Have you been charged an extra fee to simply make your monthly mortgage payment online, over the phone, or using your debit card? 

Overview

Have you been charged additional fees – in addition to your mortgage payment – simply for the “convenience” of paying a mortgage servicer this way? These fees can be unlawful. We’ve seen our clients get charged up to $20 per payment, every month, for simply paying their bills by debit card, over the phone, or online.

If you’ve paid this kind of “Pay-to-Pay” or convenience fee within the last 3 years, Bailey Glasser can help. 

Pay-to-Pay fees are convenience and processing fees charged by businesses when customers pay for goods or services with a debit card, online, or over the phone. When loan servicers  charge extra fees – including the “convenience” fees - they may be in violation of federal and state law. 

Call our attorneys today for a free and confidential case evaluation. We'll evaluate your claim and let you know how we can help.

What Should I Do If I’ve Paid “Convenience Fees”?

If you’ve paid your mortgage online or over the phone and paid a “convenience fee,” you should speak with an experienced consumer protection attorney. At Bailey Glasser, we can help you collect the documents and evidence you may need – such as mortgage statements, contracts, and bank statements – and handle your case from beginning to end. 

What is a Class Action?

Class action lawsuits are suits brought by one to three plaintiffs, known as the “class representatives,” on behalf of a larger group of people, or the “class,” who are all victims of the same law-breaking activity by the hands of the same defendant. The outcome of the case, whether there is a jury verdict or settlement, applies to all the class members alike, and prevents any of the members of the class from bringing an individual case, except in limited circumstances. Throughout the process of the lawsuit, the class representatives and the attorneys representing the class must consider the interests of the entire class.

A class action lawsuit is an efficient procedural tool in “Pay-to-Pay” cases because one person is unlikely to pursue a suit against a major corporation for a number of $3 to $20 convenience fees with the costs of court and attorney’s fees. But when you consider that mortgage servicing companies charge thousands of borrowers these fees each month, the number of violations adds up. It becomes cost-efficient to represent a large class of victims who can split the costs associated with litigating and resolving these potential lawsuits in one matter instead of several. Bailey Glasser is experienced in successfully representing plaintiffs in class action lawsuits to hold mortgage companies accountable.

Why Choose Bailey Glasser?

At Bailey Glasser, our attorneys have successfully litigated individual and class cases involving debt collection, consumer finance, predatory mortgage loans, illegal loan servicing, and a host of other consumer and employment matters.  Our attorneys have resolved many of these cases by settlement or verdict, including representing clients in class actions  across the country, including: 

  • McFadden v. Nationstar Mortgage Co. d/b/a Mr. Cooper, No. 1:20-cv-00166-EGS (D.D.C.)
  • Cox v. New Rez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Serv., 3:20-cv-00859 (S.D. W.Va.)
  • Thacker v. PHH Mortgage Corp., No. 5:21-cv-00174-JPB (N.D. W.Va.)
  • Prettyman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 5:22cv293-JPB (N.D. W.Va.)
  • Six v. LoanCare, LLC, 2022 WL 16747291, (S.D. W. Va.)
  • Montesi v. Seterus, Inc., Case No. 50-2015-CA-010910-XXXX-MB (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cty.)
  • Williams v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC et al., Case No 4:20cv-01900 (S.D. Tex.)
  • Langston v. Gateway First Bank, No. 5:20-cv-01902-VAP (C.D. Cal.)
  • Elbert v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing, Corp., No. 3:20-cv-00250-MMC (N.D. Cal.)
  • Fernandez v. Rushmore Loan Servicing, Case No. 8:21-cv-00621-DOC (C.D. Cal.)
  • Phillips v. Caliber Home Loans, No. 0:19-cv-02711 (D. Minn.)
  • Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et. al, No. 3:19-cv-04303-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
  • Lembeck v. Arvest Central Mortgage Co., No. 3:20-cv-03277-VC (N.D. Cal.)
  • Wilson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00152-KGB (E.D. Ark.)
  • Caldwell v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 3:19-cv-02193-N (N.D. Tex.)
  • Pierce v. Statebridge Co., No.1:20-cv-117 (M.D.N.C.)
  • Silveira v. M&T Bank, No. 2:19-cv-06958-ODW (C.D. Cal.)
  • Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-2369-TEB (D. Md.)
  • Williams v. PHH Mortgage Corp., No. 20-cv-04018 (S.D. Tex.)
  • Vannest v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 5:21-cv-00086 (N.D. W.Va.).

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please read our important disclaimer here.

Contacts

News

A Deeper
Look
Image for Bailey & Glasser, LLP Wins Summary Judgment for Texas Borrowers over Illegal “Pay-to-Pay” Junk Fees
Image for Bailey Glasser Wins Appeal Benefiting Thousands of Maryland Mortgage Borrowers
Jump to Page

Our website uses cookies to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.