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!
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.