Client Jon Raleigh (not real name, client’s real name withheld for privacy) came to Loan Lawyers in December 2018 to represent them in a pending garnishment action. The client had purchased 2 acres of land in Southwest Ranches from the proceeds of the sale of his previous business as an investment. He decided to build a house and eventually got two mortgages to cover the cost. The initial intention was for the first mortgage to be paid off by the second, but due to circumstances beyond his control, this did not happen. The first Mortgage was ultimately paid off by their title insurance due to some issues and they eventually filed a release of that first mortgage. Unfortunately, the second mortgage was not satisfied and was sold to another entity who brought a foreclosure action in 2013. The client was represented by other counsel during the pendency of the foreclosure action which unfortunately ultimately resulted in a final judgment of foreclosure on January 31, 2018 in the amount of $6,913,086.61. Following the entry of the foreclosure judgment a foreclosure sale took place on March 7, 2018 and the property sold for $100.00.
Subsequent to the foreclosure sale a deficiency action was initiated within the existing foreclosure action to collect on the difference between the $6,913,086.61 foreclosure judgment and the $2,500,000.00 appraisal value of the property which came to APPROX $4,448,697.53. Again the client was represented by the same counsel as in the prior foreclosure action who fought the deficiency action unsuccessfully. Unfortunately once again on August 13, 2018, a Final Judgment of Deficiency was entered against the client by the Court in the amount of $4,648,697.61. Following the entry of the deficiency judgment, the Plaintiff moved to garnish the private and business accounts of the client and was moving to have the Court enter sanctions against the client and was also in the process of setting depositions to aid in the garnishment action.
It was at this stage that the client came to Loan Lawyers to determine if there was any help that we could provide so that the garnishment did not ruin his business. We met with the client and evaluated him for all potential options including filing for bankruptcy protection or possibly liquidating his business interests. The client indicated that if at all possible he wanted to attempt to save his business but it was clear that if the Plaintiff was able to seize the business accounts that the business would ultimately fail. We determined to attempt to reach a negotiated settlement if this were possible. Shortly after our appearance in the case, we reached out to opposing counsel to halt the ongoing litigation to determine if there were some negotiations that could be reached to resolve this matter without the need for additional protracted litigation.
This began a 4-month process of negotiation back and forth with opposing counsel, his client and our client that at the time seemed to keep falling apart. We did not give up and we kept doggedly pursuing all possible settlement options. The result of these extensive negotiations was that the parties were eventually able to come to an agreement and the $4,648,697.61 deficiency judgment was settled for a cash settlement of just over 2.1% of that full amount. Our client had retained us to defend him in a garnishment matter and to attempt to save his business from being ruined and ultimately we were able to negotiate a significant reduction from the Deficiency Judgment and come to a settlement agreement that worked for our client and saved his business.
Loan Lawyers has helped over 5,000 South Florida Homeowners and consumers with their debt problems, we have saved over 2,000 homes from foreclosure, eliminated more than $100,000,000 in Mortgage Principle and consumer debt, and have recovered over $10,000,000 on behalf of our clients due to bank, loan servicer, and debt collector violations. 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.” Mandatory disclosure from The Florida Bar.