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!
Success Stories
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 $179 Billion 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
