The Attorneys General are allowed to sue lenders, distributors, mortgage companies, and anyone else who violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The first case was ruled on in July of 1994. The Attorneys General claimed that the Government had the right to demand compensation for the injuries suffered by African-American homeowners during the housing crisis. The decision was not upheld on appeal, however. Appeals court has since overturned the initial ruling, and the Attorneys General can now file suits against anyone they see as liable.

An Attorneys General suit is often filed after a loss arising due to violations of FHA Loan Programs or insurance fraud.

In such cases, the Attorneys General investigates the loss, determines who is responsible for it, and then file claims against the defaulter. If the claims are successful, the Attorneys General recites its reasons for judgment in a Secured Interest Certificate. Claims of violations of the Secured Interest Certificate generally lead to Attorneys General claims for compensation. A Secured Interest Certificate allows the lender to recover monies that have been loaned under the provisions of the program.

The Attorneys General has the right to file Secured Interest Certificate claims whenever they believe that the lender has violated the terms and conditions of the program.

In order for a Secured Interest Certificate claim to be valid, there should be a sufficient factual nexus between the alleged violation of the program and the loss or damage. Florida, like many other states, requires a sufficient factual nexus between the alleged violation of the statute and a loss or damage to a party. The Attorneys General must show, through a Secured Interest Certificate, that a loss or damage has resulted from such violations.

If the Attorneys General can establish a sufficient factual nexus, they may submit a claim to the court for an exclusion.

Exclusion is a motion that the Attorneys General makes to the court allowing them to exclude part or all of the underlying claim from Attenbor’s consideration. The claim would then be reserved for further proceedings on behalf of the Attorneys General. The purpose of exclusion is to permit the Attorneys General to pursue the underlying claim against the lender under the laws for equity and debt. A claim for exclusion is not heard by the court during the litigation of an Attenborough claim.

Another way to prevent Attenborough claims from being maintained against lenders is for the Attorneys General to notify the defendant that they intend to seek a dismissal of the claim.

The Attorneys General are required to provide the defendant with a written notice setting forth their intention to seek such a dismissal. The Attorneys General may also choose to make such a request directly to the defendant or through subordinate channels. If the lender files an answer promptly and timely to the claim, the Attorneys General may file a complaint in Federal Court against the defendant. If the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff is required to represent him or herself in any such proceedings.

Upon receipt of an Attenborough complaint, the defendant usually responds to the complaint within a reasonable time.

In many circumstances, the complaint and the answer to the complaint are submitted to the court and filed either in the name of the Attorneys General, or in the name of the defendant. If the complaint is filed in the name of the Attorneys General, it generally requires filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. If the complaint is filed in the name of the defendant, it generally requires filing a complaint in the federal district court.

The District Court imposes a time limit within which a complaint must be filed.

The time limit starts to run from the date on which the complaint was filed in the federal district court. On motion to dismiss, the court will stay the proceedings in the case if it is of the opinion that there is a probability that the plaintiffs do not have a basis for bringing the claim. The court may also dismiss the complaint if it is of the opinion that there is a probability that the interrelated wrongful acts are reasonably likely to occur.

In many circumstances, Attorneys General can avoid the necessity of a motion to dismiss by timely and properly filing their complaint.

For example, if they believe that the complaint is premature because of inadequate facts, they may seek an expedited hearing on the merits of the complaint. However, if they believe that the complaint is too broad or ambiguous, they must file their complaint and move for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a dismissal of the complaint without the necessity of a trial. If the defendants timely file their answers to the complaint and the claim and the case are submitted to the jury, there is no requirement for a trial.