Se Habla Español | Nou Pale Kreyòl

Our family is here
to help your family

Success Stories

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

Proof of Demand Letter

On August 21, 2006, our client, D.J., took out a Note and Mortgage with Mortgage Lenders Network, USA, Inc. The Note was subsequently indorsed to EMAX Financial Group, LLC, then to Residential Funding Company, LLC (by attorney in fact EMAX), then to US Bank, NA as Trustee, then to the named Plaintiff, US Bank, NA…Trustee…Home Equity Mortgage 2006-EMX9 (by attorney in fact Residential Funding Company). The Plaintiff filed their complaint on April 20, 2015 and alleged that they held the Note and that a default took place on June 1, 2014 and all subsequent dates.

Attached to the complaint was a copy of the Note bearing the above indorsements, the Mortgage, and two modifications. The first modification was from January 23, 2007 and the more recent modification was from April 2, 2013. After general litigation and discovery, the case proceeded to trial. The Plaintiff provided a plethora of trial exhibits, many of which were not used at the actual trial. While reviewing Plaintiff’s exhibits, the following issues presented themselves: (i) because two indorsements were made pursuant to a power of attorney, case law suggests that the power of attorney must be present to evidence the indorsement, (ii) In discovery, the Plaintiff provided a screen shot from Walz to demonstrate that the demand letter was mailed out, however that same screen shot was not provided as a trial exhibit, (iii) the payment history was missing entries from 2016-2017 and showed a large suspense balance, and finally (iv) several trial exhibits such as a DLQ1, MAS1, note possession screen shot, and demand letter tracking, had the wrong loan number for this account.

During trial, Plaintiff’s counsel rushed through much of the testimony for business records exception to hearsay. Opposing counsel has a tendency to hurry up the trial as he likes to cut to the chase, however this may have been to his detriment. While rushing through evidence, the Plaintiff did not ask his witness if the demand letter was actually mailed out. Moreover, when opposing counsel tried to move several documents with the wrong loan number, my sustained objection for relevance threw him off. This rushing through the trial and documents with the wrong loan number rattled opposing counsel and he never attempted to put into evidence the Walz screen shot for the demand letter.

Plaintiff eventually rested without ever addressing the proof of mailing issue. I moved for involuntary dismissal and spent most of the time arguing over the power of attorney/indorsement case law. Judge Stone ultimately found that the case didn’t apply to this fact pattern, however I successfully shifted opposing counsel’s focus on to other minor grounds for dismissal instead of the real issue of proof of mailing. I then moved to dismiss based on a lack of evidence for paragraph 22 and 15. Opposing counsel suggested that he did ask his witness if the letter was mailed, which both the Judge and I agreed that that line of questions was never asked. The Judge ultimately granted involuntary dismissal in our favor.

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. Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result.

Consumer Beats Debt Buyer

Our client received a lawsuit from a company which alleged that it had purchased an account exceeding a balance of over $10,000. We prepared a response to the lawsuit and explained to the company harassing our client that they were in violation of multiple portions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in that they attempted to collect a debt which was not owed, misrepresented the character, amount and legal status of a debt and that they had violation Florida’s usury statute by attempting to collect an unlawful and excessive rate of interest. State usury laws may not be binding upon national banks but the debt buyer was not a national bank, they simply claimed to have purchased the account from one.

Ultimately a settlement was reached in the matter much to the satisfaction of our client, resulting in no payment upon the alleged account by our client and the debt being removed from their credit report.

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.

“Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result.” Mandatory disclosure from The Florida Bar.

Saved Our Client's House With Aggressive Pleading!

D.H came to Loan Lawyers seeking foreclosure defense against his Lender. He was facing foreclosure of his homestead by the lender. This was the second time the lender filed a foreclosure action. Our office immediately jumped into the case and litigated the file. We filed a very aggressive Answer with multiple Affirmative Defenses which immediately caught the attention of the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel attempted to obtain a quick judgment by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. We filed a very aggressive opposition and an affidavit in support of our opposition and the Lender immediately cancelled their Motion for Summary Judgment hearing because they wanted time to sort it out! We effectively saved our client’s home by drafting well thought out and an aggressive opposition to the Banks motion. The key to defending against these motions in very bank friendly area, is to not leave any stone unturned. Substantive and procedural issues need to be analyzed and articulated in an opposition to the Banks case in chief. We immediately asked our client to come to the office and drafted an Affidavit in Support of our Motion for Summary Judgment. The plan is to file the Motion immediately, while the Bank ponders their own motion, with the hope of entering Judgment for our client. With an aggressive and strategic approach, we plan to dismiss this case and save our clients home.

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. Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result.

No Response Time to Pay

Marie was deeply concerned with her mortgage account. Each month she continued to see her account climb and climb in what the bank claimed were accurate fees and costs associated with her mortgage. We investigated, sending out a qualified written request (QWR) to her mortgage servicer. Although the servicer received the inquiry, they did not respond. We sent them a follow-up correspondence for Marie. After that too yielded no result, we sent her servicer one final letter advising they were in violation of federal law. Unfortunately, the servicer’s lack of response continued unabated. We were left without an option and we filed a lawsuit against Marie’s servicer in federal court. The counsel for the servicer advised they were willing to waive the fees, pay her the statutory damages amount and pay all of her attorneys’ fees. I called Marie, who advised that to have her loan current, and some money in her pocket after her servicer gave her so much trouble, she feels a true debt of gratitude. This is all part of the team of Loan Lawyers and the blessing of being part of the Mortgage Servicing Division.

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.”

** Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result

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.

  • 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
  • Avvo