Jump to content

Midland Robo-signed Affidavit Class Action Settlement

Recommended Posts

Informative read for anyone arguing against Midland's or any other JDB's affidavits, or is a member of the class affected by this proposed settlement.


32 state attorneys general filed on April 16, 2014, an amicus curiae brief objecting to the revised proposed class settlement for Midland's use of "robo-signed" affidavits in Vassalle et. al v Midland Funding LLC, 708 F.3d 747, 760 (6th Cir. 2013). [You may recognize this as Class Settlement Agreement, Midland Funding, LLC v. Brent, 644 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ohio 2009)]   http://www.michiganconsumerlaw.com/ags-vassalle.pdf


"The Attorneys General of Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia (“Attorneys General”) urge this Court to reject the revised proposed class settlement, which is a thinly veiled attempt to revive the original settlement, which was rejected by the Sixth Circuit. Like the original proposal, the revised settlement provides no meaningful value to unnamed class members, and, in fact, it leaves them in a significantly worse position.  In exchange for approximately $10 each, class members lose their right to pursue valuable claims under state and federal law. While class members technically may challenge Midland’s “robo-signed” affidavits, they lose the statutory right to attorney fees that makes it possible for them to do so. Worse still, the form affidavits approved by the Special Master, which are central to the relief provided under the revised settlement, are based on a misunderstanding of Defendants’ business practices and would authorize affidavits that violate both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the laws of multiple States. The revised proposed settlement therefore is not in the public interest and should be rejected."
Objections to Revised Settlement filed by the class action objectors' attorneys:
"The parties have attempted to ameliorate the first of these deficits by permitting individual class members to challenge the default judgments taken against them. But as set forth in section I above, while the parties have provided this remedy, they have also impaired the ability of class members to take advantage of that remedy by stripping their ability to use fee shifting statutes to find counsel, denying them access to necessary evidence, and removing their ability to move collective to set aside these judgments. In reality, they provided a remedy, but sseverely crippled it as to render it empty." 


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.