SUCCESS STORIES

 

WE ARE A TEAM OF LITIGATORS AND TRIAL LAWYERS WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF WINNING.

Read some of our firms success stories to learn how we’ve helped over 5,000 families find solutions to their struggles with debt. We’ve saved over 1,800 homes in South Florida from foreclosure and eliminated over $100 million in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have recovered millions of dollars on behalf of our clients. Helping our clients move forward with financial stability is our priority, so we fight to win. For experienced and skilled help with bankruptcy matters, get in touch with Loan Lawyers today!
FDCPA claim eliminates $30,000 debt lawsuit

Our client was sued for a sum in excess of $30,000 by a debt buyer, a company that buys old debts and then sues people for them.  Most credit card companies do not sell larger debts to debt buyers, preferring to pursue them themselves but it does happen. Unfortunately for the debt buyer, they made a procedural error of sorts which meant that they had engaged in a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(“FDCPA”).  The FDCPA is not an “offset” to actions against them, a large body of case law is very clear on that point. Just because a debt owes a creditor money does not mean that a creditor is off the hook for any violations of the law they engage in. It is entirely possible for a creditor to win a case but still have to pay for violating the FDCPA while doing so.  After fighting the case for a time, before its ultimate resolution, the debt-buyer realized that it was not worth the risk, or the attorney fees they were spending to fight our client and agreed to drop the lawsuit which they had filed against our client.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud. 

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813)

 

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

Consumer Credit Card Victory

Our client was sued by what is commonly called a “debt buyer”, companies that claim to purchase past-due accounts and then attempt to collect upon them.  Debt buyers often file lawsuits against alleged debtors if they do not voluntarily pay the amount sought. Our firm has fought and continues to fight many debt buyers with a great deal of success.

In a recent matter, our client was sued by a debt buyer for an alleged credit card debt.  We filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the debt buyer lacks standing and thus the matter should be dismissed.  In the context of a debt buyer case challenging standing is essentially challenging that the debt buyer actually has the right to collect upon the debt.  We attended a hearing recently on such a motion and prevailed and the Court agreed that the debt buyer failed to produce sufficient evidence that they actually owned the alleged debt.  A summary judgment was entered in our favor and our client no longer needed to fear harassment by the debt collector or worry about the entry of a judgment against them.

However, alongside the summary judgment, we had also filed a counterclaim accusing the debt buyer of harassing our client.  Shortly after the entry of the summary judgment, the debt buyer offered to pay a substantial sum to resolve the counterclaim.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud. 

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813)

 

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

Combination Reinstatement and Loan Modification

This client came to Loan Lawyers in 2017 to defend against a mortgage foreclosure action. The plaintiff ultimately dismissed its case after a Final Judgment of Foreclosure had been entered because the client was able to reinstate his loan and accept a loan modification offer from the plaintiff.

Loan Lawyers was able to negotiate a reinstatement and loan modification for this client based on what he could actually pay now towards reinstatement and what he could pay moving forward. The client had been in a default state for over five years at the time of the reinstatement and modification.

This case was not without its hiccups. With a sale date fast approaching, the client sent full reinstatement funds to the plaintiff, the plaintiff acknowledged its acceptance of the funds, then, a month later, returned all the funds to the client because the plaintiff claimed to have made an error in calculating the reinstatement figures.

Loan Lawyers then requested the corrected reinstatement quote, which turned out to be nearly three times the first reinstatement quote.

The client was able to offer an amount less than the full reinstatement quote, which the plaintiff then accepted and, further, offered a loan modification to the client. The client accepted the loan modification offer.

The plaintiff then filed a motion to vacate the final judgment, dismiss the case, cancel the pending foreclosure sale, and release the lis pendens on the grounds that the loan had been brought current. The court promptly granted the plaintiff’s motion and entered an order dismissing the case.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813)

 

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

Rare Win in the Third District Court of Appeal

This client retained Loan Lawyers in 2013 to defend against a mortgage foreclosure action in Miami-Dade County. Although the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff Bank of America, we appealed the foreclosure judgment and won on appeal, a rarity in Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.

Long before the client came to Loan Lawyers or was even in foreclosure, the client had accepted a loan modification from the lender and paid monthly payments on this loan modification for 18 months. Not once did the client receive any indication from the lender that there was any problem with their payments or the loan modification. Their payments under the loan modification totaled nearly $30,000.

Eighteen months after the client accepted the loan modification and had been making payments on the loan modification, Bank of America then sent the client a default letter alleging that the payment for over one year prior was still due and, further, instructing the client to pay over $40,000 within 30 days to cure the alleged default. The letter did not acknowledge the loan modification agreement.

When Bank of America filed its complaint about foreclosure, it did not reference the loan modification agreement or otherwise allege that the loan had been modified.

The primary issue at trial was whether the parties had entered into a loan modification agreement. The trial court found that no loan modification agreement existed, but it did credit borrowers the nearly $30,000 they had paid over 18 months under what they believed to be a loan modification agreement.

The trial court entered its final judgment of foreclosure. With Loan Lawyers, the client appealed this judgment to the Third District Court of Appeal, which serves Miami-Dade County and Monroe County.

In August 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal issued its opinion, Pijuan v. Bank of America, reversing the final judgment of foreclosure and remanding the case to the trial court for the entry of an order of involuntary dismissal because Bank of America failed to plead and prove the client’s breach of the loan modification agreement.

This is a big win for borrowers all over Florida, as the Third District Court of Appeal adopted the reasoning of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in its 2015 decision, Kuehlman v. Bank of America, and that of the Second District Court of Appeal in its 2016 decision, Nowlin v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC. The Third District Court of Appeal stated as follows: “We follow the persuasive precedent of our sister courts in holding that, when a loan modification has been reached, a lender can foreclose only by both pleading and proving a breach of the modification agreement.”

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

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

Undocumented client saved home with chapter 13 bankruptcy

An undocumented immigrant came to our office seeking help to save his home. His mortgage had been paid off in full but he fell behind on the homeowners’ association payments because he was ill and hospitalized, which required him to stop working for a period of time. U.S. Citizenship is not required and legal status does not determine eligibility to file bankruptcy. It would affect the ability to use the Florida (or state) exemptions, but the Federal bankruptcy exemptions may be used. This would have to be examined closely to ensure the client’s assets are protected fully. In this particular case, the client filed chapter 13 bankruptcy, allowing him to enter into a reorganization plan of 5 years to pay his debts and upon completion, obtained his discharge, was current on the homeowners’ association payments and was able to save his home.

Click here for more information on bankruptcy relief

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813)

 

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

Modification of mortgage for home ex-husband still liable on

Client came to our office to apply for a modification and file bankruptcy to save her home. She was divorced, her ex-husband quitclaimed the property to her as she lived in the home and was awarded the property in the divorce; however, the mortgage and note were still in ex-husband’s name. Since ex-husband was still liable on the loan, the lender previously denied the modification and made it very difficult for the client to get approved. After extensive negotiations at the mediation conference and through electronic communications, submission of documents to satisfy lender’s request, the client was ultimately offered a modification with better terms than she originally had.

Click here for more information on bankruptcy relief

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813)

 

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

Client Offered Modification After Previous Denials

The clients defaulted on their mortgage over five years ago. They filed bankruptcy previously, canceled four foreclosure sales, applied for mortgage modifications twice previously and the bank denied the modification request both times. Clients continued making good faith mortgage payments to the lender through the chapter 13 case to lower the balance owed on the mortgage. The client subsequently filed another chapter 13 and reapplied for a mortgage modification. This time around, clients were offered a modification and were able to save their family home.

For more information about bankruptcy relief, please visit our website at https://www.fight13.com/practice-areas/bankruptcy/

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813) or online at https://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us/

 

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

Client Sold Home During Bankruptcy

A client filed chapter 13 bankruptcy and was confirmed. In the middle of the bankruptcy case, the client decided to sell his home and obtained court approval to do so. Client received over $50,000 from the sale of his home, after closing costs and mortgage payoffs, and completed his bankruptcy repayment plan making the regular monthly payments that he proposed, thereby freeing himself of debt, ready to enjoy his retirement without the stress and burden of being weighed down by debt.

For more information about bankruptcy relief, please visit our website at https://www.fight13.com/practice-areas/bankruptcy/

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813) or online at https://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us/

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

Get Rid Of Credit Card Judgment Lien Impairing Homestead

A client filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and after three short months, was able to discharge $55,000 worth of debt and get rid of a final judgment lien in a credit card debt case in the amount of $11,000, which was impairing client’s homestead exemption and clouding title. The client was able to clear title by way of a bankruptcy court order, sell her home to buy a comfortable apartment, and get a fresh start.

For more information about bankruptcy relief, please visit our website at https://www.fight13.com/practice-areas/bankruptcy/

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813) or online at https://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us/

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

Pro Se Bankruptcy Filer Rescued

Chapter 13 bankruptcy is complex and complicated. Periodically, debtors file for bankruptcy relief pro se, which means they file without attorney representation. The vast majority of those cases get dismissed because the debtor did not file the correct paperwork, submit the appropriate documentation, or devise a confirmable repayment plan. Client started off as a pro se filer, attended two meetings of creditors, which were not conducted by the trustee. Client also proposed a plan that would have done nothing to accomplish her goal (which is to try to save her home), and everyone, including the debtor, lender, and trustee were becoming frustrated in the process. Client retained us and we quickly filed a confirmable amended plan and applied for a mortgage modification. Client is now on track.

For more information about bankruptcy relief, please visit our website at: https://www.fight13.com/practice-areas/bankruptcy/

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you. Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813) or online at: https://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us/

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

Auto Loan Eradicated

We have written a consumer amount about how we have helped people beat credit card companies and debt buyers.  Our office also assists people who have been the subject of debt collection activities as to car loans.  Our client’s vehicle was repossessed some time ago and several years later a debt-buyer sued them over it.  Yet upon an examination of the sale documents, it was realized that the vehicle was only sold for a tiny fraction of its value and what is worse, not at a public auction but to some unknown, mystery buyer.

If the owner of the auto-loan sold the vehicle in a fraudulent manner, then the lawsuit against our client was for the wrong amount.  We filed a counter-lawsuit accusing the debt-buyer of misconduct.  In the end, they agreed to leave our client alone and the matter has been resolved to our client’s satisfaction.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

https://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us/

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

 

Client Qualifed For Chapter Despite Above Average Income

To qualify for Chapter 7 straight bankruptcy, debtors must earn less than the state’s median income. If the income is above the median, the debtor may still qualify for Chapter 7 if he or she passes the Means Test or the majority of debt is business-related. Client exceeds Florida’s median income by almost $36,000 yet was able to pass the Means Test, qualify for Chapter 7 and discharge over $228,000 worth of debt, without having to repay any debts or give up any assets.

For more information about bankruptcy relief, please visit our website at: https://www.fight13.com/practice-areas/bankruptcy/

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.  Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.  Call us at 1-888-Fight13 (344-4813) or online at: https://www.fight13.com/Contact-Us/

 

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

 

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.

American Home Mortgage Servicing V. Julio Ramirez-Sanchez (CACE11028079)

Plaintiff, American Home Mortgage Servicing, filed their complaint on 11/15/11. The Complaint alleged that the Plaintiff was the holder and a default date of 1/1/10. Plaintiff also included a reformation count, as the legal description in the mortgage was wrong. The legal description was a completely different from the correct description (Racquet Club Apartments… compared to Stoneridge Lakes Estates…). Attached to the Complaint was a Note payable to Home Banc Mortgage Corporation with no visible indorsement, a Mortgage that included paragraph 22, and an Assignment of Mortgage from American Home Mortgage Servicing as agent for Home Banc Mortgage Corp to American Home Mortgage Servicing.

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied. On 4/17/11, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of their reformation count. Defendant propounded discovery and filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on 4/27/12. On 3/28/14, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff, changing the Plaintiff from American Home Mortgage Servicing to Ocwen Loan Servicing. An Agreed Order to that effect was entered on 7/24/14. The case was set for trial and rescheduled several times. Ultimately, trial occurred on 5/26/15.

At trial, the Defendant moved for involuntary dismissal, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prove reformation of the legal description or in the alternative, that the Plaintiff was foreclosing on the wrong legal description, and for failure to comply with paragraph 22 conditions precedent. The court granted the dismissal and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Rehearing on 6/10/15.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider reformation, but if it did, Plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence of reformation, and that the Plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence of a routine business practice to establish compliance with condition precedent. Defendant responded to the Motion for Rehearing by arguing that if the Court lacked jurisdiction, than Plaintiff would admittedly be foreclosing on the wrong property. Additionally, the Defendant’s response argued that the Plaintiff put forth only minimal evidence of intent of the parties as it pertains to the reformation of the legal description. Specifically, the Plaintiff’s witness offered no testimony and the only evidence before the Court was the actual note and mortgage, which was insufficient to prove a different legal description was intended. Finally, the Defendant argued proof of mailing a prior demand letter was not proof of mailing the material demand letter. Moreover, the witness was not able to establish a routine business practice as the witness was not familiar with the vendor’s policies and procedures for mailing out a demand letter sufficient enough to warrant a finding that mailing the letter was routine practice for the vendor.

On 9/10/15 the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing and Defendant filed their Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The parties are in the process of negotiating fees, however the client is ultimately happy with the outcome.

A Strategic Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Saves the Day!
Saved Home

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 the opportunity to round up his creditors and deal with them in a unified manner.

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.

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.

A Good Fight
Home Saved

Once, one of our foreclosure defense clients really wanted to save their home, but unfortunately didn’t have enough income for a loan modification. Client worked with us on a modification, but was eventually denied due to lack of income. The Client would need an additional $4000.00 a month to qualify, which was not feasible for her. Since the client had equity in the property she began working on selling it as a last resort, but ultimately wanted to retain the property.

The case eventually became at issue and set for trial on 3 separate occasions. After discussing the risks involved with fighting the trial, the client ultimately decided that she wanted to fight. We proceeded with the trial, and were able to convince the Court that the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action in their complaint. The original complaint alleged a default date of 9/1/12, while the pay history showed that payments were made, accepted, and applied, thus pushing the actual default date to 12/1/12. The client was extremely happy to hear the good news. Another hard fought case where Loan Lawyers was victorious in saving our client’s home.

80% Reduction in Mortgage Principle for a Foreclosure Client

It just doesn’t get much better than this. (Don’t flame me about a free house being better please). This foreclosure client had a total amount due of approximately $241,000 on her mortgage. She was put into foreclosure in 2009. Our foreclosure lawyers have been working on her file since the beginning of 2010. The bank finally relented and the principle balance on her mortgage was reduced to $50,000! That is almost an 80% reduction in the client principle.

The new mortgage payment on this property is $228.12! Not too shabby and kudos to our litigation team and modification teams. Results like this can never be guaranteed and every case has different facts, but if you want to have a chance of getting a modification like this, you need to fins a foreclosure defense lawyer who knows how to litigate a case.

At Loan Lawyers, we have decades of combined legal experience and we are ready to fight the bank for you. You need to to take the first step and call us. We offer free consultations with our foreclosure and modification lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties. Put our foreclosure defense and loan modification experience to work for you.

70% Principle Reduction and Huge Interest Rate Reduction for Widow

This was not an easy one to accomplish (then again, are there any easy solutions for homeowners?). What made this one so hard is this poor client lost her husband and he was the only borrower on the loan. It was difficult to do anything because the widow was not on the loan. In the end, we were able to work it out, but it was tough. This is one of the best modifications I have ever seen.

The client did not make a payment for over 5 years. The bank paid $33,120.46 in taxes and insurance for the borrower. The total amount due as on March 1, 2012 was $266,296.36. This amount was reduced to $84,000! The interest rate was variable from between 6.3% to 13.3%. The new rate is 3.36 fixed! The principle and interest payment went from $1,104.87 to $439.47. What makes this even more incredible is that the client did not make a payment for over 5 years and the bank laid out over $33,000 in taxes. Even after all of that, the payment was reduced by about 70%.

No one can ever guarantee results like this, but if you want a chance to save your home, you need a lawyer that litigates and that doesbankruptcyshort saleforeclosure defenseloan modification, and sues the bank. You have almost no chance of getting these results by hiring someone who will do nothing but delay your case. This is what many law firm do, unfortunately.

We offer free consultations with our foreclosure attorneys in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach with appointments available in Plantation / Fort Lauderdale, Delray Beach, North Miami Beach, and Coral Gables.

67% Principle Reduction and Great Interest Rate Reduction

Another great job by our team! This client was put into foreclosure so we immediately got to work. We sued the bank in Federal Court for violating the Truth in Lending Act. We ended up settling the foreclosure and the TILA lawsuit for the client with a spectacular result.

The client’s principle balance went from $221,000 to $73,000. The interest rate went from 9.9% to 3.34%. This all resulted in a principle and interest payment that went from $1,923.13 per month to $391.81!

As always, I have uploaded the loan modification agreement for all to see.

If you are a Florida homeowner that is in foreclosure or simply can not afford your mortgage any longer, be careful who you get involved with. I have seen countless people in hot water because they received the wrong advice. You need to find a foreclosure lawyer that has a proven track record of fighting for homeowners facing foreclosure. We have appointments available in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties.

Our consultations are always free and our plaintiff consumer cases are done on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or costs unless we are successful. Call us today at (844) 344-4813.

$315,000 Principle Reduction and Over 50% Decrease in Interest Rate

This was another phenomenal result for a client. This client had not made a mortgage payment in 4 years. We had a lawsuit pending against the bank and were fighting the foreclosure for over 3 years. The bank finally caved and we negotiated an amazing deal for the client. The original mortgage was for $382,500 with an 8%-11% variable rate. The balance at the time of the settlement was approximately $500,000 after years of no payments, interest, attorneys fees, and unpaid escrows. We were able to get the principle reduced from about$500,000 to $186,000 with a fixed rate of 3.94% for the remaining term of the loan, not a new 30 or 40 year term, but for the remaining term. This result is further evidence that being aggressive with the bank and trying multiple solutions gives homeowners a better chance of saving their homes. That is why at Loan Lawyers, our foreclosure attorneys do loan modifications, foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, short sales, deeds in lieu of foreclosure, and we sue banks. It is our philosophy that a an approach that attacks the problem from many angles will give our clients a better chance to save their home. The reality is for this client, if they went to a lawyer that did nothing but try to delay the case, or just try a loan modification, this client would most likely have lost their house years ago.

$250,00 Principle Reduction Along with Significant Interest Rate Reduction

Here is a client that did not make any mortgage payments for over 3 years. We fought the bank in court on the foreclosure case and were able to negotiate a principle reduction of approximately $250,000. The principle is reduced in three stages. The reduction is applied in 3 stages. After each year of on time payments, 1/3 of this amount is applied to reduce the principle. Plus, the interest rate is 2% for the first five years and it only goes up to 3.75%. Another great job and another example of why it is so important to attack a foreclosure problem from multiple angles.

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.

Loan Lawyers Defeats Another HOA Foreclosure!

A client came to Loan Lawyers regarding a bank foreclosure case what was filed against him over two years ago. He never responded to the foreclosure, and therefore received a default against him which means that he would no longer be able to defend the lawsuit. To complicate things even more he was also recently sued for foreclosure by his Home Owners Association (“HOA”). The HOA case was being very aggressively litigated and they were moving fast to take the house. We immediately filed an answer in the HOA case and propounded discovery for them to respond to. In the meantime, Loan Lawyers worked very hard and was successful in getting to his 2 year old default vacated in the case from the bank. Our client was very happy wit the result, but still very concerned that he may lose his home to the HOA.

After analyzing the situation Loan Lawyers advised our client that the HOA had wrongfully filed a foreclosure claim against him, since the bank had already previously filed their case. We immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss against the HOA alleging that they lacked proper Subject Matter Jurisdiction to file the lawsuit. Not only did we get the HOA to dismiss their foreclosure lawsuit with prejudice, but we are in the process of getting our client’s attorney fees reimbursed for having to defend the wrongful foreclosure. To sweeten the win even more we have since sued the HOA under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collections Practices Act) which will result in our client’s receiving a nice check for the improper foreclosure. Our client is breathing easy now and very grateful to G-d and to his top notch legal team at Loan Lawyers.

I Would Not Want to be BB&T Bank on this Case.

These clients are a husband and wife who immigrated this country many years ago. They worked hard, paid their taxes, and were living the American dream. Then one day they had trouble paying their mortgage and BB&T sued them for foreclosure. They came into the office and when we looked at the documents, something did not smell right. After some time digging, we uncovered that someone at BB&T bank forged the wife’s signature to the note and mortgage. This is why choosing a law firm that pays attention to every detail is so crucial.

So, we sued BB&T right back. So far, the offered the release the clients from the note and mortgage and give them the house for free. We said great, but that’s not enough. Then they offered $5,000 on top. I’m not sure if that is supposed to be an insult or a joke, but BB&T’s offer is going to need many more zeros before we can talk about settling this case. We are happy to put this case in front of a jury and let them decide what this case is worth. I can assure you, BB&T Bank, that the jury will award substantially more than $5,000. Pony up or we’ll see you at trial.

Wells Fargo Goes to Great Lengths to Toss an Elderly Woman from Her Home…and Loses.

This is one of the most egregious foreclosure abuses I have seen to date and thankfully the Loan Lawyers foreclosure defense team put a stop to it. Our client was am elderly woman who lived in her Palm Beach county house since 1986. In fact, she built the house, so she has a real special connection to it. She took out a loan with World Savings Bank in 2007. She was supposed to have a bi-weekly payment loan, but when she got to the closing, she realized that the note they wanted her to sign was a monthly payment loan. She did not want to sign the closing paperwork, but she was promised that she would have a bi-weekly payment anyway. They gave her information on the bi-weekly program to sign and they charged her $50.00 at closing to set it up. She also signed allowing the bank with automatically deduct her bi-weekly payment.

Well, the first mortgage statement comes, and guess what? It was a monthly bill, not a bi-weekly bill. For two years she fought with the bank to fix it. The bank did make a feeble attempt to do so, but our client was not satisfied. Eventually, she closed the bank account so that the bank could no longer withdraw money from her account. Instead, she decided she wanted the benefit of her bargain so she began making bi-weekly payments in July 2009. She made two payments in July, much more than what she was required to make. The next month, she did the same thing and again paid more than what was required. Well, the wonderful benevolent bank who always has their clients’ interests at heart (can you feel the sarcasm) applied these 4 payments over two months in such a way that it appeared our client was behind one month on her payment even though the bank received substantially more than it was owed for those two months. She started receiving threatening letters from the bank, so each month after that she went back to paying her regular monthly payment. In addition to paying IN FULL each month, she would send a monthly letter to the bank explaining the situation and asking them to correct. She was simply never behind on her mortgage, but the bank ignored her letters every month. What did Wells Fargo do instead, they returned her payment put her in foreclosure. Absolutely disgusting. This elderly woman never missed a mortgage payment and wrote the bank every month to fix the problem, but they chose to foreclose instead.

If you think that’s bad enough, it gets worse. We listed over one hundred exhibits on our exhibit list. The exhibits were the checks that Wells Fargo cashed, the statements they sent our client and all of the letters our client wrote the bank. I could understand that Wells Fargo is a huge corporation and sometimes mistakes may happen, but one would think that when they are foreclosing on an elderly woman who never missed a mortgage payment, someone would step up and fix this mess and keep this woman in her house. That is what any honorable person or corporation with some moral compass would do. We gave them all of the proof they needed to show they were wrong. What would Wells Fargo gain by throwing this elderly woman on a fixed income out on the street? How could the person who decided to move forward with this foreclosure sleep at night?

Ok, so the sage continues to get worse. Realizing that they have a problem on their hands, Wells Fargo makes no attempt to help this woman. Instead, they dig their heels in. They fly their #1 witness from Texas to South Florida to testify against this woman. This witness worked at World Savings, which became Wachovia, which became Wells Fargo. He has been at these 3 banks for almost 30 years. He knows every detail of every operation of each of these banks. To his credit, he is the best bank witness I have ever seen. He is truly a professional witness who knows everything. So again, instead of helping this poor woman, they decide to make sure they bring the best witness to give them the best chance to win. Okay, it still gets worse. The bank was originally represented by a foreclosure mill who shall remain nameless. They are not known to be the best, they are known to be a typical foreclosure mill. Wells Fargo fired them and hired a real top notch law firm who shall also remain nameless for now. To find this law firm, look for the tallest building in any downtown area and these are the lawyers on the penthouse floor. We jokingly call lawyers like this the “tall building lawyers”. These are the type of lawyers any rich corporation hires when they can’t lose and don’t care what it costs. My guess is that the two lawyers they hired were probably billing out $1,300 per hour or more between the two of them. Again, instead of helping this poor elderly woman, they decided to spend an absolute fortune on legal fees to make sure that this poor elderly woman won’t have a house anymore. It would have been much cheaper to simply fix this mistake and let this lady go back to paying her mortgage. Wells Fargo obviously cared about winning more than they cared about this lady.

So, we had trial this past Monday. I’ve done probably more foreclosure trials than 99% of the lawyers who do foreclosure defense, so I know what bank witnesses and lawyers do well and which did not do so well. My hat’s off to Wells Fargo on this one. The bank witness was amazing and was difficult to cross examine. These bank lawyers were also as good as they get. They were top notch lawyers worth every penny they were paid. We started trial at 9:30AM and went until 5:30PM. I’ve never had to fight so hard for a foreclosure client because I was up against a real foreclosure machine on the other side. They were prepared like I have never seen bank lawyers prepared. Sounding gloomy at this point? Ok, I’ll get to the end. We won and saved this lady’s house.

I can not stop thinking about this case. Why would Wells Fargo go to such lengths to do this to this woman? I simply can not figure this out. If someone would have just gone into the payment system and recoded one payment that they did not code properly, this whole mess could have been avoided. Our client wrote so many letters and gave them notice of this so many times. If they would have taken two seconds to fix this, Wells Fargo would have a performing loan, this elderly woman would be in her house and making her mortgage payments, and it would have been perfect for everyone. Its just amazing to me that they would double down in this situation instead of just doing the right thing.

This case is a perfect example of why I do what I do. This elderly client was not looking for a free house, she was not looking to take advantage of anyone, nor was she a strategic defaulter. She simply wanted a bi-weekly payment that was promised to her. The bank received more than enough money to pay for her mortgage payment the two months she made the bi-weekly payments, so the bank never lost one penny. Yet, here’s another example of a big bank going rogue. I am so thankful that this client hired us and trusted us to aggressively defend her. I am also happy that we came through for her.

If you or someone you know is facing a foreclosure, the foreclosure defense attorneys at Loan Lawyers are ready to help you. We offer foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, loan modification, short sales, and (my personal favorite) we sue banks and bank lawyers. Call us right now at 1-888-FIGHT-13 to schedule your free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade or Palm Beach county.

How Our Attorneys Beat Nationstar Mortgage at Today’s Broward County Foreclosure Trial

Our foreclosure attorneys were in trial today against Nationstar Mortgagein Broward County, Florida. There were several issues in the trial. I will focus on one for this post. I have said again and again that banks have a difficult time proving that the loan was properly accelerated. That was the main issue in today’s foreclosure trial. Nationstar is the current loan servicer. They took over servicing several years ago when the loan was already allegedly in default. The previous loan servicer was Suntrust. Well, pursuant to paragraph 22 of the mortgage, the bank had to prove that it sent an acceleration notice to my clients. The letter was sent by Suntrust, but the witness at trial worked for Nationstar. I argued that the witness for Nationstar could not lay the foundation for the introduction of the acceleration letter that was supposedly sent by Suntrust. She did not know Suntrust’s policies and procedures for preparing or sending these letters and could not testify that Suntrust’s procedures were followed in this case. My position is supported by cases such as Glarum and Yang that discuss the introduction of records for prior companies. The court disagreed with my position, however, and found that testimony from the prior servicer was not necessary. The judge thus accepted the acceleration letter from Suntrust into evidence in the foreclosure trial. The same issue and arguments came up over the payment history and the court allowed that into evidence over my objection as well.

When it was time for cross examination, I began to cross examine the witness regarding the payment history and default letter. She testified again that the default letter was prepared and sent by Suntrust. She testified that she had reviewed everything in the foreclosure thoroughly and found no problems. However, as I kept questioning her, I finally got her to admit that she was not sure whether the amount stated in the acceleration letter was correct. As we kept going through the numbers and the payments together, I even got her to admit that Suntrust made some big mistakes and that my client cured the default at the letter required. This was huge in this foreclosure trial. The default letter said my client had to pay a certain amount. The witness finally admitted that my client paid more than that amount by making two payments that Suntrust held in a suspense account instead of applying the payments to my client’s account.

This was a great result for our clients who were facing the prospect of losing their home to foreclosure. In my 14 years of practicing law, I have never enjoyed doing anything more than helping homeowners. It is such a personally satisfying practice and I love to come to work everyday. So many South Florida residents lose their homes each day its great when we get to fight back and win. In the last 18 cases that we were going to go to trial on, 15 now have resulted in the cases either being dismissed or a judgment being entered in favor of our client. The facts of every case are different and past results do not guarantee any specific result. If you are looking to hire a foreclosure lawyer in Broward, Miami-Dade or Palm Beach, I highly recommend that you inquire about their foreclosure trial experience and ask to see some final judgments that they won their clients’ favor.

At Loan Lawyers, our foreclosure attorneys are ready to speak with you in Miami-Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach county. We have many tools we use to help homeowners save their home such as loan modification, foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, and (my favorite part) we sue banks. Call us today to schedule a free consultation in with our foreclosure attorneys.

HOA Past Due Assessments?
Home Saved

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!

Great Win!
Sale on Home Cancelled

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!

Foreclosure Denied – Victory at Trial for Homeowner

First off, I want to apologize for not blogging for the last couple of months. It been crazy fighting for homeowner rights in this pro-bank client.

On to the good stuff. I went to trial last week against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. with the best result possible for our client in foreclosure. The foreclosure trial was in Palm Beach in front of the Honorable Edward Fine. I have never tried a case with Judge Fine before. I found him to be thorough and deliberate and fair to both sides. One of the elements of the trial is whether the bank properly accelerated the mortgage. Paragraph 22 of this mortgage requires the bank to send notice to the borrower that they are in default before they can file a foreclosure action. The notice must meet certain requirements.

Now, its one thing to have the notice, but its another to introduce it into evidence. A notice of acceleration is hearsay, however, the business records exception to the hearsay rules allows the introduction of business records if the bank lays the appropriate foundation. In this trial, the bank’s witness could not testify who sent the notice. He said that it could have been Select Portfolio Servicing, or it could have been one of two vendors they use. The court did not allow the notice into evidence because the witness could not state that it was the bank’s record. It could have the vendor’s business record. Being that the witness could not state either way what happened, the court would not allow the notice of acceleration into evidence.

This was huge because without the notice of acceleration in evidence, the bank could not overcome our affirmative defense that the bank failed to meet this condition precedent. Thus, the bank was denied the foreclosure and they can not take our foreclosure client’s home. An excellent foreclosure attorney will be well versed in the rules of evidence. This is where foreclosure trials are won and lost. Our lawyers represent foreclosure clients throughout the state of Florida. The foreclosure lawyers at Loan Lawyers are all well versed in the rules of evidence and are ready to fight the bank for you.

This result would not have happened if we did not know what we are doing. I have personally been doing trials for 14 years now. I know the rules of evidence cold. If this case was being handled by a foreclosure lawyer that does not know how to try a case, its a safe bet that this would have been a very different result. I think its also worth noting that of all the trial set in the courtroom that day, I was the only foreclosure lawyer who actually fought for their client. My client was also the only one who did not lose their house that day.

When you are looking for a lawyer to handle your foreclosure case, ask to see results like this. Ask about the lawyer’s trial experience, how long she/he have been practicing, and how many cases they have actually taken to trial. Most lawyers simply agree to the foreclosure when push come to shove and the trial has been set. I love trials, it is what I was born to do. I would also love to be the lawyer handling your foreclosure. Call us today for a free consultation at (844) 344-4813.

Free consultations for foreclosure defense are available in our Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach county offices.

Florida Foreclosure Depositions are Critical if You Want to Beat the Bank

BANK UNITED AFFIDAVIT DEAD IN THE WATER AFTER THIS FORECLOSURE DEPOSITION.

One of the most important strategies in Florida foreclosure cases is to conduct discovery. This means sending written questions, or interrogatories, for the bank to answer under oath and requesting documents that the bank has regarding the loan. In this case, the bank filed an affidavit, which is a sworn statement, that says that the person signing the affidavit, the affiant, had personal knowledge regarding the loan and that Bank United owns the loan, and that the loan is in default. In this depo, we were able to establish that the affiant for Bank United actually had no personal knowledge of anything. All she did was look at a computer screen and she regurgitated what was found there. She did not enter the information into the system, did not know who entered it into the system, and has no personal knowledge if the information was accurate. Yet, she still signed an affidavit that she had personal knowledge regarding these matters. The bottom line is that you never take what the bank tells you at face value. Here is a little snippet of the depo:

Q. And in terms of all of the numbers that are
accurate, your attorney asked if you had any reason
to doubt they’re accurate. Do you have any reason to
believe they’re accurate? Because you testified
previously that you didn’t put it in, you don’t know
about the systems. I mean…

A. I rely on the system.

Q. Right. But do you have any reason to believe they are accurate?

A. I rely on the system to be accurate. That’s what I go by and review.

Q. But you have no persona! knowledge regarding the accuracy?

A. No.

Our foreclosure lawyers take depositions for our clients in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and all other Florida counties.

Federal Court Denies Bank’s Motion to Dismiss Our TILA Lawsuit

If you are facing foreclosure in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach, you need to find a law firm that is not afraid to file lawsuits against the banks. We are one of the few law firms in the state, and even in the country, that routinely files lawsuits against banks for Truth in Lending Act violations. In this case, we requested the loan servicer provide us with the name, address, and phone number of the loan owner. They sent the name and address but failed to give us the phone number. So, we filed a lawsuit against the loan owner for the servicer’s failure to provide the phone number. TILA is an odd statute and is not very well drafted. The obligation is on the servicer to provide the information, but TILA does not state you can sue the servicer. The loan owners are the one’s responsible. The loan owners have started to make the argument that since they are not the ones who failed to comply, they can not be held liable for damages. One case (not handled by us) found in favor of the loan owner on this argument. The federal court in our case held differently and denied the owner’s motion to dismiss and found that the owner is liable for the servicers failure to comply with requests under TILA. This was a huge victory. Our firm has dozens of these cases pending and are filing more on almost a weekly basis. If you have a foreclosure aw firm that this not filing lawsuits against the banks, you are not being well served, period.

We Received the Transcript from Last Week’s Miami-Dade Foreclosure Trial with Judge Schwartz – Good Reading

Here is the transcript from last week’s foreclosure trial in Miami-Dade County. The proceedings illustrate how the cards are so stacked against the homeowner. Here are the highlights from the transcript.

The bank has a defective Notice of Acceleration pursuant to Paragraph 22 of the mortgage. I wanted to keep it out of evidence because I did not believe the witness had the requisite knowledge to lay the foundation for the introduction of documents. I asked the court to voir dire the witness, meaning to question their knowledge about the bank’s record keeping practices. Here’s the exchange:

MS. SEELIE: Okay. I’d like to move to enter the demand letter as Defense Exhibit C.

MR. BAVARO: Objection. I’d like the opportunity to voir dire the witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — being?

MR. BAVARO: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(So, the court denied me the opportunity to question the witness regarding their knowledge of Bank of America’s record keeping practices. At this point I realized that no matter what my defense was, it was going to fall on deaf ears. Rather than arguing with the court at this point, I figured I would ask the questions on cross-examination that I needed to ask. Or so I thought. This is where I was denied the right to ask many questions and things started going south fast.)

+++++++++++++++++++++

Q. And, now the letter that was introduced, I believe it was Exhibit 3 entitled Notice of Intent to Accelerate. What department actually sends this letter out?

A. This is the Breach Department.

Q. And where are they located?

A. I do not know their actual physical location.

MS. SEELIE: Objection. Irrelevant. He’s not saying he personally did it

THE COURT: Sustained.

+++++++++++++++

Q. You have never seen the original Notice of 15 Intent to Accelerate, is that correct?

MS. SEELIE: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAVARO: Your Honor, if I just

THE COURT: Sustained.

(This exchange was particularly problematic because the letter that was introduced may not have been a real copy, but I was denied this line of questioning. To make matters worse, the court would not allow me to put my position on the record.)

++++++++++++++++

Q. Have you ever trained with the Breach Department before?

MS. SEELIE: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I’ve had training of the Breach Department.

MS. SEELIE: It’s irrelevant. It’s a certified copy

THE COURT: Ask another question.

MR. BAVARO: Is the question (sic) sustaining that objection?

THE COURT: Ask another question.

(Besides the fact that the bank mislead the court by saying its a certified copy when it was not, the court is seemingly blowing the defense off).

+++++++++++++++++

Q. Have you ever sent a breach letter before?

A. Me, personally?

MS. SEELIE: Objection. Irrelevant. He’s not saying that he personally did this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAVARO: Your Honor,

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAVARO: I appreciate the Court’s

THE COURT: Sustained.

(This question goes directly to the heart of whether he has the requisite knowledge to lay the foundation to introduce the acceleration notice. Not only did the court sustain the objection, he would not allow me to even state my position on the record. It was clear to me at this point the court was not interested in hearing from the homeowner, just finishing the trial as fast as he could so he could enter a final judgment for the bank. How dare a foreclosure defense attorney challenge the bank. Chutzpah!)

++++++++++++++++++

Q. What systems are in place in the Breach Department to determine whether or not the information 3 that is contained in the breach letter is accurate?

A. It’s normal business practice of the Breach Department to determine that the loan is, in fact, in default before a breach letter is sent out.

MS. SEELIE: Objection. He testified to loan payment history and specified the date that the default was. This was sent after that. He testified that date, as well.

THE COURT: So?

MS. SEELIE: So, I’m objecting to his question.

THE COURT: So?

MS. SEELIE: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Why are you — my attention? Do you have an objection to the question.

MS. SEELIE: Yeah.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(This one is almost comical. The bank’s attorney could not even spit out a valid legal objection and the court sustained a “yeah” objection. Does anyone believe at this point that the court is being impartial?)

+++++++++++++++++++

Q. And what systems are in place at the Billing Department to insure the accuracy of the information that is contained in the records?

A. Payments are input into the system at the time, the day they’re received.

Q. And what information — what systems are in place to insure the accuracy of the information?

MS. SEELIE: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Why worry about whether the banks’ information is accurate. They would never make a mistake, or worse mislead a court.)

+++++++++++++++++++

Q. Now, you’re the record’s custodian for Bank of America, correct?

MS. SEELIE: Objection. He never testified of being a record’s custodian.

THE COURT: Sustained.

+++++++++++++++++++

Q. And how many different versions of a Notice of Intent to Accelerate does Bank of America send out nationwide?

MS. SEELIE: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(This goes to the heart of the defense in this case. They used a Notice of Acceleration designed for a non-judicial foreclosure state, not a judicial state like Florida. Therefore, the never properly accelerated the loan and they can not now foreclose.)

MR. BAVARO: Your Honor, if I may –

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAVARO: I appreciate the Court sustaining but I need access to the records, Your Honor, and the Court’s not giving me an opportunity to make my argument. I have a significant –

THE COURT: Your argument is anticipated by the Court and is without merit.

(This is great – I don’t know what your argument is, but whatever it is, its without merit. In other words, my mind is made up that I’m finding in favor of the bank, stop wasting my time)

MR. BAVARO: I don’t know that the Court has ever heard the argument that I’m about to make actually, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Why don’t you make it?

MR. BAVARO: Absolutely, Your Honor. What they have is they have a defective Notice of Acceleration in this case. They used the Notice of Acceleration in use for non-judicial foreclosure states. This is not an Acceleration Notice which complies with Paragraph 22 of the mortgage we’re here today, nor does it comply with Florida Law. There are a number of courts throughout the State that have addressed this issue specifically with the Bank of America Notice of Acceleration that we have in this case. I have approximately twelve orders from other courts that have examined this issue and have all found in favor of the homeowner because they found that the Notice of Acceleration is not compliant with Paragraph 22.

THE COURT: And — does not comply?

MR. BAVARO: That’s where I’m trying to go, Your Honor.

MS. SEELIE: Just read it.

THE COURT: It’s either there or it’s not there.

MR. BAVARO: Well, that’s why I was trying to do was read it.

THE COURT: Read it.

MR. BAVARO: Yes, Your Honor. What is says in this case, Your Honor, is that you have the right to bring a court action to assert the nonexistence of default or any other defense you have to acceleration of foreclosure. So, what this Notice of Acceleration is doing, it’s requiring the borrower to actually file a lawsuit against the bank in order to raise the defenses. The notice provision in Paragraph 22 of the subject mortgage does not require the homeowner to actually file an action in order to assert defenses. In fact, what the notice in Paragraph 22 states or the requirements in Paragraph 22 say that the notice must state that, in fact, the borrower has the right to raise the defenses in the foreclosure proceedings.

THE COURT: And what is the result?

MR. BAVARO: The found in favor of the homeowner, judgment for homeowner, judgment for defendant.

THE COURT: So, they remain in the house without paying?

MR. BAVARO: Your Honor, the issue here is –

THE COURT: Is that true? And so the foreclosure does not proceed?

MR. BAVARO: Well, the question is who’s fault is that?

THE COURT: Is that true or not?

MR. BAVARO: It is true that is what due process requires. Yes, Your Honor, the bank is the Plaintiff and just like in any other case, the bank has an affirmative duty to prove a prima fascia (sic) case and while it might — I apologize, Your Honor.

THE COURT: In my opinion, as a matter of law, the contents of the breach letter are not pertinent to the issues of whether the bank or any lender has a right to foreclose. The filing of the lawsuit itself is a sufficient Notice of Acceleration.

(What the judge is saying here is that he does not care if there is a defense, if the homeowner is not paying their mortgage, he is going to foreclose regardless of whether the bank has followed the law or not. The judge said “The filing of the lawsuit itself is a sufficient Notice of Acceleration”. This is contrary to every appellate opinion that has come out in Florida related to acceleration notices. Dominko v. Wells Fargo, 2012 WL 6027789b (Fla 4th DCA), Judy v. MCMC Venture, 2012 WL5935651 (Fla. 4th DCA), Zervas v. Wells Fargo, 93 So.3d 453 (Fla 2d 2012), Cerron v. GMAC (93 So.3d 4556 (Fla 2d DCA 2012), Bryson v. BB&T, 75 So.3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), Taylor v. Bayview Loan Servicing, 74 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), Laurencio v. Deutsche Bank, 65 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). This is a list of just some of the cases that say a bank must send a proper notice of acceleration. There is not one case that says the filing of the foreclosure action is sufficient to accelerate the mortgage. This does not make any sense because part of the acceleration notice is giving the homeowner 30 days to cure the default! By the court making this statement, it is clear that the law does not matter, the judge will take the bank’s word as truth and that the end of the story. In my opinion, how can any judge be fair to homeowners when they do not even require any notice of acceleration, just a lawsuit? In other words, just the fact that the bank filed a foreclosure action means they win?)

++++++++++++++++++++

(This is where the court started to patronize me)

MR. BAVARO: Yes. It is, Your Honor. It’s not related to Paragraph 22. I think I’ve made my position clear, the Court has clearly made your ruling clear and I respect it and I will not ask any other questions about that. If the Court would allow me to move on to the issue of standing. I have maybe five to ten questions and then I’m done.

THE COURT: This is even better. How does this man know anything about this?

MR. BAVARO: The standing? He’s the witness for Plaintiff, I would hope he would know something.

(The bank has to prove standing, meaning the legally ability to foreclose. The judge did not want to me to ask any questions about this. The court asked how the witness would know anything about standing. Huh? He is the bank’s only witness and since the bank has to prove standing, who else am I going to ask?)
+++++++++++++++++++

(Here’s where the judge started to get personal)

MS. SEELIE: There’s absolutely not issue of standing.

THE COURT: Just a minute. Counsel, we’re dealing here with Benjamin Cardoza III (phonetic) so we have to be very precise.

MR. BAVARO: Your Honor – You know what, at this time, Your Honor, I believe that the Court has slighted me and I will make an ore tenus motion to recuse Your Honor and to continue this trial in front of another judge. I don’t believe that the Court calling me Benjamin Cardoza III and frankly I don’t know how it’s going to look on the record. I don’t believe it was said in a very nice way and I do not believe that my client is receiving a fair trial. I will — if the Court would like me to make a written motion, I have a pad here and I will be happy to do a written motion. I would ask that the Court recuse itself.

THE COURT: You may file whatever you wish to file. Is there anything further?

MR. BAVARO: I have other questions for the witness. Can I ask the Court to give me a moment just to write up this motion recusing and ask the Court to rule on it first?

THE COURT: I thought that was a big compliment.

MR. BAVARO: I don’t believe that it was said in a manner intended to be complimentary, Your Honor.

At this point, the judge recused himself.

++++++++++++++++++++

(At this point, the court reporter got up and the judge starting in on me. I asked the court reporter to get it on the record. She got some of it, but not all of it.)

(Off the record.)

(Back on the record.)

THE COURT: You take yourself too seriously, much too seriously. You will have a very short and unhappy career. (Thereupon, the hearing was concluded.)

(Well judge, I do take helping people from getting victimized by banks seriously. I also take the rule of law seriously and I believe that when a bank does not follow the law they should not be rewarded. )

Although this was not a pleasant exchange for me, I will continue to stand up for my clients. As for me having a very short and unhappy career, was that a threat by the judge? I am not sure but it certainly can be taken that way. Fortunately I am at this for over 13 years and my career is as happy as can be. I am lucky to do what I love for a living and my future continues to look bright because I will always stand up for what I believe is right.

Do you the my client was receiving a fair trial? Do you think the judge leveled a threat to me? Comments welcome.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Violations and Modification
Loan Modification and Foreclosure Cancelled

We were hired by our client to defend their home against foreclosure. The case was actively litigated for some time and the case was nearing trial, however during a routine review of the documents associated with the case it was discovered that the client’s creditor had mailed certain documents with technical errors relating to the amounts due upon the mortgage and when precisely those sums came due we filed a lawsuit against the creditor for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We were ultimately able to resolve the client’s foreclosure action with a modification of their loan a short time afterwards.

Elkouby Case Study

In Re Elkouby – Client filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection because his home was in foreclosure and he was seeking a fresh start. In all chapter 7 filings, debtors are required to state their intention on how they propose to treat their secured creditors, in a document referred as Statement of Intention. In the instant case, the client indicated that he would be surrendering his interests in the property which was in the midst of a foreclosure. During the Course of the bankruptcy the lender sought permission from the bankruptcy court to proceed with the foreclosure action. Our client performed all of his duties under the bankruptcy and received his discharge – allowing him the proverbial fresh start of being debt free.

The lender continued with its foreclosure action and Loan Lawyers continued to represent the borrower in his foreclosure – including serving discovery requests on his lender forcing them to prove they had proper standing to foreclose on his property. Rather than proving that they had standing to foreclose, the Lender returned to the bankruptcy court asking the court to force him to stop actively defending the foreclosure.

Several bankruptcy Judges have held that, if you surrender a property in your Chapter 7, you should not be allowed to oppose the foreclosure action following your bankruptcy. Our firm vehemently disagrees with this position believing it has no statutory basis. Our client had a legal right to force his lender to prove they had the proper standing to foreclose on his property and as such, our firm fought his lender’s attempts. The Court sided in our client’s favor and denied the lender’s request to stop his opposition to the bank’s foreclosure. Our client and our firm continue to put the onus on his lender to prove they are allowed to foreclosure on his property.

This is just one example where Creditors attempt to circumvent their responsibilities by taking advantage of technicalities in the bankruptcy courts. It is important that you consult with an attorney to ensure your rights are protected. Our client would have been forced to allow a foreclosure sale of his home without opposition without our help.

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.

Don’t Contact Our Clients!

Loan Lawyers was currently representing one of our client’s for his foreclosure and we notified his mortgage company that we were now his attorneys and they should no longer be contacting him. Once a party to a lawsuit has an attorney, all correspondences must go through their attorney.

The client’s mortgage servicer was aware of the fact that we represented the client but continued to send the Client monthly mortgage statements and other written correspondence in the mail. The mortgage servicer also called our client a number of times to discuss modification options. We filed a lawsuit against the mortgage servicer for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, specifically Florida Statute §559.72(18) for communicating with a person known to be represented by counsel in regards to the collection of a debt as well as pursuant to Florida Statute §559.72(7) in that the mortgage servicer had called our client an excessive number of times.

The mortgage servicer filed a motion to dismiss alleging that they were not trying to collect a debt, but merely attempting to enforce a security interest. A Broward County Court judge did not find the argument of the mortgage servicer persuasive and denied their motion. The Mortgage Servicer resisted responding to our discovery, resulting in several orders compelling them to respond. On the eve of trial the mortgage servicer settled the case by agreeing to pay our client statutory damages, actual damages, as well as paying all their attorney fees and costs. Loan Lawyers are trial attorneys and the debt collectors, banks, and loan servicers know that we won’t back down and will fight for our clients until the end. As a result of our hard work and diligence, justice was served and another happy client prevailed.

We Beat Bank of America Today in Another Foreclosure Trial

In yet another case, we beat the bank. We had a foreclosure trial in Palm Beach county this morning against Bank of America and we obtained another great result. The banks and their lawyers are so disorganized that they just fall apart so often in these cases. A competent foreclosure defense trial attorney will know how to capitalize on their mistakes.

In this morning’s case, the client has was originally served with the foreclosure in 2008. The original plaintiff was Countrywide and then Bank of America substituted in. These foreclosure cases can be great to go to trial on because these old cases have the worst paperwork. The bank originally said they lost the note but then dismissed their lost note count and brought the original note to the trial. The problem or the bank was that the indorsements on the note had been altered after the lawsuit was filed. When the bank attempted to introduce the note into evidence at trial, I objected because it was not the same note that was attached to the complaint. Oooops.

The court agreed with me and sustained my objection. Guess what? No note in evidence = no foreclosure. The bank was forced at that point to conceded and they dismissed their case in mid-trial. Issues like this come up all of the time and you need to make sure that you have a quality foreclosure defense attorney representing you if you want to have any chance of beating the bank at your foreclosure trial. I have been litigating cases now for about 14 years, so needless to say, I am no rookie when it comes to trials and evidence.

If you have a foreclosure case pending or a foreclosure trial coming up, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet you in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach county to discuss your case and how we may be able to help you. Call our office to get an appointment one of our foreclosure defense attorneys today. We handle cases throughout the state of Florida and have office in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach. Put the firm with the proven track record to work for you!

Court Upholds Homeowners’ Right to Have Their TILA Case Against The Loan Servicer Decided by a Jury

Does a borrower have a right to a jury trial for a claim brought for violation of the Truth in Lending Act? This is becoming a hot topic in Truth in lending Act litigation. For those of you who regularly follow our blog, you know that Loan Lawyers sues banks for TILA violations in Florida. (We recently had a bank complaining in court that we are filing too many lawsuits. Hey, just tell the TRUTH to borrowers and we won’t sue you, its that simple). Under most if not all mortgages, the borrowers agree that they will not be able to have a jury hear the case if they sue. A judge will make the final decision instead of a jury comprised of a member of the public.

Well, in this case, we made a claim against the loan owner, Deutsche Bank Trust Company of the Americas as trustee for The RALI Series 2007-QS8 Trust and the servicer Wells Fargo. If one of our foreclosure clients has a TILA case, we are going to file that lawsuit. The two defendants filed a motion to strike our client’s demand for a jury trial. We agreed that the jury waiver would apply to the loan owner, but not Wells Fargo as the servicer. The loan owner is the assignee of the originating lender, so presumably the jury trial waiver would apply to them. However, Wells Fargo is not a party to the contract, they are the servicer of the loan and our clients never had any written arrangement with them.

The Federal judge went through a very detailed analysis of the Constitutional right to a jury trial and the mortgage itself and agreed with us that Wells Fargo is not a party to the contract, thus Wells Fargo can not escape a jury trial. This is a great opinion. Of course Wells Fargo does not want a jury trial. Let’s face it, banks do not exactly have a great reputation in this country and they would be very concerned letting members of the public make a decision on a lawsuit against them. Our foreclosure attorneys want nothing more than to get these cases in front of juries.

At Loan Lawyers, our foreclosure attorneys in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties sue banks and servicer for many types of consumer protection violations. In fact, the vast majority of reported opinions on TILA in Federal and Florida state court are from cases that we handled personally. If you think that bank has lied to you or violated your consumer rights, our office handles these cases on a contingency fee basis, so there are no fees or costs if we do not obtain a recovery for you. Call us today to schedule a free consultation with one of our lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach.

This May be the Best Loan Modification that the Attorneys at Loan Lawyers Have Ever Seen
Over an 80% Principle Reduction!

That’s some serious savings in the monthly payment. The principle and interest payment went from $1,366.88 to $287.16! This is after the homeowner made no payments for over three years.

The principle went from $279,739.99 to $47,000!Granted the interest rate is 6%, but that is nothing to complain about with a principle reduction of this magnitude. I’ve actually never seen a principle reduction over over 80% before.

While results like this can never be guaranteed, if you want a chance to see results like this, you need to hire an aggressive law firm that is not afraid to go after the banks and will put up a fight for you. If you go with a pretender defender, you’ll get what you pay for.

Our foreclosure and consumer protection attorneys are there ready to fight to help save your home. We offer free consultations in Broward (Fort Lauderdale / Plantation), Miami-Dade (North Miami Beach / Coral Gables) and Palm Beach (Delray Beach). Our lawyers are trained to know how to litigate foreclosure cases and we are not afraid to go to trial against the bank.

In fact, I personally have about 10 trials against banks in the next 10 weeks. Ought to be interesting! As always, we are up for the challenge and look forward to fighting for our clients.

With that, I am now turning off the computer and will begin enjoying some time off to recharge the batteries.

Court Finds that National Banking Act Does Not Pre-Empt State Claims for Debt Collection Violations

We filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo for attempting to collect the mortgage debt directly from our client by calling him after the bank had knowledge that we represented him. Not only that, but we specifically revoked any authorization for Wells Fargo to contact our client on his cell phone. Wells Fargo called anyway. They violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by calling in the first place and they violated theTelephone Consumer Protection Act by placing a robo-call to the cell phone. So, like we do to any bank that violates our clients’ consumer protection rights, we filed suit against Well Fargo.

My hat’s off to Well Fargo on this one. They filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the National Banking Act pre-empts the state FCCPA claim. They argued that because the federal government regulated banking through the National Banking Act that that pre-empts, or supersedes, any state claim relating to banking, including collecting past due mortgage payments. It was a very creative argument. If Wells Fargo was correct, it would eliminate a homeowner’s ability to sue in state court for debt collection violations. This would have huge implications nationwide. However, the federal judge ruled that the while National Banking Act regulates banking, it does not pre-empt state debt collection laws.

As a side note, the court dismissed the TCPA claim because the court ruled we need to allege that the calls were made electronically. So, we have already amended the complaint to include that allegation.

As I have said time and time again, lawsuits against the banks are key. They violate consumers’ right every single day. They have no problem suing homeowners for foreclosure, and more homeowners and foreclosure lawyers need to fight back. We offer free consultations in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach with our foreclosure and consumer protection attorneys

Consumer Wins $6000 Lawsuit

Our client received a lawsuit from a debt-buyer as to an old credit card debt which the debt-collector claimed was due. The lawsuit itself contained a number of flaws and defects. We prepared a lawsuit against the debt-collector for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and vigorously pursued all legal defenses available to our client in the case. As the case continued to progress and the debt-collector realized the increasing likelihood that (1)they would likely lose the case, (2)they would likely have to pay our client for harassing them and (3)they would likely have to pay our attorney fees. Rather than face the risk of paying an amount of attorney fees which dwarfed the amount they sued our client for, they agreed to drop the lawsuit and pay a settlement to our client for harassing them. Our client was pleased with the outcome of the case.

The Importance of a Court Reporter
Home Saved

Unfortunately, South Florida has one of the highest rates of foreclosure in the Country. As such, Judges presiding in Foreclosure Court are pressured to “move cases” as fast as possible out of Court. This generally means Banks are improperly favored by the presiding Judges at the expense of homeowners facing foreclosure. Therefore, in order to properly protect a homeowner facing foreclosure, it is highly recommended homeowners pay the nominal fee to hire a court reporter for important, dispositive hearings.

We have a client that was facing a foreclosure in Miami-Dade. The Bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit and we filed an Opposition with an affidavit arguing a whole host of genuine issues of material fact. Unfortunately, the Judge at the hearing was not keen on listening to the arguments and wrongfully granted Judgment against our client. Thank God the client listened to my sound counsel and hired a court reporter for the hearing. We promptly filed a Motion for Rehearing and the Motion for Rehearing was granted in part. Our client again listened to my counsel and had a court reporter at the Motion for Rehearing. As a result of a Court reporter being present at the hearings, we were able preserve the record and ordered the transcript at the hearings. It was clear from the transcript the presiding Judge did not follow the law. Our client thankfully decided to appeal the Judge’s decision and the appeal ensued. I anticipate the Judge will be reversed on appeal, since the record very clearly shows the bank did not have possession of the note at the time of filing. If our client refused to hire a court reporter, she would be at risk of losing her house at the hands of an improper ruling by a pressured and unfortunately stressed Judge.

Swift Victory for Consumer
Ceased Collection

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.

Consumer Beats Mortgage Creditor

Our client was a member of the public and a borrower upon an alleged mortgage debt. Our office represented our client in a foreclosure action, an attempt to take their home for supposedly not paying a mortgage. While this was occurring the mortgage company continued to send our client bills in the mail every month, something forbidden by the Fair Debt Collection Practices act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. We filed a lawsuit against the mortgage creditor for what amounts to harassment. Just because our client may have owed money to the mortgage creditor does not mean that they can simply violate the law. Realizing that they were going to lose the harassment case, the mortgage creditor decided to give up and simply pay our client for their harassment of them.

Even though our client may have owed the mortgage creditor money, they will now be receiving a payment from the mortgage creditor as a consequence of their unlawful and illegal conduct.

Just because you may owe someone money does not mean that you do not have any rights. If a creditor is treating you poorly, they may have violated consumer protection laws and you should consider contacting an attorney. Our office offers free consultations and we would be happy to discuss your legal issues with you and determine if you have any claims.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

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

Stop Foreclosure Morning of Sale

Client is retired, had been paying another law firm monthly to try to obtain a mortgage modification. After a year of submitting documents and making payments, client was hit with devastating news by her former counsel letting her know that a foreclosure sale was taking place in just two days. Former counsel tried to cancel the foreclosure sale in foreclosure court but the motion was denied just two days before the sale date. Client came to us the day before the foreclosure sale and after gathering the necessary information, we successfully filed her chapter 13 bankruptcy case the morning of the foreclosure sale and stopped the sale in its tracks. Now that the bankruptcy was filed, the debtor does not have to worry about the lender aggressively trying to race her to the finish line, while she comes current on the arrears in a comfortable five year payment plan.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us to see 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
Debt Removed from Credit Report

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.

State Court Rules in Our Client’s Favor that Wells Fargo as Trustee is Responsible for the Servicer’s Failure to Comply with TILA

We just received a ruling from a Florida County Court Judge finding that Wells Fargo (as trustee for a mortgage backed security) is vicariously liable for the servicer’s failure to comply with Section 1641(f)(2) of TILA (Truth in Lending Act). This is believed to be the first reported order in a Florida State Court for a 1641(f)(2) claim. Basically the Dodd-Frank Amendments to TILA were not the most artfully Federal statutes. These amendments, amongst other things, gave a borrower the right to sue a loan owner for TILA violations. However, the duty to comply with TILA rests with the servicer, not the loan owner, in many instances. So, we sue the loan owner for the servicer’s failure to live up to the TILA obligations. The loan owners typically argue in court, as Wells Fargo did in this case, that they can’t be held responsible for the servicer’s failure to comply. The vast majority of courts in this country have found that the loan owners are vicariously liable, however. Of all of the cases that have been filed in Florida state and Federal courts, Loan Lawyers has handled all of them except for one and most of the courts have ruled in our clients’ favor on the issue of vicarious liability.

This order is very written and very thorough in its listing of cases that have addressed this issue. Loan Lawyers is proud to be spearheading the effort in Florida and around the country to find loan owners liable for TILA violations. ITS TIME TO PUT THE TRUTH BACK INTO THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

If you think that your lender has violated TILA, give Loan Lawyers a call for your free consultation. Our foreclosure and TILA attorneys are available for consultations in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach.

Consumer Beats Auto Lawsuit

Our client was sued over a loan allegedly made for the sale of a car. According to the creditor, our client purchased a car, took out a loan and then failed to repay it. We fought back against the lawsuit alleging that the debt was beyond the expiration date of a debt, also known as the statute of limitations.

While there are many exceptions and determining the precise date that the statute of limitations runs can be complicated, many debts will eventually expire if no charges or payments are made, as was the case here. We also argued in response to the lawsuit that the vehicle was sold in a commercially unreasonable manner. According to the documents attached to the lawsuit, after the vehicle was repossessed, it was sold for only a tiny fraction of the sale amount, so we alleged that if any debt was due at all, the amount was wrong.

The creditor engaged in a variety of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We also raised arguments as to whether or not the company suing our client actually owned the loan. In the mortgage crisis where loans for homes were packaged up, carved up and sold in pieces, the same thing happens for auto loans and many companies harassing members of the public over auto loans may not actually be the company who own them. We fought back very aggressively in the case and the creditor agreed to drop their lawsuit and leave our client alone.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud. Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

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

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.

Sorry Bank, Wrong Address

Plaintiff, US Bank NA, Trustee…for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2004-HE6 filed a complaint against Charles and Wylene Ellington on February 27, 2013. The clients retained Loan Lawyers on March 12, 2013. The case proceeded through normal litigation, including Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Defendant’s Discovery, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The case was placed on inactive status on September 30, 2014 for loan modification/loss mitigation review. Loan modification and loss mitigation eventually failed and the case was set for trial on February 15, 2015. After several continuances, the trial eventually proceeded on October 22, 2015.

The primary issue at trial was compliance with conditions precedent regarding the Acceleration Letter. The property address is 4267 NW 34thTerr., Lauderdale Lake, FL 33309. The Acceleration Letter was allegedly sent to 4267N 34th Ter., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309. The Judge allowed all of Plaintiff’s evidence in, but ultimately upheld Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal because the letter was not sent to the proper notice/property address.

Plaintiff eventually filed a Motion for Rehearing, which Defendant’s responded with a Motion to Strike and/or Response to the Motion for Rehearing. Plaintiff argued that a simple Google search would reveal that “4267 NW” and “4267N” lead to the same address. Plaintiff also requested the Court to reopen the case to allow for additional testimony from a US Post Office employee regarding their mailing procedures as well as supplemental business records from Plaintiff. Defendant’s response argued that a Motion for Rehearing was procedurally inappropriate, in that asking the Court to reopen the case to allow additional testimony and evidence was outside the scope what case law would permit. Additionally, Defendant’s argued that allowing the Plaintiff to correct their mistakes and have a second bite at the apple would be inherently unfair and prejudicial to Defendants.

The Court ultimately sided with the Defendants and entered an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing on February 1, 2016. The Defendants are currently waiting to see if the Plaintiff files an appeal, but absent that, the Defendants are very happy with the results and eager to work on recovering attorney’s fees. Another win for Loan Lawyers and their clients!

Client defaulted on the loan by failing to make an installment payment

Our client, K.R. took out a Note in 2016. Later in 2016, due to a change in financial circumstances, K.R. defaulted on the loan by failing to make an installment payment and in early 2017, the Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action claiming to be the holder of the Note. Attached to their Complaint was a copy of the Note and Mortgage. The copy of the Note attached to the Complaint was made payable to the original lender/Plaintiff.

The litigation was fairly standard. K.R. filed Affirmative Defenses to which the Plaintiff did not reply, however the Plaintiff did move to strike some of the Affirmative Defenses, which was granted in part. In late 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the accompanying affidavits. The Motion for Summary Judgment was set for hearing in early 2018.

Prior to the Summary Judgment hearing, K.R. filed their opposition and accompanying affidavits. In general, standing, conditions precedent and damages were challenged. In particularly, K.R. questioned whether the Plaintiff’s own affidavit qualifies as an exception to hearsay, whether proof of conditions precedent was present, perhaps most importantly, whether the Plaintiff could prove the amount of damages they sought.

Inexplicably, the Plaintiff failed to include a copy of the ledgers/payment history with their own affidavit supporting summary judgment. This issue was directly challenged in K.R.’s opposition and argued at the Summary Judgment Hearing. Unfortunately, and for unknown reasons, the trial Judge decided to grant Summary Judgment for the Plaintiff anyways. K.R. immediately filed an appeal.

Upon filing the appeal, Plaintiff hired additional counsel to look over the merits of the appeal. Thankfully, their new counsel recognized that notwithstanding K.R.’s additional reasons to oppose summary judgment, without at least a payment history provided to support the damages Plaintiff sought, the summary judgment would be overturned on appeal. Instead of going through the lengthy process of appealing the summary judgment, Plaintiff’s new counsel proposed the idea of vacating the summary judgment and dismissing the appeal. This serves everyone best as it cuts back on unnecessary litigation over a pretty clear-cut error and gives K.R. the opportunity to continue defending his home. Moreover, with the new Plaintiff’s counsel, K.R. has been invited to try again for a modification or to explore other options available to help them keep their home.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud. Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

Results may not be typical.

Case Study by Sonja-Lucienne Cajuste, Esq.
Foreclosure Dismissed

In November 2014, a close-knit Church retained us to assist them in a foreclosure lawsuit. The Church’s mortgage was on the verge of maturing within a few weeks and they were unable to make their monthly payments, let alone pay off the loan. With our professional assistance and guidance, we were able to work out a favorable settlement with the Lender. We were able to negotiate an affordable repayment plan whereby the Church was given the opportunity to pay the past due amount, while continuing to make monthly payments. Also, we were successful in extending the maturity date of the loan. The foreclosure lawsuit was dismissed and the sale date was vacated.

Car Debt Drives Off
Creditors Stopped Pursuing

We were hired by our client to defend a lawsuit filed against them to collect the deficiency of an auto loan. Our client was alleged to have purchased a vehicle and not made all payments on the vehicle, resulting in the vehicle being repossessed. Allegedly, the vehicle was then sold at auction, leaving a balance due on the vehicle. Our client was not sued by the lender, but by a company who claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the lender. We vigorously defended our client’s rights in this matter. The amount sought in the case was substantial. Creditors such as the plaintiff in this case generally buy debts for small sums. The plaintiff in the case realized that the costs involved in fully proving their case were so cost prohibitive as to make pursuing our client a loss for them and ultimately agreed to stop pursuing our client.

Shortened Prejudice Period to Stop Foreclosure Sale Once More

Client had filed chapter 13 bankruptcy twice before but was unable to complete the cases because she had lost her job and fell behind on the plan payments. Her most recent case was dismissed with prejudice of 180 days, which means she cannot file bankruptcy again until after 180 days (6 months). This would be okay if there is no emergency; however, in this case, client’s home was in foreclosure and a foreclosure sale was scheduled right in the middle of this waiting period. The foreclosure court was unwilling to cancel or postpone the sale because it had been canceled multiple times before. Client was stuck and feared being left out on the street by the aggressive homeowners’ association.

We filed a motion to shorten the prejudice period, seeking permission from the court to file bankruptcy again before the expiration of the prejudice period. The homeowner’s association strongly opposed our motion and additionally, sought to extend the waiting period by an additional 60 days, arguing that the debtor has filed bankruptcy a couple of times before, canceled the sale many times, and was acting in bad faith. We argued to the court that the debtor was acting in good faith, made many payments in the previous bankruptcies, but unfortunately was dismissed because she lost her job in the middle of the case and was unable to afford the payments any longer; however, debtor has since found a new comparable job and is prepared to complete this bankruptcy and make the payments. The judge granted our motion to shorten the prejudice period and denied the HOA’s motion to extend the prejudice period; therefore, we were able to file client’s bankruptcy in time to stop the sale.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us to see how we may be able to help you. Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result.

Served Cold

HOA filed a case against an existing client in violation of the law concerning subject matter jurisdiction at the time. The case law interpreting the existing law changed more than 100 days after an order was entered in our favor dismissing the HOA’s case with prejudice. The HOA, who had vowed to come after us following the dismissal, then filed a crazy motion for reconsideration, which was totally impermissible under the case law and rules. I filed a 6 page response bulldozing their argument as being not only impermissible but also sanction worthy. The Court agreed, denied their motion for reconsideration/rehearing. In addition, as a result of the HOA trying to collect upon a debt they were not entitle to collect upon, I had our firm file an FDCPA action against the HOA’s law firm. It’s great to be a part of such a versatile team.

Score Another One for the Good Guys. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss Our TILA Claim Denied.

We scored another victory in our continuing quest to hold banks responsible for Truth in Lending Act violations. In this case, we requested the name, address and phone number of the owner or master servicer of the mortgage loan. The servicer responded with the name of the owner, but the address and phone number of the servicer. A borrower has the right to know how to to contact their loan owner directly, but the servicer in this case tried to pull a fast one by giving their address and phone number instead of the owners.

The bank made several arguments on why our TILA lawsuit should be dismissed. First, they argued that they complied by providing the address of the servicer. The court did not by that argument. Next, they argued that the loan owner can not be responsible for the servicer’s misdeeds. This is an argument that they make in every case and has been denied once again. Lastly they argued that the Truth in Lending Act is unconstitutional. This was likewise denied.

Florida homeowners: You have rights, start exercising them. Show the banks you mean business and you are not afraid to sue them if they violate the law. At Loan Lawyers, we sue banks throughout the State of Florida for Truth in Lending Act violations and debt collection violations, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Protection Practices Act. We file these cases on a contingency fee basis, so there’s no fees or costs unless we are successful.

Call us today to schedule a free consultations with one of our attorneys in Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, Delray Beach, North Miami Beach, or Coral Gables.

Broward County Judge Allows Loan Lawyers To Pursue Punitive Damages Against Bank Of America

Congratulations to our associate Chezky Rodal. He is suing Bank of America in Broward County, Florida for debt collection violations and the court is allowing him to pursue punitive damages. Our clients were paying their mortgage on time every month. Bank of America started sending letters that they were accelerating the mortgage and was about to put them into foreclosure. They sent proof that they made all of their payments to the bank who completely ignored the fact that the clients had cancelled checks. The foreclosure threat was always hanging over our clients’ head. This went on for about one and half years. Our clients made over 700 calls to Bank of America to get this resolved. Finally, Bank of America admitted they were wrong.

This situation was a nightmare for our client. Imagine being threatened with foreclosure when you never missed a payment and then having to call the bank multiple times every day for one and a half years to get it resolved. In the meantime, one of our clients suffered very significant life-threatening health issues. While she was suffering from a horrible disease and trying to recover this ordeal was really taking a toll. It also took a toll on her husband and son who were praying for their matriarch to be healthy all while trying to stop the threats of foreclosure from the bank. They decided to seek legal help and came to Loan Lawyers, LLC to sue Bank of America for them.

There are generally two types of damages, compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are ordinary damages that result from a party breaching some duty. For example, in this matter, we are seeking compensatory damages for our clients’ pain and suffering. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are intended to punish a party. These damages are reserved for the most egregious of cases. In fact, in Florida, you can not seek punitive damages with the court first determining that there exists a basis to do so. The court determined in this case that if the jury rules in our favor for the debt collection violation, they will then consider whether Bank of America’s conduct was so egregious that they should be punished. The jury will have to determine what amount of money will punish Band of America. We will actually get to put the net worth of the bank into evidence so the jury can determine what amount of money it will take to punish them. Bank of America reports about $179Billion in equity.

If you have been victimized by any bank, creditor, debt collector, or any other lender, we want to know about it. We sue banks for various debt collection and Truth in Lending Act violations. All of these cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, so there’s no attorneys’ fees or costs unless we are successful in recovering compensation for you. You may have a case worth tens of thousands of dollars or more and you don’t even know it.

At Loan Lawyers, our mission is to fight for those in debt. We provide aggressive legal representation so that those in debt can stand up against banks, debt collectors, and big corporations. Call us today is you are being harassed. We handle these cases statewide and offer free consultations in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach with our lawyers who sue banks and debt collectors.

(844) 344-4813

Saving Client’s Home by Settling His Homeowner Association (HOA) Foreclosure Case
Huge Reduction

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.

Saved Our Client’s House with Aggressive Pleading!
Saved Our Client's Home

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.

Bombshell TILA Order – The First Time in the Country a Court Has Found a Private Cause of Action Against a Loan Owner for a Serv

This is a huge opinion with huge implications. We sued Fannie Mae on a two count complaint. I will address both counts, but I will start with the most significant, Count II. We sued Fannie Mae in Count II for the servicer’s (Seterus) failure to respond to a pay-off request. We sued for a violation of Regulation Z, section § 226.36(c). We argued that liability and private cause of action rests in 15 U.S.C. § 1639(l)(2) which states “The Bureau, by regulation or order, shall prohibit acts or practices in connection with mortgage loans that the Bureau finds to be unfair, deceptive or designed to evade the provisions.” Well, a violation of § 226.36(c) has been found by the Board to be unfair. Therefore, there should a private right of action. This argument gets fairly technical so I won’t bore you with the gory details, but you can click the link at the end of this post and read the order for yourself. There has never been a court in this country that has found a loan owner liable for this violation of this section until this TILA lawsuit filed by Loan Lawyers. This is a huge opinion and should open the floodgates to further litigation against the banks who continue to ignore the law and violate borrower rights. Will other lawyers start to sue banks for TILA violations???? Hello…wake up my legal brethren and start standing up for your clients’ rights!

On to Count I. This count was unfortunately dismissed, but we have filed a motion for reconsideration and we expect that the court will reverse itself on this issue. We sent a request to Seterus asking for the name, address, and phone number of the master servicer. The response that Seterus sent said that Fannie Mae “contracted with Seterus to collect payments and respond to inquiries regarding the loan.” However, the response did not state that they were the master servicer. The court found that the language used was sufficient to show that Seterus was the master servicer of the loan. The basis for our argument is that the MERS print-out stats that Seterus is the sub-servicer not the master servicer. Also somewhat of a technical argument and one which we expect to prevail on. So, did Fannie Mae mislead the court into believing that Seterus was the master servicer? We’ll find out one way or another and if so, Fannie Mae will be in a lot of trouble with the court.

If you are in foreclosure and paying a lawyer to represent you, ask yourself “Is my lawyer looking for violations of TILA and other consumer protection statutes and willing to sue the bank on a contingency fee basis?” If the answer is “no”, its probably time to look for a lawyer who is not afraid to fight the bank in court and take your case all the way.

Our foreclosure lawyers offer free consultations in Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, Delray Beach, North Miami Beach, and Coral Gables. We offer affordable payment plans and all of our plaintiff consumer cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, so there are no fees or costs unless we are successful in obtaining a recovery for you.

Your house is too important to trust to someone who is not properly equipped and trained to represent you in foreclosure proceedings. Our foreclosure attorneys have the skills and experience to effectively fight for you. We handle cases in all Florida counties, not just Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Call us today at 1-888-FIGHT-13 to schedule your FREE consultation with one of our lawyers.

Sale Cancelled

Client was faced with a foreclosure sale on her homestead property 16 days from the day she retained Loan Lawyers, LLC to attempt to save her house through a cure and maintain in a bankruptcy case. This allows the homeowner to pay the arrears over a 60-month period while making their regular mortgage payment. However, client had previously filed a total of three bankruptcy cases in the two years preceding this potential case – each of which was dismissed.

Understanding that much had to be done in the 16 days leading up to Debtor’s sale, Loan Lawyers immediately filed two emergency motions, one to re-open Debtor’s most recent filing and a second seeking to shorten the prejudice period prohibiting Debtor from instantly filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Generally, when a case is dismissed, its dismissed with a 180-day prejudice period. This is to prevent serial filings and to deter people from abusing the bankruptcy courts. Debtor had faced many personal situations which impaired her ability to successfully move forward with this dismissed case and Loan Lawyers thoroughly explained Debtor’s situation. Loan Lawyers further stressed that the foreclosure sale was scheduled on Debtor’s primary and only residence. Fortunately, both motions were granted and Debtor was permitted to instantly file a fourth bankruptcy case.

Debtor’s sale date was not yet cancelled, however. The Bankruptcy Code holds that a second (or third) bankruptcy case filed within a year is filed in bad faith and it is up to the Debtor to prove otherwise. As the debtor had three active cases within a one-year period, and fourth overall, the filing of Debtor’s case did not impose an automatic stay and her mortgage lender was free to move forward with the sale date despite a filed bankruptcy. To correct this situation, Loan Lawyers filed a Motion to Impose the Automatic Stay and made similar arguments in hopes of having Debtor’s motion granted. Debtor’s motion was granted and her sale date was ultimately cancelled.

This is just one case that outlines the risks associated with multiple bankruptcy filings. On your first filing, the Court affords you all of the benefits of a bankruptcy automatically, such as the automatic stay and any necessary extensions to complete your documents. However, should this first case be dismissed and multiple cases are necessary, the Court increases the burden on the Debtor to provide why they are a Debtor who should benefit from the bankruptcy system. This leads to a stressful situation that is full of additional expended time and costs. It is important to discuss your first case with an experienced attorney to avoid any potential issues and to have the case progress correctly the first time.

Bank of America Fraud Appeal

This client had a foreclosure action pending against him. He never got a lawyer and the bank just steamrolled right over him. They doctored an assignment of mortgage and forged a notary certificate. The client came to us just weeks before his sale. We were able to get the sale cancelled and the case is now pending in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Not to mention that the client is still in his home almost 3 years after it was to be sold. As far as I know, this is the first appeal in Florida dealing directly with fraud in a foreclosure action as well as the first appeal to address whether a securitized trust must comply with the pooling and servicing agreement in order to have standing to sue for foreclosure.

Result of Today’s Trial Against Chase Home Finance LLC
Case Dismissed

We had many people following our foreclosure trial against Chase Home Finance LLC today, so i wanted to give the final update on my blog. Here’s what went down in Miami-Dade Circuit Court this morning. Actually, I’ll back up to yesterday. The bank called us up yesterday afternoon to see if we would simply agree to a final judgment of foreclosure if they let the client stay in for another 90 – 120 days. Yeah right, offer rejected.

So trial was set for 8:45 this morning. The courtroom was a zoo. There were about 90 foreclosure trials set for this morning. In the vast majority of cases, the foreclosure defense attorneys agreed to the foreclosure in exchange for a 90 – 120 day sale date. In my humble opinion, defense attorneys need to push more of these cases to trial. I think many of these cases can be one. (My hat’s off to a young attorney who actually did her first trial ever this morning for a foreclosure client. She lost, but put up a good fight).

So, the bank’s attorney came up to me this morning and asked again if I would agree to the foreclosure and my response was the same, a resounding – NO! We actually has a really good defense and I believe we would have prevailed. The case was called and the bank asked for a continuance to postpone the trial. The judge denied that request and put us at the end of the docket for trial. The end of the docket finally came after a couple of hours. The case was called for trial and the bank again requested to postpone the trial and the judge again denied that request. So, the bank took a dismissal rather than go to trial and prove its case.

I guess I wasn’t the only one who thought I had a good case.

Our foreclosure lawyers are available for free consultations in our offices located in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach.

Recent Settlement Checks from Banks for Consumer Protection Violations

As we have stressed over and over again, if you are facing a Florida foreclosure, you need a foreclosure lawyer that is not afraid to sue the banks. Here are 7 settlement checks that we have received last week for our foreclosure clients. These checks are for either the bank contacting our client when we told them not to do so or for the servicer’s failure to identify the owner of the loan, as well as their address and phone number. Our approach is to sue the banks for these consumer protection violations because it is not uncommon after the bank starts stroking these checks to start paying attention to our clients and offering real modifications. Our attorneys routinely sue banks and servicers for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act. So, even if the bank does not agree at that point to a principle reduction, the homeowner is receiving a check from the bank while they are in foreclosure! The banks moan and complain, but hey, even they have to play by the rules. Unfortunately, not enough foreclosure lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach take them to task.

Another TILA Win in Federal Court and Another Victory for Homeowners!

Congratulations to Yechezkal Rodal for another TILA win. We sued Bank of America and Freddie Mac for failure to properly respond to our request for the name, address, and phone number of the current owner of the loan. They provided the name and address but not the phone number. Six months later (after we started suing them for providing incomplete information) they amended their response to include the phone number. We sued them anyway because they violated the Truth in Lending Act by not providing the phone number initially. The bank made the same argument that make in other cases that they are not liable, blah blah blah, but the court correctly saw through their nonsense and found that we have stated a viable claim.

The question was whether the court should impose vicarious liability to the owner for the servicer’s mistake. The court followed the Khan line of cases that state they are liability. It is also worth noting that Khan was also a Loan lawyers case that was also handled by Mr. Rodal. There was also the issue of whether they are exempted from liability because they eventually provided the correct information. The court shot that argument down as well.

All homeowners have the right to request this information from the loan servicer. We catch banks lying all of the time and providing inconsistent information. This is one of the greatest tools the homeowners has in their fight against the bad guys.

At Loan Lawyers, we will help all Florida homeowners obtain this information for FREE. Further, if the bank plays around with the request, we will sue them for you on contingency. We won’t get paid unless we win. What a bargain!

Call one of our TILA lawyers at 1-888-FIGHT-13 to schedule your free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Our foreclosure and TILA lawyers are ready to fight for you!

Another TILA Victory in Federal Court

As I have pounded over and over again, you need a foreclosure lawyer that is suing banks. At Loan Lawyers, we take an aggressive approach against the banks. We file many TILA (Truth in Lending act lawsuits). Under TILA, if a bank purchases a loan, the new bank must disclose this fact to the borrower. What we see time and time again for years is the banks doctoring up the assignments, allonges, and note indorsements days before a foreclosure lawsuit is filed. We view this as a violation of 1462(g) of the Truth in Lending Act and we sue accordingly. Wells Fargo tried to have our lawsuit dismissed claiming that even though the assignment of mortgage was done shortly before the foreclosure was filed in court, the transferred occurred years earlier. The federal court ruled in our favor and did not buy the bank’s argument.

Read How We Beat Nationstar Mortgage in this Week’s Broward County Foreclosure Trial

For those of you who read our blogs often, you know that we often call a foreclosure trial victory sweet but this one is really sweet. This foreclosure client came to Loan Lawyers about 3 years ago after being sued by Nationstar. They had another foreclosure defense attorney in Broward who really botched the case. Their house was due to be sold in 2 weeks, that is until we got involved. We busted the bank with an obvious fraudulent affidavit. How the previous attorney did not see it is beyond me. We immediately filed a motion to vacate the final judgment and to cancel the sale which was granted. The bank had 30 days to amend their foreclosure complaint. They waited about one year. As it turns out, this was the client’s saving grace, as I will explain.

I have never seen a case where a bank flaunts the rules and court orders like this one and I’ve seen some pretty crazy stuff. The bank never provided any documents to us despite our sending a Request for Production. They never responded to interrogatories nor did they respond to our Request for Admissions. A Request for Admissions is when we send a document to the bank requiring them to admit or deny certain factual allegations. If a party does not respond within 30 days, they are automatically admitted and the bank is prohibited from introducing testimony or witnesses that contradict the admissions. More on that soon.

So, not only did the bank not comply with the discovery rules and respond to our discovery requests, they jerked us around for 3 years on modifying the loan. This family was not looking for a free house or a free ride. The hit a temporary rough patch and got back on their feet. All they needed was a little cooperation from the bank and they could have began paying their mortgage. The bank played 3 years worth of modification games with us. They would take so long to review the modification that the documents would get a month or two old, so the bank made us update documents constantly. Finally, we had enough and we schedule a mediation so we could sit face to face with the bank and try to get things done. Guess what? The bank never showed up! (They finally showed up at the second one, but were unprepared). After three years, we finally get a response weeks before trial that we did not get documents in on time so they denied the mortgage loan modification. This was infuriating because we had proof they had the documents in time. This is a typical modification nightmare. That was the final straw, it was time for the gloves to come off. I have never seen a bank act this bad time and time again.

So, we were set for trial this week. Pursuant to the trial order, the bank had to produce its exhibits that they intend to introduce at trial. We send a request several weeks before trial, but the bank never responded. We followed up several times, again without a response. Finally, the afternoon before trial the bank started sending documents over. So after three years of foreclosure litigation, the bank first sent its evidence to us less than 24 hours before trial in violation of the trial order and the rules of civil procedure. To make matters worse, they even had the chutzpah to send more documents as I was literally driving on the way to trial. So much for giving a homeowner time to prepare. So, I get to court and ask the court to strike all of their evidence due to late notice. I really thought the judge would agree with me, but I thought wrong. The judge did not want to take such harsh action against the bank and told me I could have a continuance to get more time to prepare. I did not want the continuance because I felt I had the bank right where I wanted them even despite not having proper time to prepare.

Ok, back to the Request for Admissions. As we were walking up to court, the bank handed me their responses to the admissions. Remember, if the bank did not answer within 30 days, then by default they admit everything. So, the bank’s responses were 1 1/2 years late. Thus, their responses are a nullity unless the court allows the bank to file late responses, which I objected to. Fortunately, the judge had enough and although she did not strike their evidence, she did not allow the late response to the request for admissions. So, by default the bank admitted it did not have standing. Game over folks. The bank still wanted to go to trial for some reason. The judge looked at them and asked how in the world they plan on proving their foreclosure case. It was impossible now. After a brief recess and the bank lawyer and witness speaking about the case, Nationstar finally came to its senses and dismissed its foreclosure case. What’s great about this case is that it appears to be past the statute of limitations, thus the bank may NEVER be able to file another foreclosure action against our clients. After everything the bank put this poor family through, the bank deserves what they got. At the end, the bank is the victim of its own delay tactics and I could not be happier for our clients!

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are staring down the barrel of foreclosure, please do not go at it alone. At Loan Lawyers, we are a team of experienced litigators with all of the tools and knowledge necessary to properly defend you. Call our foreclosure defense attorneys today to schedule your free consultation. (844) 344-4813.

Proof of Demand Letter
Dismissal in Our Favor

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.

Another successful case!
Retained Credit Score and Cash Settlement

Clients, Hector and Maria (real names withheld for privacy) came in to Loan Lawyers, tired, frustrated and dejected after a 10-month battle with a bank. They had been making their regular monthly mortgage payments to their mortgage servicer, but unbeknownst to them, their loan was taken over by another servicer just 2 days after they had made a payment. In the chaos that ensued, their payment was lost. The new bank had considered the clients mortgage payment late and started a barrage of telephone calls and letters trying to collect on the “missing payment.” The clients patiently explained to each person that would listen that they had already made the payment, and that the bank had made an error, but nobody seemed to care. The clients even went to one of the bank’s local branches in person and spoke with the manager, following up by faxing and mailing written proof of the payment at least 5 times, still nothing seemed to help. The clients then went to their own bank and got a letter from the manager stating that date, time and transaction number as further proof that the payment was sent to the bank. Nevertheless, they were still completely ignored.

Hector and Maria were on the verge of giving up before they turned to Loan Lawyers for help. Loan Lawyers reviewed their case and immediately filed a lawsuit against the bank for its illegal actions. The clients were not only thrilled that we took their case but couldn’t believe that we did the whole thing on a contingency fee basis and didn’t charge them anything upfront!

As soon as the lawsuit was filed the bank hired a very expensive “Tall Building Law Firm” and came out swinging and refused to admit any wrongdoing. The highly contested matter turned into a nearly 4-year saga that involved over 20 court hearings, a dozen depositions requiring travel across the country at our own expense, hundreds of hours of work, and our review of over 300,000 documents.

Through aggressive litigation Loan Lawyers discovered that the bank had misplaced many payments during the transition period and had received complaints from many other customers. Despite uncovering such evidence the bank refused to back down and continued to try and collect the “missing payment” as well as repeatedly reporting our clients as late to the credit reporting agencies. Once the case was set for a jury trial and the bank realized that we were not going to stop fighting for our clients’ rights until the end, we were able to force them into settlement negotiations, and secure a fantastic result for our clients. Not only did we get the bank to remove all the late fees and penalties, reapply the “missing payment” properly, and completely reinstate their credit score, but Loan Lawyers also obtained a cash settlement of nearly half a million dollars for Hector and Maria. Loan Lawyers was successful in returning our clients’ peace of mind, and holding the bank accountable for their wrongdoing. Loan Lawyers hard work, diligence, and perseverance paid off, and once again, we achieved justice for our clients.

Persistence
Sale Date Cancelled

Client retained us to assist her and her family in a foreclosure lawsuit in August 2012 when she was initially served. During the summer of 2014, final judgment was entered against her with a sale date. After cancelling her sale date multiple times, which we were able to do for almost a year, client received a trial modification and was extremely grateful for everything we did for her and her family.

Peace and Quiet
Foreclosure Dismissed and Settlement Check

We represented a borrower in a foreclosure action which resulted in the bank voluntarily dismissing the foreclosure action in 2014. Notwithstanding, after the conclusion of the foreclosure, the bank’s loan servicer hired a third-party to go to the borrower’s house repeatedly to demand information about the borrower. The borrower claimed that many statements made by the third-party were false and threatening. We sued the loan servicer under the FDCPA and FCCPA for harassment and for contacting a represented borrower. After a hard-fought battle, the loan servicer agreed to resolve the case for a monetary settlement. The loan servicer has since seized making contact with the borrower on her property. Our client can now have piece and quiet, and the nice check she received from the settlement was an added bonus!

Another successful case!
Foreclosure Cancelled and Mortgage Invalidated

Clients Fred and Mary R. (real names withheld for privacy) came to Loan Lawyers regarding a house they inherited from their parents. The bank had just filed a foreclosure action against the property. This was not a typical foreclosure case however, it was a complex mix of foreclosure, probate, and property law. During the father’s lifetime, he signed his interest over to one of the children, but the mother did not. This child took a loan out on the house, but none of the other siblings signed the mortgage. Sometime thereafter, the mother died and then about two years later the father died. This situation created huge mess for the title of the property.

Trial was set in Miami-Dade County on the foreclosure case. The siblings raised the homestead defense as provided for in the Florida Constitution. The bank argued that when the mother died, her interest in the property reverted to the father who already transferred his interest to one of the children, and since he is now the sole owner and signed the mortgage, there is no homestead defense.

We successfully argued that the original transfer from the father to one of the children did not transfer all of the father’s interest, but only a life estate. This is a very obscure provision of the law. This means that the father only transferred the interest to the child while he was alive but that when he died, the interest reverted back to the father’s estate, in which all of this children share. Therefore, the mortgage signed by one child only is void. The court agreed with our argument and not only did not foreclose on the home, but even went a step further and invalidated the mortgage.

So, what about the fact that one of the children signed a promissory note? Even though the mortgage is invalid and the bank cannot take the home, the debt should still be there. Loan Lawyers was even successful in arguing that the debt itself was not collectable because the bank did not present an original note to the court and did not meet its burden to re-establish the note under Florida law. This was a nice bonus for this client as well. Without hard work, novel research, and exemplary trial skills to pull it all together, these clients would have lost their home

Overcharged Fees
Settlement Check Secured

A client came to our office with a letter from Chase specifying that there was an adjustment due on his loan in the amount of $184.78. The letter was deficient as to the reasons for the adjustment and whether it was a debit or a credit, a one-time adjustment or a monthly adjustment. The client was fearful that he may end up owing Chase more money than he originally believed was owed. We sent a request for information to Chase to inquire about the adjustment. Chase failed to provide a response indicating why there was an adjustment and how it came to be. We sued Chase under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605. As a result, we were able to determine what the adjustment was for and ensure that the client was not being overcharged for any purported amounts due. In addition the client walked away with a nice settlement check, and the best part of it all was that we handled the case on a contingency fee basis, so it didn’t cost the client anything. Another win win situation!

Another Principle Balance Reduced on a Florida Mortgage in Foreclosure

Here is another principle reduction that our foreclosure lawyers obtained. The home was put into foreclosure in 2008. We have fought the bank for 4 years, so the homeowner lived in the house without paying a mortgage for 4 years and we obtained another great result. Any lawyer who is really helping homeowners should be able to show you results like this. If not, then they are not getting it done.

The balance on the mortgage as of 2/1/12 was $238,000 and at the time of this settlement is was approximately $300,000.

THE NEW PRINCIPLE BALANCE IS $110,000.

The interest rate went from 7% to 3.84%. This is definitely another happy client. Plus, we are pending a settlement on a Truth in Lending Act lawsuit that is ongoing.

There is never a guarantee for a principle reduction for your home, but if you have an aggressive law firm representing you that will sue the bank when necessary, then you have a much better chance. Our foreclosure lawyers offer free consultations in Broward (Fort Lauderdale / Plantation), Palm Beach (Delray Beach), and Miami-Dade (Coral Gables, North Miami Beach).

Another Order Denying Wells Fargo’s Attempt to Dismiss Our Claim for TILA Damages

In this case, we sued Wells Fargo as trustee for a mortgage backed security for failure to properly respond to a 1639(f)(2) request. Every borrower has a right to request the name, address and phone number of the loan owner or master servicer from the company servicing the loan.

TILA however imposes the liability for the failure to properly respond on the loan owner, but it does not state so explicitly. Wells Fargo and other banks have alleged that since the obligation is on the servicer, and not the loan owner, then the loan owner can not be held responsible for the servicer’s actions. The attorneys at Loan Lawyers have been spearheading the effort to have the loan owners vicariously liable and most Federal court that have decided this issue have decided it in our favor. This case is the latest example. Of the seven Federal cases to have addressed this issue in Florida, Loan Lawyers has been involved in 6 of them. There simply are not enough lawyers taking the banks to task for TILA violations.

I this case, we also sued the loan owner for the failure to provide a payoff statement within 5 days under Regulation Z. The court did dismiss this claim because it found that this only applies to “high cost home loans” as defined by Federal law. This is a case of first impression, meaning that this claim has not been made in Florida Federal court before. We are always trying to forge new ground. Our TILA suits moves forward however and we look forward to a successful result for our client.

There are other TILA regulations going into effect next year that we are also gearing up for. We plan on being the first in the country to pursue banks for their inevitable violations of these provisions as well. More on that next year.

Congratulations to Loan Lawyers attorney Chezky Rodal for obtaining another great ruling on vicarious liability. This case should finally put the nail in the coffin on this issue.

IT ALSO GIVES FURTHER CREDENCE THAT HOMEOWNERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO! ITS TIME TO STAND UP FOR THEM AND END THE ERA OF BIG BANKS PUSHING BORROWERS AROUND AT WILL.

As part of our services to client who are facing foreclosure in Florida, our lawyers look for various consumer protection violations, such as Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Florida Consumer Protection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer’s Protection Act, and others. Call us today to schedule your free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach.

Another Loan Lawyers Win for Our Clients

A client came to our office and was beleaguered by 16 years of litigation surrounding her foreclosure matter. She came to our office with a hearing scheduled to reset her sale and to have the final judgment amended. Thank G-D, after reviewing her file it struck me as odd that there would be an amendment to a judgment which was near 16 years old. When researching further it appeared that the Plaintiff and their counsel had in fact perpetrated a fraud upon the Court for years and the Court had no idea. Our client had in fact cured all of the prior defaults and rather than dismiss the case, the bank simply thought it was good practice to rest on a prior judgment and just amend it from time to time.

Nevertheless, we filed a motion to dismiss and our motion was granted over vehement objection by the Bank and their attorneys. There were no more judgments, no more sales, and no more games. The 16 year battle was now over. Moreover, we now have motions for sanctions against the Bank and their counsel pending. Stay tuned!

Another Loan Lawyers Trial Win

A Client came to our firm in July 2013 for help due to not being able to make their mortgage payments. The client previously secured a loan modification before the start of the foreclosure; however they eventually defaulted and could no longer make the payments, and therefore were not a candidate for another modification. The Client’s only hope at saving their house was for us to take the case to trial. Once the trial started and the bank put on their case and provided their trial exhibits, we discussed the case with the client since it wasn’t looking very good. Because of the prior modification, it appeared that the standing defenses we would want to raise wouldn’t go very far. Having a dismissal granted would turn on whether the Court found that the modification created standing for the Plaintiff.

Our Foreclosure Attorneys Score Another Principle Reduction in South Florida

Another great job in the hands of our foreclosure attorneys!

WE GOT A CLIENT’S PRINCIPLE REDUCED FROM $171,609.65 TO $73,500.00. THAT EQUATES TO AN ALMOST 68% REDUCTION IN PRINCIPLE!

This is the difference having an experienced litigation and foreclosure attorney may make for you.

One of the biggest problems with loan modification is that if your home is significantly upside down, meaning you owe more than its worth, if the bank does not agree to reduce principle, but simply lowers your interest rate, you are essentially renting your home from the bank. It could be 20 years before your home is worth what you owe, especially in South Florida. Agreeing to anything the bank puts in front of you may cost you tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousand of dollars. If you lost your home and bought a new one in 5 years, by the time 20 years comes around, you will have a home with substantial equity in 20 years and will be a good position for retirement. If you agree to just a interest rate reduction, but you owe 2 or 3 times what the home is worth, maybe you will break even in 20 years, but most likely won’t have any equity. You will not be as good of a position for retirement. Further, you won’t be able to sell your home until you are at least even, so you are stuck with this house for 20 years.

This is where an experienced foreclosure attorney comes in. At Loan Lawyers, we can discuss all of your options with you in our offices located in Broward (Fort Lauderdale / Plantation), Miami-Dade (North Miami Beach / Coral Gables), or Palm Beach (Delray Beach). You have nothing to lose, but a lot to gain, so call us today for your free consultation so that we can discuss how to save your home.

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 recentBartram 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.

Another incredible result!
Home Saved

A husband and wife, Bob and Lucie T. (real names withheld for privacy), came to Loan Lawyers for a foreclosure trial that was schedule for their home. Their home was worth several million dollars and the clients had about $1,000,000 personally invested in the home. The foreclosure case had been pending for approximately 5 years at that point. The clients were represented by another law firm, but did not feel confident that they had the requisite knowledge or experience to defeat the bank at trial. Their entire life savings was riding on this case and they wanted to make sure they found the best firm they could to fight for their rights.

Unsatisfied with the defenses filed by the previous attorney, we amended the affirmative defenses, got copies of what we needed to defend the case, and geared up to take the case to trial. Having prepared thousands of foreclosure cases for trial, we put our experience to work and after countless hours of digging through thousands of pages of documents from the securitized trust that claimed to own the mortgage, we uncovered several problems that would prevent them from winning the foreclosure case.

The big trial day came in Broward County, and the securitized trust brought one of their best witnesses to trial and sought a $4.5 million foreclosure judgment. As you can imagine from the size of the loan, the trust brought out the big guns and did everything they could to win the case. Despite their valiant efforts to wine the case, they simply were not good enough to defeat Loan Lawyers. In order to foreclose on a property, the plaintiff must establish that it had standing (i.e. the legal ability) to foreclose on the property on the day the initial foreclosure complaint was filed with the court. Loan Lawyers out maneuvered them and we were able to prevent the trust from proving their case in court.

Ultimately the judge found that the securitized trust failed to establish that it had standing to foreclose on this house. The court entered judgment in favor of Loan Lawyers’ clients, thus denying the $4.5 million foreclosure for the trust, and resulting in Bob and Lucie getting to keep their home. Furthermore, as a result of winning our clients case at trial, Loan Lawyers is currently in the process of recovering all of their attorney fees from the trust, resulting in not only a tremendous success for our clients, but one that in the end didn’t cost them a penny to hire us to fight for their rights.

Another incredible result!
Mortgage Reduced and Loan Modified

We first met Allen B. (real name withheld for privacy) in bankruptcy court where he was representing himself. He filed his bankruptcy in order to stop the scheduled foreclosure trial on his home. Allen was surrounded by four creditor attorneys who were objecting to his proposed plan. Despite his best efforts, his case was eventually dismissed, which is often the case when consumers try to represent themselves.

Allen called Loan Lawyers and asked if we could take a look at his foreclosure matter. Upon review of the bank’s complaint and supporting documents, we felt that the bank had not met the required threshold in successfully prosecuting its case. However, despite the bank’s objectionable supporting documents, the court granted judgment in the bank’s favor. Believing that the bank had not met its burden, we filed an appeal so that an appellate level court can review the matter which we felt the court had erroneously ruled upon.

This time around we filed the bankruptcy on our client’s behalf in order to stop the foreclosure sale of his home. There were four secured creditors who claimed to have an interest in the home. The first mortgage had a claim of over one million dollars, the second mortgage had a claim of $150,000, there was a master homeowner’s association lien for $14,000, and a junior homeowner’s association lien for $12,000. Because the value of Allen’s home was less than the balance of his first mortgage, we were successful in stripping off his second mortgage and both homeowners’ association liens.

Removing the second, third and forth liens on the property allowed us to focus on the first mortgage’s million dollar judgment lien. We immediately applied for a loan modification, and used our strong position on the appeal to force the bank to come to the negotiation table. Knowing that there was a good likelihood that we would prevail on appeal, we made it clear to the bank that if they were to offer a generous loan modification for our client, we would drop the appeal. After several months of negotiations, we were able to not only get our client a loan modification with very favorable terms, but we also got the bank to completely eliminate $584,117.61 from his mortgage balance.

Notice to the Borrower
Case Dismissed

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.

Another incredible result!
2 Homes Saved

Frank G. (real name withheld for privacy) came to Loan Lawyers with a problem on his homestead property, and wanted help to get a loan modification. He had fallen behind on his mortgage payments and had been served foreclosure papers. We immediately got to work on defending his foreclosure and working on his loan modification. Frank also had a second property that he wanted us to help him with. The second property, a condo, was with another law firm, but Frank felt they were not making any progress and knowing that Loan Lawyers handles all aspects of debt issues, decided to move that case to our Firm as well. He was trying to do a short sale on the condo and he owed over $208,000 and the condo was only worth about $80,000. He was also now in foreclosure on this property as well. Going through his case on the condo, we discovered through a title search that both mortgages for the condo and his homestead property were encumbering the condo, thereby barring him for being able to sell it. Frank had bought both properties days apart with the same lender many years before, and unbeknownst to him, the condo had two liens one of which should have never been there. Frank had repeatedly tried to work with the bank before hiring us, but the bank would not work with him. While Loan Lawyers was defending both foreclosure cases, we diligently tried to work with the bank to rectify the issues on both properties; however, the bank refused to help our client and only wanted to foreclose. In 2014 the trial was set on the condo case. After a highly contested trial Loan Lawyers won the case. Not only did we successfully defeat the bank but we got a judgment in favor of our client. Because we were the prevailing party, the bank also had to pay for our client’s attorney fees, meaning that every penny Frank paid Loan Lawyers to fight his foreclosure was returned to him. Being that the bank refused to help our client this was a sweet victory. But there was more to come.

Trial was then set on Frank’s homestead property in 2015. Once again instead of doing the right thing and working with our client, Loan Lawyers took the bank to trial to fight for our client’s rights. Once more we were successful and defeated the bank with the Court entering an order that the bank had failed to prove their case. After a long and hard struggle with the bank Loan Lawyers had won both of Frank’s cases. If it wasn’t for Loan Lawyers dedication and commitment to fight for our clients’ rights and take the banks to trial when they refuse to cooperate, Frank could have lost both his houses. Unfortunately many consumer lawyers never go to trial, and Frank could have wound up in a bad situation if he didn’t choose us to represent him.

No Response – Time to Pay
Fees Waived and Damages Paid

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.

 

 

Another Great Day in Court – Another Foreclosure Dismissed in Broward County

I had a foreclosure trial today in Broward County. We were scheduled to start the trial at 9AM. Much to my chagrin, there were about 50 cases set for trial at that time. Uggg. I don’t think that any lawyer said they were going to trial except for me. I told the judge the trial will take several hours. I had to wait until she cleared out all of the other cases so we could get the trial going. After waiting about two hours, I asked the judge if she would entertain my case for just a few moments because I had a motion to make that would eliminate the need for trial today if the court granted the motion. The judge agreed.

I asked the judge to strike the bank’s witness list and force them to proceed to trial with no witnesses. I pointed out that the order setting the trial required the bank to disclose their witnesses to me at least 30 days before trial. The order stated that the court would require strict compliance with the order and if either party did not follow the order, the court may strike pleadings, default a party, or any other remedy. The problem for the bank is that they did not follow the order. I did not receive the trial order until the day before the trial, not thirty days before the trial. As if that was not bad enough, the witness list had 26 different witnesses for the bank. I argued that there was no way that I could prepare for a trial when I get a list of 26 witnesses a day before the trial.

The judge asked for a response from the bank. They did not have much to say because the facts are the facts. They told the judge they would allow me to talk to the witness in the hallway to see what she would testify to. The judge asked me if that was sufficient. I explained that would not suffice. I do extensive research into the banks’ witnesses and I always try to find other trial transcripts or deposition transcripts and I would be denied the opportunity to do that.

The judge was rather frustrated with the bank at that point. She found that the bank violated the court order and that my client was prejudiced. So, she granted my motion and struck their witness list forcing them to trial without any witnesses. So, the bank dismissed the case! Not too bad.

Here’s the moral of the story, the banks and their lawyers make many mistakes and if you have a lawyer that knows how to spot those mistakes and assert your rights, you have a better chance of beating the bank. At Loan Lawyers, our lawyers are litigators. That means we go to court, we take depositions, and we go to trial if we don’t reach a settlement with the bank. We have helped thousands of clients over the years. Loan Lawyers, LLC is large enough to have the resources to fight your foreclosure and sue the bank to assert your rights, but small enough to give your case the attention it deserves.

Call Loan Lawyers today to schedule a free consultation with a foreclosure attorney today in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach. Offices in Plantation / Fort Lauderdale, Delray Beach, North Miami Beach, and Coral Gables. (844) 344-4813

Never Give Up
Bank did not File

Previously I have written about a client who came to us with a judgment and sale from 5 years ago. We vacated both against him. Oddly enough we are still fighting for him. However, that fight may have just come to an end. So here is the latest: I filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. I went after the Bank for a multitude of issues including merger, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, no personal jurisdiction, etc. The judge granted my motion but actually included in the order a right for the Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint. The Judge gave the Bank this right even though they never even requested it. Needless to say I was truly upset but with time, I waited. To my amazement the Bank filed a motion for extension of time, and a motion for rehearing. Rather than file a response I kept pushing and stayed on the Bank. We set the motion. The judge was livid that the Bank was requesting an extension after all this time to amend the Complaint. However, the Judge gave the Bank two days to file their amended complaint. Ladies and gentlemen, the Bank simply did not file anything. As such, I pray that this chapter of the saga is finally closed.

Another Foreclosure Trial Win for Loan Lawyers

What a crazy day in last Thursday’s foreclosure trial in Broward County. Fortunately, our foreclosure attorneys won the trial. We went to trial against BSI Financial Services servicing the loan for some trust. The foreclosure trial lasted the entire day. Our foreclosure lawyers had the bank’s witness on the stand for hours. The loan is currently being servicing by BSI Financial Servicing. There were two prior loan servicers for this loan, Marix Servicing and Specialty Loan Servicing. BSI took over servicing well into the foreclosure process. The case was tried on two issue, standing and acceleration.

Anytime there is a new loan servicer that took over after the loan went into default, the homeowner gains some advantage in the foreclosure because of complex evidentiary issues that I will not get in to here. Suffice it to say that it is a good thing from a trial perspective. In this case, I thought the testimony was going very well for us and the court would keep the documents out of evidence. Much to my surprise, the court was allowing the prior loan servicer’s records into evidence. I thought the foreclosure trial was lost at that point, but it only motivated me to try harder.

Well, I kept chipping away at the witness, getting more and more testimony that was helpful to my client. The bank kept digging their hole deeper and deeper. In fact, by the time I got done with the witness, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE COULD NOT ATTEST TO THE ACCURACY OF THE AMOUNT THEY CLAIM WAS OWED. Truth be told, I had more cross-examination to go, but once she admitted this, it was time to sit down. Cross examination is an art and the questions you don’t ask are more important than the questions you do ask.

The bank finally rested its case with all of its foreclosure documents into evidence. I asked the court to revisit her rulings that allowed the documents in. She revisited the ruling, reversed herself, and took out the documents from evidence. What a score! She then entered a final judgment in our favor. What a roller coaster of a day. I switched between thinking we were losing and then winning and losing again, then winning again. At the end, we won, and that’s all that counts. Score another for the good guys.

If you are facing a foreclosure trial, do not go at it alone or with an attorney who does not know how to win these cases. Also, don’t wait to hire a lawyer until the trial is set. You have to make sure that all of the right defenses have been been raised and they have been properly preserved. I had a client recently who came to me a few weeks before trial and he did not have the right defenses. This is a problem.

Call us today to schedule your free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach with one of our foreclosure lawyers.

Musings from Yesterday’s Trial Victory Against Citibank – Good Reading

Had a great trial yesterday against Citibank with a great result for our client in foreclosure. I had my 7 year old son with me, so maybe he was my good luck charm. While preparing for trial, I was not thinking that I had a great chance.

On of the necessary elements to obtain a foreclosure judgment is the bank needs to prove that the properly accelerated the mortgage by sending a letter to the borrower that contains all of the necessary elements. In this case, I realized during my cross examination of the witness that they made a huge blunder and send the notice to Unit #4 but my client lives in Unit #15. They were unable to prove that the notice was sent to the right address. Second, their letter stated that the outstanding late fees were $205.60. When I pressed the witness, she was unable to substantial this amount. She was only able to come up with $123.00 in late fees. She did not know where the additional amount in the letter came from. So, they had two major problems with their acceleration letter. First, they could not prove that it was sent to the correct address and second, they could not prove that the amount of the default as stated in the letter was accurate. Sounds pretty good right? Well it gets better.

The bank attorney showed the witness the proposed final judgment of foreclosure which stated the outstanding principle balance was $307,000 (roughly). The witness testified that she verified those numbers and they were accurate. During my cross examination, I confronted the witness with the payment history that was printed out last month that showed the principle balance was actually $268,000 (roughly). The bank was at a loss on how to explain this. It got ugly for the bank at this point. The bank attorney objected to my questioning because she alleged that I was badgering the witness. The judge disagreed and said that I was asking appropriate questions in the foreclosure trial.

The judge then turned to the bank and said (I am paraphrasing): “Your case has just gone down in flames. I am not telling you what to do, but you may want to consider dismissing this case because your proof is a disaster.” The bank asked for a recess and 30 minutes later they came back and dismissed their case rather than risk getting an adverse judgment.

I think the best part of this was the fact I overheard that one of the bank attorney laughing as I started questioning the witness. She was no longer laughing once she figured out where my questions were leading.

The moral of the story is that if you are facing foreclosure in Florida, you need a lawyer that knows how to fight and who knows how to win a trial. At Loan Lawyers, our lawyers are trained to fight the banks and have the experience and knowledge to get it done right. We offer free consultations for foreclosure defense in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach. Don’t let the banksters roll over you, know your rights and fight back!

Another Family Saved from Being Thrown Out of Their Home
Foreclosure Cancelled

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.

Musings from Last Week’s Trial Against Wells Fargo

I was in trial last week against Wells Fargo for a foreclosure case. There were 90 foreclosure cases set for trial last week. The bank made the standard offer to everyone that if you agree to the foreclosure, they will allow the homeowner to stay in the house for another 90 days. Believe it or not, I was the only lawyer who turned the deal down and actually went to bat for my client. Why don’t more lawyers go trial on these cases?

I thought the trial went well. Wells Fargo put their witness on the stand and she did not hold up under cross-examination. I had her eating right out of my hand. We had several defenses in this case. First that the Notice of Acceleration was defective. I always fight hard to keep these out of evidence. The witness admitted that she has no knowledge about the department that sends those letters out. In my head I was dancing for joy because without this knowledge, the letter should not come in to evidence. Much to my surprise the court allowed it into evidence. He also allowed the records from the prior servicer into evidence after the witness testified that she had no knowledge of the record keeping practices of the prior servicer and that she was not their record custodian. The judge admitted it was a problem but allowed it into evidence anyway. I was definitely surprised by that ruling.

We also argued that the mortgage was defective because it was missing the paragraph that said that the mortgage was securing a debt. The bank actually had a count to reform their mortgage in their complaint but they failed to introduce any evidence of this whatsoever. The court acknowledged the fact that they failed to meet that burden. I want to find more trials for reformation of mortgage because the homeowners should be able to win most of them. Often the bank that is trying to foreclose is not the originating lender. In order to reform the mortgage, the court must find that the two original parties made a mutual mistake. Some servicer that is second or third down the line will not have personal knowledge of what the original lender intended.

Ultimately the court did not rule on the trial. The judge wanted time to review everything to make his decision. Meanwhile, I have a bunch more trials coming up in the next two months.

If you are in foreclosure and have a foreclosure trial coming up, get a trial lawyer on your side now before its too late. There are some great defenses to beat the bank, but you need to find a lawyer that knows how to try a case. Our foreclosure lawyers offer free consultations in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties.

Another Big Trial Win for Loan Lawyers
Foreclosure Cancelled

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.

Lucky 7
Foreclosure Dismissed

Clients retained our services in October 2010 to assist them in the defense of their foreclosure lawsuit. After exploring multiple loss mitigation options, the homeowners wanted to sell the property in a short sale. After multiple issues we were able to over come, cancelling the sale for the seventh time seemed to pose a huge challenge as the clients only needed an additional two weeks to close. Not only were we able to overcome the sale date, but the clients were able to successfully close in the short sale transaction and Plaintiff filed their Motion to vacate the final judgment and dismiss the foreclosure lawsuit today

Another Big Score – $241,000 Principle Reduction – 70% Off

Talk about a holiday gift! Another great job by the Loan Lawyers team and another house saved. This client received an immediate and permanent reduction in principle of over $241,000 representing an approximately 70% principle reduction.

The interest rate went from 9.9% to 2.375% for 5 years then 3.375% for the next 24 years. Notice that this was not a new 30 or 40 year term, but the remaining term under the loan.

The payment went from $2,097.39 to $467.32 for principle and interest. That equates to an almost 80% reduction in payments. Short of a mortgage that gets wiped out, it just doesn’t get any better than this. There’s no guarantee that anyone would get a result such as this, but to have a fighting chance, you need a law firm that knows how to fight.

If you are trying to choose a lawyer in Florida to represent you in your foreclosure proceedings, wouldn’t you want the firm with the reputation as fighters on your side? Call today for your free consultation with one of our foreclosure lawyers at one of our offices located in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach counties.

Loan Lawyers Just Saved Our Clients $200,000!

Plaintiff, Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee…for CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-HY13… filed a complaint against Julian Siegel on September 30, 2011. We retained the clients on October 07, 2013, after prior Defense Counsel stepped out of the case. Case proceeded through normal litigation, including Defendant’s Discovery, and several attempts at a deposition. The case was set for trial, however the trial was continued and eventually placed on inactive status.

The clients wanted to retain their property and were interested in a payoff. Opposing counsel and Plaintiff initially would not consider any offers for a short payoff and were requesting over $1,000,000.00. Plaintiff was basing their BPO’s on an exterior/drive by appraisal and outdated comps within the area. Client was not willing to pay for a full payoff since the house was damaged and he could purchase a newer/bigger/better home elsewhere for the same money.

After several rounds of negotiating, opposing counsel and the Plaintiff finally agreed to an interior inspection to help calculate a new BPO. After the inspection, Plaintiff readjusted their expectations for what they would recover at REO and agreed to a full payoff at $827,000.00. Client was thrilled and was able to come up with the funds. Client completed the wire transfer for a payoff on 2/26/16. We are currently awaiting for from Plaintiff about dismissing the action, releasing the LP and recording a satisfaction of mortgage.

Loan Lawyers Helps Client Get All Her Money Back
Bank Reimbursement

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.

Another Big Principle Reduction for a Foreclosure Client!

This client was in foreclosure since 2009. The bank would not give a principle reduction. They offered a modification previously that was a new 40 year term and did not offer any principle reduction. The client rightfully turned it down and instructed us to continue to pound away.

The bank finally relented and offered to reinstate the loan (not a new 40 year term) taking the interest rate from 10.99% to 3.83% and reducing the principle from the original amount of $275,000 to $139,000.

This equates to approximately a 60% principle reduction!

This client lived in the home for 3 years and made no mortgage payments during that time. The balance before the loan modification was over $300,000 due to unpaid interest and other fees and costs.

The only catch is that we have to release them from liability under the Truth in Lending Act and any other cause of action we have against them. For a $160,000+ principle reduction, no problem! This is further proof that you need a law firm that will sue the bank when appropriate and will actually fight, not just delay your foreclosure.

If you are facing a foreclosure in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach county, we are ready to fight for you as well. We offer free consultations with our foreclosure lawyers in Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, Delray Beach, Coral Gables, and North Miami Beach. Call us today for your free consultations with one of our Florida foreclosure defense lawyers at (844) 344-4813.

Another Big Principle Reduction and Another House Saved

We just scored another bog principle reduction for a foreclosure client. As always, we try to post results online so that you can see them for yourself. How many other foreclosure lawyers are doing that? Advertising is one thing, putting your results out there for the world to see is another.

The principal balance on this loan went from $136,000 (the original loan amount) to $55,000. I’m too tired to figure out the exact percentage, but its pretty stellar. The interest rate went from 8.724% to 2% for 5 years, then 3.32% for the remainder of the loan. This is not a new 30 or 40 year term, the modification keeps the current maturity date.

Overall, the principle and interest payment went from $1020.25 to $238.68. Again, I’m too tired to do the math right now, but percentage-wise, it’s rather significant. Kudos to our foreclosure lawyers for getting this done.

Results like this are never guaranteed and are not always easy to achieve, but if you want to have any chance of getting a result like this, you need to find a law firm that has a proven track record and a reputation for being fighters and not being afraid to go toe-to-toe with the banks and their liars, I mean lawyers.

We Beat Specialized Loan Serving in Last Week’s Miami-Dade Foreclosure Trial

Another happy Miami-Dade foreclosure client. Our foreclosure defense lawyers beat Specialized Loan Servicing (“SLS”) at last week’s Miami-Dade foreclosure trial. The plaintiff was Wells Fargo as trustee of some securitized trust, but SLS was the servicer. I actually thought that this case would be an easy win, but we had to work really hard to achieve this result. The foreclosure trial went on for many hours. We were successful in keeping out much of the bank’s evidence, but they got in much of what they needed to win the case.

The bank still had to admit the loan payment history and the default letter. They were both prepared by the prior loan servicer, Bank of America. The bank’s witness worked for SLS, not Bank of America. He was very honest and admitted he did not know anything about Bank of America’s business practices. Based upon this, our foreclosure lawyers argued to that the loan payment history is hearsay and inadmissible. The bank argued that it was admissible under the “business records exception”. I pointed out to the court that these were the records of Bank of America, not SLS and without testimony and Bank of America’s record keeping practices the loan history is inadmissible. I argued case that support my position such as Glarum and Yang. The court disagreed with my position (much to my surprise) and allowed in the loan payment history. Things looked pretty bleak at that point because the last thing the bank needed to win was to get the default letter into evidence and if the court allowed in the loan payment history prepared by Bank of America, it seemed likely she would admit the default letter. However, like any good trial lawyer, you never give up.

After my voir dire of the witness on the default letter, much to my delight, the court kept it out of evidence. This was the last few minutes of the trial and was a huge victory. Without this letter in evidence, the bank could not prove that it met the condition precedent. The bank did not take a voluntary dismissal at that point and they rested their case. I asked the court to involuntarily dismiss the case because they failed to prove that they properly accelerated the loan. The court agreed and involuntarily dismissed the case.

By the way, when you read other attorneys’ website who claim to be foreclosure fighters, how many of them actually post the court’s findings so you can see for yourself?

The best part of this case is that my client is an 88 year old woman. How in the world could I ever break the news to this elderly woman she has to leave her house because the bank won? Thank G-d I did not have to tell her that I got to share the great news that we won! There’s no questions about it, I love representing homeowners. Of our 5 trials so far this year, we have won/dismissed 4 of them. I head to Flagler County for trial tomorrow. This is going to be a busy year for trials!

This was actually my second trial last week with SLS. On the first trial, the bank knew they had evidentiary problems, so rather than risk a loss, they took a voluntary dismissal.

If you have a trial set on your foreclosure case, you need to find a great trial lawyer NOW. Do not go to trial on your own, you will almost certainly lose. If you have an foreclosure defense attorney, make sure that they are a trial attorney who knows their way around a courtroom. Our foreclosure lawyers are available for a free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Call us NOW at (844) 344-4813.

Loan Lawyers does another fantastic job for our clients!
$975,000.00 Settlement

John C. (real name withheld for privacy) came to Loan Lawyer with a problem regarding forced-place insurance on his property. John owned his house free and clear and needed some cash for his business. He applied and was approved for a home equity line of credit for a small fraction of the value of his home. Part of his deal with the bank was that he would not have to carry any additional insurance on the property than he already had. John made his monthly payments in full and on time and paid his property insurance premiums in full and on time for the next 8 years. After 8 years, the bank decided to force-place insurance on the property and raised his monthly payments over $200.00.

John repeatedly went into his local branch where he had first obtained the loan and spoke with everyone he could, but to no avail. He also sent letter after letter to the bank trying to get to the bottom of the issue. The bank sent inspectors to his house to take photographs, and one inspector even told John’s neighbor that he was taking pictures because the property was in foreclosure, which was a lie. Loan Lawyers took John’s case on a contingency basis, so John wasn’t obligated to pay Loan Lawyers anything unless the prevailed. While discussing his force-placed insurance issue, Loan Lawyers looked into the totality of the debt issue to determine what other causes of action John may have available to him. After additional questioning, we found out that the bank had started calling him on his cell phone about his debt. John initially kept asking the bank to stop the calls and even wrote them about it. However, the calls kept coming. John had just been ignoring the calls and had mostly stopped using his cell phone because all of the calls were driving him crazy.

Loan Lawyers immediately filed a lawsuit against the bank and alleged violations of various federal and state laws. One of the counts in the lawsuit was for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C §227, et seq. (“TCPA”). The TCPA makes it illegal for a company to call someone’s cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system without the person’s express consent. The penalties for each violation are between $500.00 and $1,500.00 per call. Due to the high value of the case, the bank fought tooth and nail and hired a top law firm to represent them. Loan Lawyers fought hard for our clients rights and during the heavy litigated case discovered that the bank had called the client over 1600 times in less than a year. Loan Lawyers was also able to prove that the client had repeatedly asked the bank to stop the barrage of calls. We were successful in settling John’s case for $975,000.00, which was a life-changer for our client. Had John gone to most other law firms, they would have addressed the insurance claim and ignored the phone calls because the client hadn’t mentioned them. Since Loan Lawyers takes a comprehensive and holistic approach to every case, we were able to obtain an incredible result for our client.

Watch Those Lawsuits

The Client contacted our office because they were sued by a Debt-Purchaser. The lawsuit alleged that our Client defaulted on an old credit card debt. The lawsuit claimed that a number of documents were attached to support the claim that our Client had signed up for a credit card, used it and not paid for it. Yet the documents which the Debt-Purchaser attached to the lawsuit had nothing to do with credit cards and actually concerned the rental of a riding lawn mower! The Debt-Collector even included an affidavit signed by one of their employees swearing that our Client owed a credit card debt.

We filed a counterclaim alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and a Motion for Summary Judgment. A summary judgment was quickly entered in favor of our client as to the lawsuit against them. The counterclaim is still ongoing but we anticipate that the Court will order the Debt-Purchase to pay damages for their misconduct.

No Defrauding Our Clients!
Foreclosure Dismissed and 6 Figure Settlement

Client came to us after recently discovering that his house had in fact been sold without his knowledge for 5 years. The Bank has fraudulently claimed he received service of process of the actual complaint in the case, which our client had no clue had been filed. We conducted extensive research and discovered that in fact the matter should never have gone to judgment let alone a sale of his home. We were able to get the judgment and the sale vacated, yet the Bank once again tried to fraudulently take the home. We then found the Bank trying to do the same thing again and quickly sprang into action advising that if they persist they will be served with a Federal Complaint accordingly. The case concluded and we are currently working on a 6 figure settlement for our client who was a victim of wrongful foreclosure.

Bank Law Firm Phelan Hallinan Settles with Our Foreclosure Client for FDCPA Violation

Phelan Hallinan is a Florida law firm that represents banks in foreclosure, among other things. When Phelan Hallinan filed a foreclosure against our client, it included a notice that they claimed was required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The FDCPA is the Federal law that governs debt collectors and is designed to protect those in debt from abusive debt collection practices. Phelan Hallinan got it wrong on several fronts and violated the FDCPA. First off, the notice is not required and anyone who took a moment to consider the law would come to that conclusion. Second and more importantly, the notice itself misstated the law. There is certain language that must be in every communication from a debt collector. All a debt collector has to do is copy the language verbatim from the statute.

Well, somehow, Phelan Hallinan managed to get this simple copy and past task wrong and misquoted the statute. In doing so, it created confusion for consumers. Loan Lawyers filed a lawsuit a lawsuit on behalf of our client in Federal Court in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that Phelan Hallinan violated the FDCPA. Although they are a law firm, since the prosecute foreclosures, they are treated a debt collectors and are subject to the same rules as all other debt collectors. Just like any other debt collector, if they violate our clients’ rights, we will sue them.

It is VERY common for bank lawyers to violate the FDCPA. If you are in foreclosure or even if you have lost your house to foreclosure, you may be able to sue the bank lawyer for violating your rights. We do all of the work, we pay all of the costs, and if we are successful, you get a check. Odds are that if you have been sued for foreclosure or are being sued for foreclosure, you have a case against the bank’s law firm.

Well, in response to the FDCPA federal lawsuit for this client, Phelan Hallinan decided to settle and write a check to our client who they were suing for foreclosure. We take all of these cases on contingency, so there’s no fees or costs unless we win or settle your FDCPA claim. If you were served foreclosure papers prepared by Phelan Hallinan, or any other bank lawyer, we may be able to help you as well. Even if you have lost your house to foreclosure already or if you received a loan modification, it may still be possible to sue the bank lawyer! The facts of every case are different and prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results. The bank lawyers may not like us very much, but hey, I didn’t become a lawyer to become friends with bank lawyers. They have no problem suing my clients, so why should we have a problem suing them when they violate the law and our clients’ consumer rights?

Give Loan Lawyers a call now at (844) 344-4813 to schedule your free consultation with one of our FDCPA attorneys to see if you have a case against the bank or their lawyers. We have offices in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach county.

From Days Away from Losing His Home, to Obtaining a Modification, Removing His Second Mortgage, and Successfully Suing His Credi

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.

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.

Our South Florida Foreclosure Lawyers Beat BSI Financial Services At Trial — Again. This is My Favorite Win of the Year.

What a great way to end the year for our South Florida foreclosure attorneys. We had our last foreclosure trial of the year. It was against BSI Financial Services in Broward County. This is the second time we beat this bank at trial in the last couple of months. They have not beaten us at trial yet. The bank’s law firm was Greenspoon Marder. They have a reputation as a quality law firm in the community. I won’t name the attorney who tried the case because I actually feel for her, although after she called me “slimy” before trial, I should name her.

Prior to the foreclosure trial, the bank offered to allow our client to stay in the house for 120 days, waive the right to collect the deficiency from the client, and would give her $8,000 to move. My suspicion is that almost all foreclosure defense attorneys would jump at that deal. That because many foreclosure lawyers do not go to trial for their clients. I don’t think many foreclosure defense attorneys would have the guts to turn that down. When I first arrived in court, the bank lawyer told me that now they are offering my client nothing because we did not jump at her offer sooner. I told her we are not interested in anything other than having our day in court.

The bank initially filed its foreclosure lawsuit swearing under oath that they lost the note. Forty-eight hours before the trial, the bank drops its lost note count. I asked for a 60 day continuance of the trial to ask for additional time to conduct discovery about the circumstances of this mysteriously found note. The court agreed and gave the continuance. As I was writing up the order, the bank’s lawyer came over to me in a packed courtroom and called me slimy loud enough for many people to hear. She was ranting and raving about me asking for a continuance. She wanted to go back up to the judge and re-address it. When we got up there, I was getting so annoyed by this bank lawyer, I told the judge that I no longer wanted a continuance and I wanted to be the first case to go to trial. This may be one of the first times a foreclosure defense attorney went back on his request for a continuance after it had been granted. So, we got sent upstairs for trial to a different judge.

Then, the fun started. I do not think that the bank could have done a worse job putting on their case. For starters, they did not bring the original mortgage. While the law does not require an original mortgage to be introduced into evidence at trial, the bank must be able to authenticate a copy of the mortgage before it can come into evidence. Authentication means that the witness must be able to testify that the mortgage is a true and correct copy of the original or they must have a certified copy. Well, the copy of the mortgage was not certified so that option was out the window. The comical part of this was that the copy of the mortgage they brought was missing pages 5 through 15! I can honestly say that I say that I have never seen that before. The bank lawyer and the bank representative were stunned by this. Obviously, the judge did not allow this mortgage into evidence. If the bank lawyer was smart, she would have dismissed this foreclosure case right there because she can’t win without a mortgage. Stubbornly, she pressed on and it never got any better for them.

The bank lawyer tried to introduce the default letter and the payment history from the prior loan servicer into evidence. She fell woefully short of getting past my hearsay objection. The judge kept these records out of evidence pursuant to the Fourth District Court of Appeals cases on Yang and Glarum. This argument is a post unto itself, so I’ll give the gist of the argument. Basically, a current loan servicer can not normally lay the foundation for the the introduction of the prior loan servicer’s records. Thus, these records were not allowed into evidence. The show was over at that point, but the bank kept pressing on and actually allowed the court to issue a final judgment in my client’s favor. That was a huge rookie mistake. Now, my client has a final judgment in her favor. She should have dismissed and re-filed the lawsuit. The bank lawyer was actually surprised that she did not win after all that.

Now, I wanted to go up to her after the trial and say something like “That continuance looks pretty good about now, huh” or maybe “Not too shabby for a slimy lawyer”, but I tried not to allow my ego get in the way. She was licking her wounds enough and she learned a valuable lesson.

Moral of the story??? If you are facing a foreclosure trial anywhere in Florida, you need an attorney with the guts, the knowledge, and the experience to go to trial for you. It is highly unlikely to get this type of result if you don’t have a lawyer who knows their way around a courtroom. Now, the facts of every case are different and no specific outcome is guaranteed.

If you are facing a foreclosure, don’t face it alone. Put the Loan Lawyers team behind you. We offer free consultations with our foreclosure lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties. Call us now, don’t delay. (844) 344-4813

Improper Communication
$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.

Another Big Principle Reduction – From $340,000 To $91,000

Another great score by the Loan Lawyers team. This client’s principle went from $340,749.75 to $91,389. That’s huge. While no one is guaranteed a result like this, if you don’t have a foreclosure defense lawyer that knows what they are doing, you have little chance of a result like this.

At Loan Lawyers, we handle bankruptcy, short sale, foreclosure defense, loan modification, and suing the bank. We meet with clients in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach. All of our lawyers are trained to properly advise clients on how to best achieve their goals.

If you go to a foreclosure lawyer that does not practice in all of these areas, that lawyer may not be well versed enough to properly advise you on all of the solutions to your foreclosure.

We offer free foreclosure defense consultations and we also handle our plaintiff’s consumer cases on a contingency fee basis, which means no fees or costs unless we obtain a recovery for you on that case.

Consumer Debt of Nearly a Hundred Thousand Dollars Resolved

If you regularly read our blogs you might recall last month an entry about how we beat a debt-buyer who sued our client for nearly a hundred thousand dollars. So this is not a repeat, we just resolved another case for our client of nearly a hundred thousand dollars. Another one of our clients was the subject of harassment by debt collectors and we were ultimately able to obtain a result for our client essentially eliminating the debt. As in the last case, this creditor was also a debt-buyer, a company that buys old consumer debts and then tries to intimidate members of the public into paying. Such companies are structured around the fact that most people won’t ever hire a good attorney to fight back.

If you are the subject of harassment by debt collectors and if they sue you, the very worst thing you can do is to do nothing. If you do nothing you will almost certainly obtain a default judgment and lose the case. The fees that our office charges are quite modest and any good attorney should offer you a free consultation which will cost you no more than your time. Even if you think your case is hopeless or even if you don’t think you can afford to hire an attorney, go to speak to one anyway, you might be surprised at what they can do to help and you may have legal claims you did not even know existed. Two cases of nearly a hundred thousand dollars were resolved recently, yet neither of our clients would have had such a resolution if they did not contact a lawyer. Be it us or another law firm, the worst thing you can do if sued is to do nothing and simply lose, contact a lawyer and get some help.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

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

How Does a New Mortgage Payment of $353 Sound? It Sounds Good to this Client who is No Longer in Foreclosure.

This is amongst the best mortgage modifications I’ve ever seen. This foreclosure client has not made a payment to the bank in almost five years. Our foreclosure attorneys have been fighting the bank in court since 2009. Nationstar Mortgage finally relented. The original mortgage was for $310,500. The balance on the mortgage prior to the modification was $435,828.20 after 5 years of no payments, interest, attorneys fess, etc…

The new principle balance after this modification is $113,849.20. That is not a typo, the new principle balance is about 1/3 of the original loan amount. The principle and interest payment went from $1,267.59 to $353.05. Remember, this is after living in the house without making a mortgage payment for 5 years. Our foreclosure attorneys and loan modification paralegals earned their keep on this one.

Short of having a mortgage wiped away completely, it does not get any better than this. To say this client is happy would be an understatement. The facts of every case are different and past results don’t guarantee any future outcome.

If you are facing foreclosure, don’t go at it alone. Loan Lawyers is here to help you, but you have to take the first step. You need to call us to schedule a free consultation with one of our foreclosure attorneys. We see clients in Plantation/Fort Lauderdale, North Miami Beach, Delray Beach, and Coral Gables. Call us now to schedule your free consultation with one of our foreclosure attorneys in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach.

Another Win for the Borrowers
Dismissal

There has been a lot said recently about a Plaintiff who has a “blank indorsement” on the Note. Banks tend to hang their hat on the idea that with a blank indorsement, a judgment of foreclosure is virtually guaranteed. However, when it comes to proving who can enforce the Note, a blank indorsement isn’t the end all be all of proving standing.

I recently attended a trial on behalf of our clients where standing was one of the main issues for the Judge to consider. In this case, the original lender was “Amnet Mortgage Inc., dba American Mortgage Network of Florida”. The Note contained a blank indorsement, but one of the critical questions the court needs to find when looking at indorsements is how was the note negotiated – meaning how did the note transfer from one entity to the next. In this case, the next indorsement on the Note was from “American Mortgage Network, Inc. dba American Mortgage Network of Florida”. There are two separate corporation – Amnet Mortgage Inc. compared to American Mortgage Network Inc. Granted, they both appeared to be doing business as the same entity, but at the end of the day, one corporation created the note, but a different corporation was attempting to indorse/transfer it away.

In order for the plaintiff (in this case Nationstar Mortgage) to prove they could enforce the Note, they not only needed to prove they had the Note with a blank indorsement, but that the Note itself was transferred properly from the original lender. Since the only entity that could transfer the Note was Amnet Mortgage Inc., and American Mortgage Network tried to transfer the Note, the chain was broken. Without this critical link, it wouldn’t matter that Nationstar held a Note with a blank indorsement. The blank indorsement was invalid because the transfer of the Note from the original lender was incomplete or broken. This defect proved fatal for the Plaintiff and the Judge granted my motion for involuntary dismissal, resulting in another win for Loan Lawyers and their client!

Contact Loan Lawyers today  to discuss the particulars of your loan and let us help find ways to keep you in your home

How Our Foreclosure Lawyers Beat Citibank in Our Latest Broward County Foreclosure Trial

The Loan Lawyers trial team won another foreclosure trial in Broward County, this time against Citibank. This one was especially sweet because this bank decided to hire real trial attorneys from a big powerful law firm to beat us. The point is that these lawyers are not used to losing trials, much less foreclosure trials. Well, the Loan Lawyers foreclosure defense team did it again and won.

This case centered around whether our client ever was in default. The bank was pulling a forced place insurance scam on the clients. At trial, they could not substantiate that the forced place insurance was proper and that it was properly billed to our client. I was able to establish that my client was making the principle and interest payments as required.

The court ultimately agreed with me and ruled in our client’s favor. This was another great win for us. I tip my hat to my team who helped put this foreclosure case together.

If you are behind on your mortgage, whether you have been served with foreclosure papers or not, do yourself a favor and get a lawyer who knows what they are doing. The reality is that many lawyers botch these cases and put their clients in bad spots. You need to find a lawyer that goes to trial and has a track record of success. Respectfully, I believe that Loan Lawyers fits that description perfectly. I blog frequently about results we obtain for clients. Now, the facts of every cases are different and there’s no guarantee of any particular result, but how many other foreclosure defense websites post trial victories.

Our foreclosure defense lawyers offer free consultations in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. Call us now to schedule your free consultation.

No Standing for You, Bank
Dismissal

Plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, first filed a complaint against our client R. U. on January 28, 2013. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that they were a holder of the Note and a default date of June 1, 2012. This complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff on June 26, 2013, based upon a “completed loan modification.” The clients never received nor applied for a modification, so it appears that the voluntary dismissal was in error. Despite that, Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a second complaint on October 31, 2013, claiming again to be the holder and now alleging a June 1, 2013 default date. The case proceeded through normal litigation and eventually proceeded to trial on March 7, 2016.

The primary issue at trial was Plaintiff’s failure to prove standing and the “negotiability” of the note. The original lender was “Amnet Mortgage Inc., dba American Mortgage Network of Florida”. The first indorsement was from “American Mortgage Network, Inc., dba American Mortgage Network of Florida” to Residential Funding Company. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a connection between “Amnet Mortgage Inc.” and “American Mortgage Network Inc.” and how “American Mortgage Network Inc” was authorized to create the indorsement to Residential Funding Company. Although arguments were made about both corporations operating under the same dba, the Judge agreed that they were two separate entities and no evidence was presented as to how the note passed from the original lender to “American Mortgage Network Inc”. The Judge found that the note lacked negotiability, and since the Plaintiff was traveling as a holder of the Note, they failed to prove standing. Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was granted. Another win for Loan Lawyers and our happy client!

Another Successful Modification

Client retained us in June 2013 to assist them in their foreclosure matter. Clients were unsuccessful in getting a modification on multiple occasions. Husband lost his job, which created an enormous negative ripple effect in their personal matters. They desperately wanted to remain in their home after having created so many memories in there, however the bank would not offer them a second chance after the husband was able to gain employment. We were successful in getting this young couple a modification with a principal reduction in the amount of $21, 718.66. Plaintiff immediately vacated the final judgment against them and dismissed the action. Clients were extremely excited and laughed and cried tears of joy and relief when they came in to sign their permanent modification documents.

Our Foreclosure Attorneys Beat Bank of America in this Morning’s Foreclosure Trial in Miami Dade County

Our foreclosure attorneys beat Bank of America in this morning’s foreclosure trial. Here’s the scoop. We propounded discovery requests to the bank, including Requests for ProductionRequests for Admissions, and Interrogatories in January 2013. As is usual, we did not get any response. I just love how the banks rush to take someone’s house, but they refuse to follow the rules. Anyway, I digress. When a party fails to answer Requests for Admissions, the requests are deemed admitted pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. So, in this morning’s foreclosure trial, the bank plead a lost note count in their complaint. One of the requests that we asked the bank to admit or deny was that they never really lost the note. The fact that they failed to answer the request means that they admit the note was not lost. Therefore, the bank wold be prohibited from introducing testimony that the note was lost.

So, the bank showed up this morning and filed a Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions asking the court to forgive their mistake and allow the case to proceed without the admissions. Frankly, these motions are generally granted because the law favors hearing cases in the merits, not on technical admissions. After the court heard the bank, the judge asked for my response. I took the court through the whole time line. I explained that our foreclosure attorneys sent the discovery requests in January of this year without any response. When we received the trial order, we asked the bank to provide copies of all trial exhibits pursuant to the trial order. That was about 5 weeks ago. They never gave them to us. So, last week, our foreclosure lawyers emailed them and reminded them that they never responded to discovery nor have they given us copies of the evidence. They finally sent the evidence at the end of the day last Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. The bank then comes to court today with the Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions and answers to interrogatories.

I argued to the court that the interrogatory responses were not responses at all, but they objected to every question and did not provide any real answers. I asked the court to consider the motive in filing the motion. Either they actually wanted to follow the rules and ensure my client receives due process of law or they are trying not to get caught with their pants down. I suggested to the judge that it was the latter. If the bank really was making an effort, albeit late, to comply with the rules, they would have answered the interrogatories, not given ridiculous objections, and they would have responded to the Request for Production. If all they did was answer the Request for Admissions, then its clear that they did not respond to discovery in good faith. The court agreed with me and denied Bank of America’s Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions. The case was over at that point and Bank of America dismissed its foreclosure against my client.

Ok, so what’s the moral of the story? Foreclosure defense attorneys need to propound and pursue discovery. We get clients all of the time who are represented by other foreclosure lawyers and come in with trial dates set. When we review the case, we frequently learn that the attorney failed to send discovery request. Tsk tsk. At Loan Lawyers, you will get aggressive representation at a fair price. We can never promise to win a case and every case has different facts, so results may differ, but we promise to work hard and treat your house as if it were our own.

If you are facing a foreclosure trial, please find a real trial attorney with a proven track record of beating the banks. At Loan Lawyers, we will give you a free consultation with a foreclosure attorney in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach. Call us now to schedule your free consultation.

First of a Kind
Default Vacated and Case Dismissed

Client came to us heartbroken. She has struggled and saved for her family, and saw that at the rate she was going, she would never be able to make her ever-increasing loan payments. Our client took matters into her own hands and filed for a modification with her Lender. Despite her best efforts, and despite her still fighting to modify her loan, providing every document, and every paper, the Lender still filed for a foreclosure against her. This single mother from another country was assured by the Lender not to worry, as they knew she was trying to modify her loan. All of the assurances aside, the Lender pressed harder in the foreclosure case and received a default against the client. We fought hard and fought without fear; the default was vacated, and her case dismissed.

$20,000 in Credit Card Debt Wiped Out

A client contacted Loan Lawyers because they had been sued by a credit card company for nearly twenty thousand dollars. Our client claimed that a small part of that amount (less than 5) was due to an error as our client was previously a victim of identity theft, and so there were a handful of incorrect charges upon the account. We began to investigate our client’s position and sent out extensive discovery against the debt collector.

In addition, during discovery and analyzing of all of the matters pertaining to our client’s case, we concluded that the debt collector attempting to collect the debt had made errors in one of the disclosure letters it had sent to our client prior to filing the lawsuit. By not including the correct language necessary under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) they had broken the law. We immediately sued them under the FDCPA and took the case on a contingency fee basis so it didn’t cost our client any money out of pocket.

When we received the discovery in our client’s credit card case it corroborated our position that some of the charges were incorrect due to the previous identity theft. We immediately used this evidence as leverage against the debt collector and persuaded them that we would dismiss our FDCPA case against them if they agreed to drop their entire case against our client. They agreed, and due to our hard work we were successful in wiping out a $20,000 credit card debt for our client.

Our client was ecstatic. If this client went to a different law firm the chances are they would have had the client file bankruptcy. Since Loan Lawyers employs a multi-faceted approach to debt elimination we were able to get our clients debt wiped out and save him the cost and process of having to file for bankruptcy.

Reduction in Mortgage Principle for a Foreclosure Client

It just doesn’t get much better than this. (Don’t flame me about a free house being better please). This foreclosure client had a total amount due of approximately $241,000 on her mortgage. She was put into foreclosure in 2009. Our foreclosure lawyers have been working on her file since the beginning of 2010. The bank finally relented and the principle balance on her mortgage was reduced to $50,000! That is almost an 80% reduction in the client principle.

The new mortgage payment on this property is $228.12! Not too shabby and kudos to our litigation team and modification teams. Results like this can never be guaranteed and every case has different facts, but if you want to have a chance of getting a modification like this, you need to fins a foreclosure defense lawyer who knows how to litigate a case.

At Loan Lawyers, we have decades of combined legal experience and we are ready to fight the bank for you. You need to to take the first step and call us. We offer free consultations with our foreclosure and modification lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties. Put our foreclosure defense and loan modification experience to work for you.

How Does a Principle Reduction from $473,000 to $125,000 Sound to You?

Score another one for the good guys. This client was put into foreclosure at the end of 2012. According to the bank, he owed $473,000. That does not include attorneys’ fees and costs. Our lawyers immediately went to work on the litigation and a loan modification and achieved a phenomenal result. The principle on his mortgage was reduced to $125,000! That is a huge principle reduction and a a great score for our client.

In addition, the interest rate went from 9.49% to 2% for the first five years and 3.75% for the remainder of the term. The payment went from $3,192.47 to $570.29! This is as good as it gets and my hat’s off to our team for getting this done. These types of results do not come without hard work and believing in what you do.

If you are thinking of hiring an attorney for your foreclosure situation, do your homework. Not all law firms are created equal. While we can never guarantee results like this, if you hire a lawyer without the tools and experience to properly represent you, you have almost no chance of getting a similar result.

Our foreclosure lawyers are available for free consultations in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach.

We Beat Wells Fargo at Trial in this Week’s Broward Foreclosure Trial

My hat’s off to our foreclosure defense team on another job well done in this week’s Broward County foreclosure trial. This was a unique case. The bank lost the note and the assignment of mortgage plus they got the completely wrong legal description on the mortgage. You might say that banks lose notes and documents all of the time, however this is a common misconception. It is VERY rare that a bank can not find the documents it needs. Why is the general perception that bank lose paperwork? Banks used to often file foreclosure lawsuits alleging that they lost the note even though they had it. At the time of trial, or shortly before, they would then drop the lost note count in its complaint. I imagine that the banks were so overwhelmed with the sheer number of foreclosures that it was more efficient for them to say they lost the note and then find it later. That being said, there are very few true lost note cases.

This foreclosure trial that we won this week in Broward was one of those few cases. Not only did the bank lose the note, they lost the assignment of mortgage also and they did not even have a copy of it. At trial, the bank witness admitted that they only had a copy of the note and that copy was still payable to the original lender. They had no proof that the original lender ever indorsed the note to the plaintiff which was some securitized trust. In fact, the witness admitted she did not know if the note was ever indorsed. So, the note was still payable to the original lender. Now, the bank can prove standing by introducing the an assignment of mortgage and note. However, they alleged that this was lost too and they did not even have a copy. So, Wells Fargo simply had no proof that the trust properly owned the loan.

To make matters worse, the mortgage that they were seeking to foreclose on did not have the correct legal description. The bank had a count for reformation of mortgage but they never elicited any testimony that the legal description was wrong or what the correct legal description should be. We successfully argued to the court that these were all problems that the bank could not overcome. The court agreed and entered a final judgment in favor of the homeowner. Another satisfied customer.

If you are facing foreclosure in Florida, Loan Lawyers is here to fight for your rights and to do everything we can to save your house. Consultations are free and rates are affordable. Call us now to schedule an appointment with one of our foreclosure attorneys in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach counties.

Striking Back at Payday Loan

Nicholas came to Loan Lawyers because he was receiving numerous auto-dialed and/or pre-recorded message phone calls on his cell phone from a debt collector trying to collect on a payday loan he had taken out to pay his bills. The phone calls were causing a major disruption in his everyday life, affecting his ability to work and make a living. Every time Nicholas answered the phone, the caller (debt collector’s agent) would be very rude and would make numerous threats to Nicholas if he did not pay the outstanding balance. At this same time, Nicholas lost a family member and was dealing with a lot of stresses of life. The debt collector ignored Nicholas’s numerous attempts for the debt collector to stop calling his cell phone, while he attempted to get back to work and pay back the loan. Nicholas was unable to escape the phone calls. Every time he would block their number, the debt collector would call again from a new local number. Thankfully, Nicholas found the relief he was looking for from the help of the staff at Loan Lawyers. With Loan Lawyers representing him, Nicholas filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the debt collector for violation of the TCPA and FCCPA. Nicholas alleged that the debt collector willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with an auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded message without Nicholas’s prior consent.

Under the TCPA, a person can receive $500 in damages for each violation or $1,500 for each violation if the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA. The matter was resolved, the debt collector waiver the outstanding balance on Nicholas’s payday loan. Nicholas is now able to move on without the burden of the debt collector threatening and harassing him. Nicholas can now move on with his life away from the debt collector’s disrupting phone calls that haunted him thanks to the staff and lawyers at Loan Lawyers.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems. We have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud. Contact us for a free consultation to see how we may be able to help you.

*Pseudonym used.

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

Sleeping Sound on Paid Mattress

Stan came to Loan Lawyers because he was receiving numerous auto-dialed phone calls on his cell phone from a bank trying to collect on a mattress he purchased from a local store. The phone calls were causing a major disruption in his everyday life. The bank would ignore Stan’s requests to stop calling his cell phone and would instead call Stan at all hours of the day. Stan was unable to escape the harassment and felt there was no way to stop the bank from causing him so much agony. Stan informed the bank that he was trying to find a new job so that he could make payments to the bank for the outstanding balance. Instead of stopping the calls the bank continued to call Stan’s cell phone even while he was working at his new job causing problems with him and his boss. Thankfully, Stan found the relief he was looking for from the help of the staff at Loan Lawyers. With Loan Lawyers representing him, Stan filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the bank for violations of the TCPA and FCCPA. Stan alleged that the debt collector willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with an auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded message without Stan’s prior consent. In addition, Stan alleged that the frequency of which the bank called him constituted harassment under Florida law.

Under the TCPA, a person can receive $500 in damages for each violation or $1,500 for each violation if the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA. The matter was resolved; the debt was waived, in addition to Stan being compensated for the phone calls he received. Stan is able move on without the burden that the bank threatening and harassing him. Stan can now move on with his life away from the loan servicer’s disrupting phone calls that haunted him thanks to the staff and lawyers at Loan Lawyers.

Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida homeowners and consumers with their debt problems. We have saved over 1,800 homes from foreclosure, eliminated $100,000,000 in mortgage principal and consumer debt, and have collected millions of dollars on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations, negligence and fraud.

*Pseudonym used.

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

Wrong Neighbor
Money Returned and Settlement Check

The client first contacted our office because their bank account had been garnished and all funds in it seized by a company that they had never heard of. The client had no documents related to the case and no information as to why the funds were taken other than a statement by their bank that the funds were taken pursuant to a Court order. Our office thoroughly investigated the claims of the client and discovered that the client had been sued about an old debt of which they had no knowledge. In fact the case was so old that all records in possession of the Court were destroyed due to age. We continued our investigation and were ultimately able to uncover evidence that the client’s next door neighbor was served with the complaint, not the client. The neighbor never informed our client as to the lawsuit. We discovered that the Court and the creditor had been mailing legal documents to the neighbor for years as to this matter. We notified the creditor of this error and upon their refusal to rectify it, filed a lawsuit against them pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We also prepared a motion to vacate the judgment and to return the funds taken from our client’s bank account. The Court ultimately ruled in our favor as to our motion, vacating a very old judgment. The creditor later dismissed their case with prejudice. The Client was extremely pleased at the outcome of the case having all their money returned as well as receiving a nice settlement check.