Success Stories

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.

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.

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 the Telephone 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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.