(Breach of Contract)   (Violation of Md. Com. Law Code § 13-301, et seq.)    (Violation of Md. Com. Law Code § 12-109)    14.  BofA is the second largest bank in the United States as well as one of largest  mortgage lenders in the United States.   15.  As part of its business, BofA lends money to borrowers for the purchase of  residential property.   16.  In order to initiate such transactions, borrowers enter into a mortgage agreement  with BofA that involves the use of a residential home as collateral.   17.  BofA utilizes form mortgage agreements that generally require the borrower to  maintain an escrow account with BofA.   18.  In accordance with the mortgage agreements, borrowers prepay property-related  expenses, such as property taxes and insurance premiums, by transferring funds to BofA for  placement into the escrow account.     19.  BofA utilizes the funds in escrow accounts to generate “float” income for itself.   21.  The laws of Maryland explicitly require that lenders pay interest on funds in  escrow accounts.   22.  Md. Com. Law Code § 12-109(b)(1) provides:  A lending institution which lends money secured by a first  mortgage or first deed of trust on any interest in residential real  property and creates or is the assignee of an escrow account in  connection with that loan shall pay interest to the borrower on the  funds in the escrow account at an annual rate not less than the  weekly average yield on United States Treasury securities  adjusted to a constant maturity of 1 year, as published by the  Federal Reserve in "Selected Interest Rates (Daily) -- H.15", as of  the first business day of the calendar year.   23.  Further, Md. Com. Law Code § 12-109(b)(2) provides:  Interest on these funds shall be:  (i) Adjusted, if applicable, as of the first day of each calendar year  to reflect the rate to be paid during that year, as determined under  paragraph (1) of this subsection;  (ii) Computed on the average monthly balance in the escrow  account; and  (iii) Paid annually to the borrower by crediting the escrow account  with the amount of interest due.   24.  Through the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) Congress has mandated that “[i]f  prescribed by applicable State or Federal law, each creditor shall pay interest to the consumer on  the amount held in any impound, trust, or escrow account that is subject to this section in the  manner as prescribed by that applicable State or Federal law.” 15 U.S.C. § 1639d(g)(3).    25.  BofA is well-aware of its legal obligations pertaining to escrow accounts.   27.  Ms. Clark purchased a house in Westminster, Maryland in or about August 1995,  and financed the purchase with a loan from BofA’s predecessor-in-interest, Washington  Mortgage Company.     28.  On or about February 13, 2013, Ms. Clark entered into a mortgage agreement in  the form of a deed of trust (the “Deed of Trust”), pursuant to which BofA took a security interest  in Ms. Clark’s home.   29.  Nothing in the Deed of Trust permits BofA to withhold interest accrued on  escrow funds. This agreement also states that BofA will pay interest on escrowed funds if  “Applicable Law requires interest to be paid on the Funds.”    30.  The Deed of Trust specifically defines “Applicable Law” as “all controlling  applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, ordinances, and administrative rules and  orders (that have the effect of law) as well as all applicable final non-appealable judicial  opinions.”    31.  Since 2013, Ms. Clark has continuously made monthly mortgage payments to  BofA, a portion of which have been placed in the escrow account.   32.  BofA failed to pay interest on the funds Ms. Clark placed in escrow in violation of  federal and Maryland state laws.    33.  Upon information and belief, BofA profited off the funds held in escrow by  generating float income, which BofA retained for itself.    35.  Specifically excluded from the Class is any entity in which BofA has a controlling  interest or which has a controlling interest in BofA, BofA’s legal representatives, assigns, and  successors, and any Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of such Judge’s staff  and immediate family.    36.  Class-wide adjudication of Ms. Clark’s claims is appropriate because Ms. Clark  can prove the elements of her claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as would be  used to prove those elements in individual actions asserting the same claims.   37.  Numerosity: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of individual  members is impracticable.     38.  The members of the Class can be readily identified through BofA’s records.   40.  Typicality: Ms. Clark’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of  the Class.  Ms. Clark and members of the Class have been adversely affected and damaged by  BofA’s failure to pay interest.   41.  Adequacy of Representation: Ms. Clark will fairly and adequately represent the  Class.  Ms. Clark has the best interests of the members of the Class in mind.  Ms. Clark is also  represented by qualified counsel with extensive experience representing classes, including  experience prosecuting class actions against large financial institutions.     42.  Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of these claims because individual joinder of the claims of all members of  the Class is impracticable.  Many members of the Class are without the financial resources  necessary to pursue this matter.  Even if some could afford to litigate claims separately, such a  result would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individualized cases would  proceed.  Individual litigation increases the time and expense of resolving a common dispute  concerning BofA’s actions toward an entire group of individuals.  Class action procedures allow  for far fewer management difficulties in matters of this type and provide the unique benefits of  unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision over the entire  controversy by a single judge in a single court.   43.   The Class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure because BofA has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby  making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the  claims raised by the Class.    45.  Ms. Clark repeats and re-alleges all the foregoing allegations as if they were fully  set forth herein.   46.  Ms. Clark and the Class members entered into binding agreements with BofA.   47.  Members of the Class entered into substantially similar agreements with BofA.    48.  Federal law and Maryland law require BofA to pay interest on funds held in  escrow for Ms. Clark and the Class members.   49.  BofA did not pay interest on the funds held in escrow for Ms. Clark and Class  members in violation of state and federal laws.   50.  BofA therefore breached its agreements with Ms. Clark and the Class members by  failing to comply with federal and Maryland state law requiring interest to be paid.    51.  By reason of the foregoing, Ms. Clark and the Class members are entitled to  judgment in the amount to be determined at trial, together with interest thereon; reasonable  attorney’s fees and costs; and injunctive relief barring future breaches of BofA’s agreements  52.  Ms. Clark repeats and re-alleges all the foregoing allegations as if they were fully  set forth herein.   54.  Ms. Clark and BofA executed an agreement in connection with a mortgage of a  residential property located within Maryland.   55.  BofA maintains an escrow account pursuant to this agreement.   56.  Ms. Clark has paid money into the escrow account.   57.  BofA did not pay or credit Ms. Clark with interest on the funds in the escrow  account.   58.  By failing to pay interest on escrowed funds to Ms. Clark and Class members,  BofA has violated Maryland law.     59.  As a result of BofA’s unlawful conduct, Ms. Clark and the members of the Class  have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.   60.  BofA’s violations of Maryland law are ongoing.   61.  By reason of the foregoing, Ms. Clark and the members of the Class are entitled  to all monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest on damages, injunctive  relief, declaratory relief, reasonable attorney’s fees and cost, and any other form of relief  permitted under Maryland law.   62.  Ms. Clark repeats and re-alleges all the foregoing allegations as if they were fully  set forth herein.   63.  BofA has engaged in unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices the conduct of a  business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of a service in Maryland.   65.  BofA is a “merchant” within the meaning of Md. Com. Law Code § 13-101(g).    66.  BofA made false or misleading statements and representations of a, kind which  has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers.   67.  BofA’s conduct was intentional, willful, and knowing.   68.  BofA engaged in deceptive acts or practices by failing to pay interest on funds  held in escrow accounts to Ms. Clark and members of the Class.   69.  When presented with a mortgage agreement stating that BofA will comply with  all requirements of state and federal law, a reasonable consumer would conclude that BofA  would comply with applicable state and federal laws concerning interest on mortgage escrow  accounts.   70.  Yet, at the time BofA issued its mortgage agreements stating that it would comply  with all requirements of state and federal law, BofA was aware of the applicable law, and knew  it would not pay interest on Ms. Clark’s and Class members’ funds held in escrow.   71.  BofA’s periodic statements to Ms. Clark and members of the Class do not  accurately reflect amounts owed to and by borrowers because they do not include interest that  BofA is required to pay on funds held in escrow.   72.  A reasonable consumer who receives a monthly or periodic mortgage statement or  escrow summary report would assume that the information and figures listed therein would be  accurate and in accordance with state law and federal law.    74.   Further, as part of its scheme, BofA knowingly and intentionally sends or  otherwise makes available monthly and other periodic statements to borrowers that are false or  misleading because they do not accurately reflect off-setting amounts of escrow interest owed by  BofA to borrowers under the terms of mortgage agreements and under federal and state law.   75.  Ms. Clark and the members of the Class were injured through their consumer  banking relationship with BofA.   76.  As a result of BofA’s deceptive conduct, Ms. Clark and the members of the Class  have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.   77.  BofA’s violations of Maryland Consumer Protection Act are ongoing.   78.  By reason of the foregoing, Ms. Clark and the members of the Class are entitled  to all monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest on damages, injunctive  relief, declaratory relief, reasonable attorney’s fees and cost, and any other form of relief  permitted under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and other applicable laws.  