Success Stories

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

Our foreclosure attorneys were in trial today against Nationstar Mortgage in 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.

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 9:30 AM and went until 5:30 PM. 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.