Se Habla Español | Nou Pale Kreyòl

Our family is here
to help your family

Success Stories

106 results found. Viewing page 1 of 6. Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next

Great Win!

Client came to our offices on March 24, 2016. The client’s circumstances were grim. The client was facing a sale date of April 27, 2016, she has a judgment entered against her following her default. We filed a very detailed motion and were able to get the sale canceled. Not only that but we were successful in getting the default and judgment removed and having the case against her completely dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This was a great win!


Another Loan Lawyers Trial Win!

Gina Carvalho and Julio Rameriz-Sanchez are previous clients who have both an investment property and their primary residence. The bank filed a foreclosure action back in 2009 however we were able to have a final judgment entered for the clients in 2014. The bank refiled their foreclosure action and picked a default date in 2011, so as to stay within the 5 year statute of limitations.

The case proceeded through litigation without any major issues and was set for trial. After reviewing the pleadings, and plaintiff’s trial exhibits, we discovered a major issue with the banks allegations. With the recent Bartram opinion, several statements from the Court hold that a refiled complaint must allege a default date subsequent to the dismissal of the prior action. In this case, because the default date was during the pendency of the prior action, the loan was fully accelerated until the prior case was dismissed, which means the borrower couldn’t have failed to make the 2011 payment when no payment was due. The bank would have picked a default date that our client couldn’t have defaulted on by operation of law, meaning the bank failed to state a cause of action.

At trial we raised some other minor issues, such as proof of mailing the demand letter and the witness’s knowledge of the policies and procedures of his client and their third party vendors. We were able to win the trial and secure a final judgment for the clients with the Bartram argument.


Saving Client’s Home by Settling His Home Owners Association (HOA) Foreclosure Case

Client was facing foreclosure from his HOA for failure to pay past due assessments. We defended this foreclosure, filed the appropriate Answer and Affirmative defenses, and filed a Motion for Mediation. Our client did in fact fail to pay his home owners assessments, but it was obvious the HOA did not want to litigate against our firm and agreed to attend the mediation. At the mediation, we successfully negotiated a huge reduction in what the HOA claimed was due and owing. Our client was very happy and continues to live in his house due to our hard work. If you or someone you know is facing foreclosure by a HOA, please contact us immediately. There is a lot of work that has to occur right off the bat in order to properly posture the case to either dismiss the HOA’s foreclosure case or enter into a very favorable settlement with the HOA in lieu of a foreclosure judgment.


Bank’s Summary Judgment of Foreclosure NOT Granted!

On January 18, 2017, at approximately 7:30pm on a Thursday night, a client came in seeking legal representation for foreclosure defense. We realized during the initial consultation that the Bank had a pending Summary Judgment of Foreclosure hearing on January 23, 2017, the upcoming Monday. We also noticed that the clients had been defaulted by the Court for not responding to the complaint. Needless to say, the outlook did not look good for our client at all. We informed the client that there’s a strong possibility the bank could obtain judgment on the 23rd. However, our philosophy at Loan Lawyers, LLC is that we never give up. Indeed, we believe It is better for homeowners to be represented with aggressive, knowledgeable attorneys at your side, instead of raising the white flag and doing nothing. The client ultimately retained our services and we began furiously working on the client’s case. We filed a motion to vacate the default entered against our client, a proposed answer with affirmative defenses, and an opposition to the banks motion for summary judgment along with the affidavits supporting our opposition. It was a lot of work in a very short period of time. At the hearing, we were able to raise multiple genuine issues of material fact and the Judge agreed it would be premature to enter judgment at this point! Our client’s property was saved and no sale date was entered by the Court. If you or anyone you know is facing foreclosure and a Summary Judgment by the bank, please call Loan Lawyers, LLC immediately so we can aggressively and promptly work on the case.


Another family saved from being thrown out of their home

Clients, husband and wife, came to our firm with just 3 weeks left before having to leave their home with their children. With having had their home already sold to the Bank, having the title of their home also now in the Bank’s name, and a Motion for Writ of Possession with no-where to go, the clients were hopeless. Our RESPA team immediately began to investigate and found that clients were involved in a loan modification, which after having taking over their loan a new servicer chose to ignore. With each passing month clients found the amount on their monthly statements swelling to larger than the month before it. Needless to say their modification in fact was not honored by the new servicer and the new servicer elected to sell the clients’ home at foreclosure auction. We discovered a litany of violations, and immediately sent a Notice of Error pursuant to RESPA’s §1024.35, to both the new servicer and the counsel representing them in the foreclosure action filed against clients. Within 3 days the Bank, cancelled the writ of possession hearing, filed a motion to vacate the sale, and final judgment, dismiss the foreclosure case, and revert the title to the clients’ names. Additionally, the clients are now being reviewed for modification at the same terms they were once approved prior to the fiasco, which almost left them homeless had G-D not brought them to Loan Lawyers, LLC to find and fight for their rights under the law.


Loan Lawyers helps client get all her money back

Client came to office after having her house sold because of the bank’s failure to stop her sale while she was approved for a FINAL modification. The Client was forced to pay thousands of dollars to a third party to get her home back. She paid the money to keep the roof over her head, but it was money she simply didn’t have. We then got involved, demanded the bank reimburse her all the money she had to spend to get back her home. The bank refused. We sued them in Federal Court and eventually were able to get her back more than what she paid and have all of her attorney’s fees and costs paid for as well.


A strategic Chapter 13 Bankruptcy saves the day!

Loan Lawyers had two clients who found themselves in a similar predicament. They had a scheduled court ordered sale date on their home while the bank was actively reviewing their application to modify their mortgage. The bank argued that they were only days away from having a decision and moved to cancel the sale of the home, unfortunately the court would not agree to canceling the sale.

The only way in which the borrowers could cancel the respective sale of their homes was by filing for bankruptcy. The filing of a bankruptcy stays all collection activity including the sale of a home. The bankruptcy court has initiated the mortgage modification mediation program. Essentially, it allows those in bankruptcy to apply for a modification through their bankruptcy case.

Luckily for these clients, they did not have to reapply for a modification through the court’s modification program. Within weeks of filing their respective bankruptcies, they were approved for a modification which they applied for prior to filing the bankruptcy and were able to save their homes.

For the first client, the foreclosure was her only debt which needed to be addressed through her bankruptcy filing. We were able to dismiss her case as there was purpose for her to stay in a bankruptcy - now that she saved her home and had no other substantial debt to address.

The second client elected to remain in his bankruptcy. He was behind on his homeowners association who had threatened to put him into foreclosure. Remaining in a chapter 13, allowed him to remove the lien the association had placed against his home. By staying in the bankruptcy, he was able to save his home and address his credit card debt. Chapter 13 allowed his the opportunity to round up his creditors and deal with them in a unified manner.


From days away from losing his home to obtaining a modification, removing his second mortgage, and successfully suing his credit

A homeowner came to Loan Lawyers after the bank already had a foreclosure judgment against him and had a scheduled sale date on his homestead property. Understandably, the client was anxious at the prospect of losing his home. After reviewing the homeowner’s income, expenses, debts and assets, we began to strategize on how to save his home.

Loan Lawyers filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy on behalf of the homeowner to stop the sale of his home. In a bankruptcy, we take a holistic approach in an effort to alleviate the debtor’s outstanding debt to allow the proverbial fresh start. In this case, in addition to the first mortgage judgment, the client had a second mortgage which was in default and outstanding credit card and medical debt.

The process of obtaining a mortgage modification can take several months. While we were working on the modification, we filed a motion to value the second mortgage. This allowed our client to remove the second mortgage’s lien against the property and treat their claim as an unsecured creditor. About eight months after filing the bankruptcy, Loan Lawyers was able to obtain a modification on the first mortgage.

At this point there were still some loose ends to tie up. A couple of his unsecured creditors filed proof of claims on debts that were beyond the statute of limitations. Loan Lawyers turned the tables on these creditors and sued them for violating the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and was able to recover fees for the client. In short, this client went from days away from losing his home to obtaining a modification, removing his second mortgage (assuming he completes his bankruptcy) and successfully suing his creditors for violating collections laws.


Client recovers thousands in FDCPA case

One of our clients hired us to assist them in trying to save their home. While reviewing the documents in their foreclosure case to identify defendants, we found a series of violations of a consumer protection law that our client was not aware had occurred. We contacted our client and advised them of the violations and a short time afterwards prepared a lawsuit against their mortgage company pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Even though our client did owe money upon the mortgage and even though they were delinquent on their mortgage debt, their rights had been violated and they were entitled to compensation. We litigated the case and in less than three months the mortgage company was suitably convinced they were going to lose they decided to stop fighting and just pay our client for their illegal conduct.


Loan Lawyers helps our client save fifty thousand dollars in credit card debt!

Our client hired us to assist them in fighting a credit card lawsuit. The balance of the alleged debt at the time a case was finally filed against them was the better part of fifty thousand dollars. We prepared a defense and counter-sued the creditor alleging violations of consumer protection laws, specifically the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Shortly before a critical hearing which may have decided the outcome of the case, the creditor offered to drop all of their claims against our client, if our client agreed to drop their lawsuit against the creditor. Our client agreed, saving the better part of fifty thousand dollars in the process.


A Long-Awaited Loan Modification

Contrary to popular belief, the banks are not always the ones dragging their feet; sometimes the borrower is the party responsible for being untimely. A middle-aged client initially retained Loan Lawyers, LLC in January of 2014 with the goal of modifying her mortgage loan to more affordable terms. Of important note is the fact that the client originally mortgaged her home in late 2008, and she had already modified her mortgage loan twice (once in 2010 and again in 2013) before retaining Loan Lawyers, LLC to attempt to modify her mortgage loan yet again.

While the loan modification process differs, often substantially, depending on the particular lender, even the most cooperative of lenders typically will not agree to modify a mortgage loan more than once within a year’s timeframe and any more than twice throughout the life of the loan. Consequently, the moment our client retained us to attempt yet a third modification of her mortgage loan within roughly a five-year period, the odds were already stacked greatly against her.

Our client’s original mortgage loan consisted of monthly principal and interest payments in the amount of $832.86, at an annual interest rate of 6.5%. Our client allegedly defaulted on her second loan modification in April of 2013, and the bank subsequently filed for foreclosure against her home. After retaining Loan Lawyers, LLC, unfortunately our client proved extremely difficult to contact, was consistently late in responding to us, and often failed to provide us all of the necessary information and documentation required to efficiently process her third loan modification application. Nevertheless, we did not give up in our efforts to maintain communication with our client; we aggressively fought the bank in Court and were able to successfully cancel the foreclosure auction of our client’s home four times; and we finally achieved a third loan modification for our client that resulted in a $10,000.00 principal reduction, a significantly reduced interest rate of 3.75%, and monthly principal and interest payments of $796.44.

Due to our persistence with both the bank and our own client, Loan Lawyers, LLC was ultimately able to obtain a competitive loan modification on behalf of our client, despite her needing a substantial amount of extra care and attention from our office during the long journey to attaining her goal. If you are looking to modify the terms of your existing mortgage loan, please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your options. Loan Lawyers, LLC is committed to helping each of our clients, regardless of their particular circumstances, every step along the way.


An Expedited Loan Modification

A married couple with a young child retained Loan Lawyers, LLC in January of 2017, after a final judgment of foreclosure had already been entered against them and a future foreclosure sale date of March 6, 2017 had been set by the Court. Our team of staff at Loan Lawyers, LLC worked diligently with our newly retained clients to be able to compile and submit a complete loan modification application package to the mortgage lender’s loan servicer by January 30, 2017.

Despite having submitted a complete loan modification application package, the mortgage lender never provided Loan Lawyers, LLC any timely written communication stating whether the loan modification application package was actually deemed complete or incomplete. Pursuant to the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, a mortgage lender or its loan servicer must provide the borrower, or the borrower’s attorney if the borrower has retained legal counsel, a timely written notice after receipt of a loan modification application package stating whether the application is complete or incomplete. If the application is deemed incomplete, the written notice must specify the additional documents and/or information that the borrower must submit in order for the loan modification application package to be deemed complete.

On February 24, 2017, Loan Lawyers, LLC therefore issued a written notice of error to the mortgage lender’s loan servicer advising that the loan servicer was not acting in compliance with the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act because the loan servicer had failed to provide the required, timely written notice stating whether our clients’ loan modification application package was deemed complete or incomplete. Also on February 24, 2017, Loan Lawyers, LLC filed with the Court a motion to cancel the upcoming March 6, 2017 foreclosure sale, due to our clients’ submitted loan modification application package to which we had not yet received any timely reply as to whether it was deemed complete or incomplete.

On the same day that Loan Lawyers, LLC issued the written notice of error and filed the motion to cancel the upcoming foreclosure sale, we received a reply notice through the mortgage lender’s attorney stating that our clients’ loan modification application package was deemed complete and that no additional documentation was necessary for the loan servicer to complete its review of our clients’ loan modification application package.

Just three days later on February 27, 2017, our clients were approved by the mortgage lender for a permanent loan modification, and the mortgage lender agreed to cancellation of the March 6, 2017 foreclosure sale. Through the diligence of our team of competent staff and our attorneys’ extensive knowledge and experience in the realm of mortgage foreclosures, Loan Lawyers, LLC was successfully able to obtain a permanent loan modification for our clients and a cancellation of the foreclosure sale of our clients’ home, within less than a month from the date that our clients’ loan modification application package was submitted to the mortgage lender’s loan servicer.


A Sizeable Principal Reduction

On countless occasions, Loan Lawyers, LLC has been retained by homeowners seeking further foreclosure defense legal representative after they have already been represented by prior legal counsel with an unfavorable outcome in their case. Such was the circumstance with a particular husband and wife who sought out our legal services. The mortgage lender had filed a foreclosure lawsuit against the married couple back in 2012. The couple were previously represented by a prominent law firm, and the borrowers’ defenses raised in the case included alleged criminal activity on the part of the lender as to severe misallocation of the borrowers’ submitted mortgage payments, as well as intentionally falsely reporting to the borrowers a significantly overinflated outstanding mortgage loan balance. As the case progressed through the court system, other disconcerting issues arose that ultimately resulted in the trial judge assigned to the case being recused and another trial judge being assigned to the case. The case eventually went to trial, but despite the abundance of extremely questionable conduct on the part of the lender, the homeowners nevertheless lost at trial. The court entered final judgment of foreclosure against the homeowners in the amount of $362,402, and set a foreclosure auction date less than two months from the date of the trial.

The homeowners terminated their prior legal counsel and promptly retained Loan Lawyers, LLC to represent them post-judgment. We worked with the clients to expedite the assembling and submission of a loan modification application package within approximately two weeks of being retained by the clients. Due to the pending loan modification review, we were successful at post-judgment hearings in twice obtaining postponements of the foreclosure auction.

Although the final judgment amount was $362,402, the appraised value of our clients’ property was only $184,524 in the current state of the economy. Diligently persisting with the mortgage lender’s legal counsel while tactfully negotiating with the lender’s representatives, we were able to attain a phenomenal loan modification on behalf of our clients. The mortgage lender ultimately agreed to offer a principal reduction of $146,570, thus decreasing our clients’ outstanding mortgage balance to within 85% of the diminished, current value of their property. Naturally, our clients were extremely relieved and thankful that Loan Lawyers, LLC was able to achieve a positive result after all.


Elderly Widow Facing Wrongful Reverse Mortgage Foreclosure – Case Dismissed!

A few months ago, we received a call from a distressed 85-year-old elderly widow. She informed us that when she came home from her Bridge game with her neighbors, she noticed a Writ of Possession posted on her front door. She had no idea her home she had been living in for over 20 years was in foreclosure. She called her family in New York and Immediately came to our office. Our elderly client was confused, stressed, and scared. She said she couldn’t physically move her possessions, was receiving social security and did not have the resources to find alternative living arrangements. We looked up the case number and saw that a foreclosure case had indeed been filed against our client and was pending for almost a year. Our client was never served, never received motions or pleadings from the bank, and had absolutely no idea what was going on. She retained our firm and we got to work. We immediately filed an emergency motion to vacate the writ of possession for lack of service, which was granted in two days.

We then went ahead and filed a 1.540(b)(1) and (3) Motion to Vacate Final Judgment under mistake and fraud, respectively. Our client executed an affidavit and we filed the verified motion. We set the motion for a special set evidentiary hearing to force the bank and their counsel to prove they had the right to foreclose on our client’s home. The Complaint alleged our client had “abandoned” her property, which was completely false. In fact, this pleading filed by the Bank in a Court of law was not only a misrepresentation, but it was clearly fraud. Our client never abandoned the property but only went to New York for a week or so at a time to visit her children and grandchildren. At the hearing, we informed opposing counsel that once we prevail on our motion, we will seek to dismiss the case along with fees and a multiplier for bad faith. Opposing counsel spoke with his office and immediately decided to take a voluntary dismissal. Our client was elated as she was able to save her home and did not have to testify in Court. She stated that she would have died out on the street if it was not for Loan Lawyers, LLC which came to her rescue. This is another example of fraud by an overpowered Bank and their deep pockets. We strive to fight for homeowners everyday facing similar situations and have no problem holding the banks and their lawyers to the fire.


Improper Communication Results in $5500 Settlement

Our client retained our firm to assist them with a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit. Our firm zealously advocated for our client and defended the foreclosure case. However, during the litigation of the foreclosure case the mortgage servicer continued to send mortgage statements to our client every month, in contravention of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act which provide that persons known to be represented by counsel should not be contacted regarded the debts for which they have representation. We filed a lawsuit against the mortgage company. The mortgage company attempted to have the case dismissed however after the Court denied their motion to dismiss, they ultimately decided to settle the case for $5,500.


Widows and Foreclosure

Despondent and desperate, a widow retained Loan Lawyers, LLC in April of this year (2016). The widow’s deceased husband had been the sole borrower on the promissory note for the mortgage encumbering the couple’s homestead real property. Due to the financial strain ensuing from the loss of her husband, the widow was unable to consistently maintain her deceased husband’s mortgage payments, and the mortgage lender eventually commenced foreclosure proceedings against her home. Although she was naturally still residing in the home after her husband’s passing, the mortgage lender persisted in thwarting the widow’s attempts to save her home because she was not a signatory on the promissory note. Despite having been represented by two different foreclosure defense attorneys since 2011, our client’s prior legal counsel unfortunately were unable to achieve a result that entailed her retaining the property. Indeed, relinquished to the erroneous belief that she had no available recourse to save her home, the widow ultimately consented to foreclosure judgment being entered against her, in exchange for a mere few thousand dollars in relocation expenses offered by the mortgage lender.


HOA Past Due Assessments?

Recently, a client came into our office for foreclosure defense representation. The client was being foreclosed on by her HOA. The client entered into a stipulation of settlement agreement with the HOA in 2013, but defaulted a year later. The HOA added a whole host of charges to the suit, including but not limited to: per diem interest, late fees, and attorney’s fees and costs. The HOA was attempting to collect almost 25k from our client.

What made this case especially problematic, was that our client was current on her mortgage with her lender but was facing a HOA judgment. The HOA filed for a Motion for Final Judgment against our client for defaulting on the stipulation of settlement. We entered the HOA case and aggressively defended the case. We filed a very aggressive answer with various affirmative defenses to the HOA’s complaint, discovery, and an opposition to the HOA’s Motion for Final Judgment. We also conducted a forensic accounting of what our client paid and what was still outstanding. It turned out that the HOA’s accounting was not completely accurate, but our client did end up owing past due assessments. Counsel for the HOA decided it would be better if they did not litigate. We ended up entering into a very favorable settlement with the HOA, shaving of various charges from the past due amount. The client’s goal from the onset of this case was to save her property, which is what we ended up doing for her. The HOA cancelled their hearing on their Motion for Final Judgment and our client was able to save her home getting back into good standing with the HOA. We are seeing more and more of these kind of cases. If you or someone you know is facing foreclosure from the HOA, please contact us immediately. It is always best to have a team of aggressive attorneys on your side!


Notice to the Borrower

Client Jack and Sharon Scialabba came to us to help defend against a re-file by CitiGroup/CitiMortgage. This is the second case we’ve successfully defended for them. Citi re-filed their complaint on 2/24/15. The complaint properly alleged standing, included a copy of the prior modification and alleged that all conditions precedent had been complied with.

The case issues itself are fairly run of the mill – Plaintiff was able to prove standing and damages without much issue, however conditions precedent was the main area of contention. The property and notice address is listed as 9486 S. Military Trial #15, Boynton Beach, FL 33436. The Demand Letter is address to 9486 S. Military Trial #4, Boynton Beach, FL 33436. Arguably, unit 4 and unit 15 are the same. A simple search on the property appraisals website shows unit 4 being connected to unit 15. Because the property is a condominium, the confusion of the street address and unit numbers likely were at play. However, the burden still rests with Plaintiff to prove substantial compliance with their condition precedent.

At trial, the Plaintiff put into evidence the Demand Letter and the collection notes, both which show the Demand Letter being mailed to the unit 4 address. I thought for sure the Plaintiff would put into evidence anything else to corroborate that unit 4 and unit 15 are the same, however they failed to do so. I purposefully made an issue of standing (despite one not really existing) and made some minor issues about damages and their Power of Attorney. This tactic seemed to pay off, as Plaintiff spent a lot of their time focusing on defending these issues and not on the notice address discrepancy.

After Plaintiff rested, I moved for involuntary dismissal because of the wrong notice address. The Plaintiff tried to argue that the Court could take judicial notice of the complaint, which included a copy of the modification (which was never formally introduced into evidence), however the Judge declined to extend judicial notice that far. Plaintiff’s position was that the modification included an acknowledgment that unit 4 and unit 15 are the same. Since the modification was not put into evidence and no other documents were before the court to show unit 4 and unit 15 were the same, the Court granted our involuntary dismissal. This is the second dismissal for this client, concerning the same issue. The client was beyond thrilled.


Swift Victory for Consumer

Our client hired us on a Friday evening to attend a Pre-Trial Conference the following Monday as to an alleged credit card debt which had allegedly been purchased by another company, a “debt buyer”. We appeared at Court the following Monday and explained to counsel for the debt buyer a number of defects contained within the complaint which might expose them to liability for filing improper papers with the Court. The debt buyer was persuaded on the spot to cease collection activities against our client and drop their lawsuit.


Another Big Trial Win for Loan Lawyers

Client came to us with a “standard” foreclosure action. Original Plaintiff, BAC Home Loans Servicing filed their initial complaint which included only one court for foreclosure. However, several months later, the Plaintiff sought leave to substitute the party Plaintiff to Bank of America and amend the complaint to include a reformation of mortgage count. We specifically denied the reformation relief in our Answer and Affirmative Defenses, to which Plaintiff did not file a response.

The case proceeded to trial and almost no objections were made by the Defendant. Without much fight, all the proffered exhibits were entered into evidence. Strategically, this worked in the client’s favor, as this threw opposing counsel off and the Plaintiff failed to put into evidence anything regarding the reformation. After resting, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal based on a failure to reform the legal description in the Mortgage. More specifically, the Trial Court found that the Plaintiff’s witness admitted that the legal description was incorrect and refused to reform or grant a foreclosure on the “wrong” property.

Plaintiff attempted a motion for rehearing, which was denied. Finally, Plaintiff appealed to the 4th DCA. The crux of their argument consisted of a prior agreed order amending their complaint which included the language of correct legal description. While this agreed order was never raised at trial, it still presented a unique issue on appeal – could the appellate court correct the reformation issue because the Defendant technically “agreed” to what the correct legal description is. Thankfully, we were able to distinguish this scenario and show the Appellate Court that raising this issue for the first time on appeal and not at trial was improper while also persuading the Appellate Court to agree that the agreed order does not change Plaintiff’s burden to prove the reformation count.

While we can probably expect another foreclosure attempt down the road, for the time being the client defeated the Plaintiff at trial, successfully defended their appeal and presently is not in foreclosure.


  • ABC News
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • CBS 4
  • CNN
  • Daily Business Review
  • Florida Trend's - Florida Legal Elite 2014
  • Florida Trend's - Florida Legal Elite 2014
  • National Association of Consumer Advocates
  • National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys
  • NBC News
  • National Consumer Law Center
  • The New York Times
  • Avvo
  • Avvo
  • Avvo