Success Stories

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!

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.

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).

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!

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.

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 peace and quiet, and the nice check she received from the settlement was an added bonus!

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.

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.

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.