Our client, T. E. took out a note and mortgage with World Savings Bank,
FSB on January 30, 2007. The note had a 7.0% adjustable interest rate,
which would adjust every 2 weeks, based upon the “GDW” Index.
The note and mortgage were industry standard documents, however the mortgage
made a specific reference to “Exhibit A” where the legal description
for the property could be found. T. E. was able to make her mortgage payments
until she fell on hard times in early 2015, when the Bank, Wells Fargo,
sent her a demand letter.
Unable to cure the default, Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure action against
our client on January 27, 2016. Attached to the complaint was a copy of
the note with a blank indorsement, a copy of the mortgage and a copy of
the demand letter. The mortgage again referenced Exhibit A, however attached
to the mortgage was “Schedule C”. Schedule C was the legal
description for some property (but not necessarily our client’s),
and appeared to be taken from a title insurance policy.
The case proceeded through the normal course of litigation and was eventually
set for trial on August 1, 2016. At trial, we were able to convince the
Judge that the witness could not authenticate the Schedule C exhibit attached
to the mortgage, and although the mortgage was entered into evidence,
it was done without Schedule C. Therefore, while the mortgage was considered
evidence, there was not accompanying legal description of the property
to go with it. This issue was heavily debated as our motion for involuntary
dismissal and again at closing. The Judge ultimately decided to grant
a foreclosure judgment for Wells Fargo, despite case law suggesting that
the proper remedy was for a money only judgment.
Because we disagreed with the Judge’s ruling, we decided to appeal
the case to the Fourth District Court of Appeals. In response, Wells Fargo
hired a more sophisticated law firm to handle defending the appeal and
the attorney’s began to discuss other possible options to settle
this matter. We disclosed to Wells Fargo’s new counsel that the
primary issue with a foreclosure judgment entered without a legal description,
which recent case law suggested was improper. The Bank, understanding
that they could possibly have the judgment vacated or converted into a
money only judgment, worked with our firm to try and keep the client in
her home with a modification.
After several rounds of modification documents, the Bank was able to make
a modification offer to our client with favorable terms. Our client was
happy to finally being back in a performing loan she could afford and
without having to litigate the case any further. The Appeal has been dismissed
and the parties will go their separate ways. Thankfully, even after the
wrong ruling at trial, we were able to work out a resolution for our client
that got her exactly what she wanted – the ability to stay in her
home and no longer have to worry about a pending foreclosure.
Loan Lawyers has saved over 1,500 homes in South Florida from foreclosure,
eliminated over $100 million dollars in mortgage principal and consumer
debt, and collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to
bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations. Contact Loan Lawyers
to find out how we may be able to help you.
http://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us.aspx. Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result.