly states the interrelationship between BOA and the CW companies. 6. Nailing the appraiser for failing to register in the State to do business. Could lead to blocking the appraiser from filing any defense. 7. Names the individual appraisers as Defendants — the only way to have someone on the hook who can flip on the other defendants and admit the wrongdoing. 8. The lawyer figured out the relationships between the different appraisers and appraisal companies before he filed the suit. So when they come in trying to play the shell game they will end up with dirt all over themselves. 9. The lawyer figured out the interrelationships between the appraiser, the title agents, the title agent etc. before he filed the suit. 10. The lawyer nails the facts on appraisal fraud. Then traces step by step how the value was inflated. 11. The allegations weave in violations of TILA and RESPA seamlessly so that the facts speak for themselves without interpretation required. 12. The clear language of the complaint details the manner in which the Plaintiff was duped and the manner in which the plaintiff was financially damaged in money and credit standing. 13. “Countrywide fully knew that the loan was based upon a completely bogus appraised value” and “immediately sold, transferred or assigned Plaintiff’s’ first mortgage to Aurora Bank, F.S>B. a/k/a Aurora MSF Lehman.” 14. RICO, instead of looking like it is out of the blue or a stretch, is an obvious next step, and the lawyer takes it with ease.
  • Judge Recuses From Foreclosure Involving His Lender

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    A judge whose widely publicized decision to cancel the mortgage of a Long Island homeowner was overturned has now recused himself from the case, with public records showing he holds a mortgage through the same lender. Acting Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner in Suffolk County recused himself from IndyMac Bank v. Yano-Horoski, 17926-2005, the day after the lender's attorney asked him to step aside. The lawyer referred to "a commercial relationship" between the judge and the lender, OneWest Bank, which had acquired the assets of IndyMac Bank from the FDIC, the receiver. IndyMac was the original plaintiff in the action. Justice Spinner wrote that he was taking the action "[u]pon the court's own initiative, for reasons which are dehors the record" but provided no other details. A review yesterday of the Suffolk County clerk's online database shows IndyMac Bank is listed as the mortgagee for a residence listing the justice as one of the mortgagors. The mortgage was filed on Jan. 31, 2004. Justice Spinner, through a court spokesman, declined to comment because the case is pending. Justice Spinner canceled Diana Yano-Horoski's $292,500 mortgage and judgment of foreclosure on her East Patchogue home in November 2009, faulting lender officials for their "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" treatment of Ms. Yano-Horoski during settlement conferences over which he presided (NYLJ, Nov. 23, 2009). The canceled mortgage was reinstated when the Appellate Division, Second Department, held the "severe sanction was not authorized by any statute or rule nor was the plaintiff given fair warning that such a sanction was even under consideration" (Nov. 22, 2010). With the mortgage reinstated, the homeowner's new pro bono attorney, Ivan E. Young of the Young Law Group in Bohemia, sought a vacatur of a default judgment obtained by the bank against his client. Mr. Young claimed improper service, extrinsic fraud and newly discovered evidence. OneWest countered with a dismissal motion and the case was scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 7 before Justice Spinner. In a faxed Dec. 6 letter, an attorney representing IndyMac Bank, Allan J. Arffa, a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, wrote, "Our client has informed us of certain developments, relating to a commercial relationship that exists between Your Honor and OneWest, that reasonably call into question Your Honor's impartiality in this matter, or at the very least clearly create an appearance of partiality, and that we respectfully require Your Honor's recusal in this matter. Although we are reluctant to raise this issue, after careful research and consultation, we have concluded that, as a matter of professional responsibility, we have no choice but to pursue the matter, initially by calling the issue to the attention of the parties and the Court. " Mr. Arffa was one of three Paul Weiss attorneys handling the Second Department appeal in 2009, along with McGlinchey Stafford in Albany. The Dec. 6 letter does not specify the judge's "commercial relationship" with the bank. Mr. Arffa referred questions to his client OneWest, which declined to comment. In any case, it is unclear whether Justice Spinner was required to recuse himself if his mortgage was the relationship to which Mr. Arffa was referring. Under Section 100.3(E)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, judges must disqualify themselves "in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Under §100.3(E)(1)(c), one of those instances includes where "the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse or minor child residing in the judge's household has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding."
  • The Young Law Group providing research to the NYS Office of the Attorney General

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    Like Millions of Americans, Blanca Hendley Ramirez's American Dream turned into a nightmare. Blanca is a single mother living with her two children in Nassau County, New York. Ramirez originated a subprime loan in 2006. Upon an alleged default in payments, the financial institution fraudulently assigned Ramirez's mortgage to another servicer, and commenced a foreclosure action in 2010. Prior to that, Ramirez was doing everything she could to avoid losing her home and was in active negotiations with the mortgage servicing company, including asking for a loan modification. After promising to modify, the lending institution has instead kept Ramirez in a never ending chain of lies, confusion and paper work. Blanca is still fighting to save her home in the state Supreme Court. Communities of color are suffering the most in this recession. Despite their contributions to the middle class and the economic well-being of our country, African American and Latino workers are shouldering the burden of the recession while big corporations avoid paying their fair share. Dramatic declines in home value coupled with record-high unemployment rates threaten to erode hope for a brighter financial future for many African American and Latino families. According to a recent study, the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of African American Households and 18 times that of Latino households – the largest wealth gap in 25 years. The housing bubble that led to this devastating recession is due in large part to unscrupulous lenders who swindled unsuspecting customers, mostly African American and Latino borrowers, into purchasing faulty products. Families across the country continue to lose their homes, a primary source of financial stability, as they are forced to choose between paying their bills, putting food on the table, and covering medical expenses. What consequences will these shady lenders face for trapping families with deceptive loans? Virtually none, if some lawmakers have their way. A study by the Center for Responsible Lending shows that in 2007 African Americans and Latinos were far more likely than whites to be sold higher-priced loans in the subprime market. Though abusive bank practices are to blame for the housing bust that created this recession, banks seem to be getting off scot-free. It is time to take a stand for the working men and women who helped build this country. We cannot afford to let Wall Street and greedy corporations get away with the fraudulent practices that led to this deepening recession while families across the country continue to pay the price. Enough is enough. State prosecutors, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, have become a voice for the voiceless, demanding an investigation of several big banks. The investigation could lead to measures that would finally hold the banks accountable, possibly resulting in criminal charges for some executives. This fight exemplifies the leadership needed nationwide to finally hold the banks accountable for their abusive practices. It is not only our right, but our obligation to stand up to the Wall Street giants and urge lawmakers to make them share in the burden.
  • Beneficial v. Tovar

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    May 06, 2010
    Outcome:
    All judgments vacated and case dismissed in its entirety for improper service
    Description:
    Mortgage Foreclosure Action
  • US Bank v. John

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Dec 19, 2011
    Outcome:
    All judgments vacated and case dismissed in its entirety for lack of standing.
    Description:
    Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Rely On Us v. Torres

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Outcome:
    Action dismissed with PREJUDICE since Plaintiff was a non-corporate entity at the time of the funding.
    Description:
    Commercial Foreclosure
  • HSBC v. Byrne

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Outcome:
    Action dismissed in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)
    Description:
    Mortgage Foreclosure
  • US Bank v. Joseph

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Outcome:
    All judgments vacated and case dismissed in its entirety for improper service (7) years after action initiated
    Description:
    Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Countrywide Home Loans, LP v. Fernandez

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Aug 01, 2013
    Outcome:
    Action dismissed in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)
    Description:
    Foreclosure action.
  • CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Miller

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Outcome:
    Action dismissed in its entirety pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)
    Description:
    Foreclosure.

Disclaimer

*PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME*