Success Stories

Another great job by our team! This client was put into foreclosure so we immediately got to work. We sued the bank in Federal Court for violating the Truth in Lending Act. We ended up settling the foreclosure and the TILA lawsuit for the client with a spectacular result.

The client’s principle balance went from $221,000 to $73,000. The interest rate went from 9.9% to 3.34%. This all resulted in a principle and interest payment that went from $1,923.13 per month to $391.81!

As always, I have uploaded the loan modification agreement for all to see.

If you are a Florida homeowner that is in foreclosure or simply can not afford your mortgage any longer, be careful who you get involved with. I have seen countless people in hot water because they received the wrong advice. You need to find a foreclosure lawyer that has a proven track record of fighting for homeowners facing foreclosure. We have appointments available in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties.

Our consultations are always free and our plaintiff consumer cases are done on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or costs unless we are successful. Call us today at (844) 344-4813.

This was not an easy one to accomplish (then again, are there any easy solutions for homeowners?). What made this one so hard is this poor client lost her husband and he was the only borrower on the loan. It was difficult to do anything because the widow was not on the loan. In the end, we were able to work it out, but it was tough. This is one of the best modifications I have ever seen.

The client did not make a payment for over 5 years. The bank paid $33,120.46 in taxes and insurance for the borrower. The total amount due as on March 1, 2012 was $266,296.36. This amount was reduced to $84,000! The interest rate was variable from between 6.3% to 13.3%. The new rate is 3.36 fixed! The principle and interest payment went from $1,104.87 to $439.47. What makes this even more incredible is that the client did not make a payment for over 5 years and the bank laid out over $33,000 in taxes. Even after all of that, the payment was reduced by about 70%.

No one can ever guarantee results like this, but if you want a chance to save your home, you need a lawyer that litigates and that does bankruptcy, short sale, foreclosure defense, loan modification, and sues the bank. You have almost no chance of getting these results by hiring someone who will do nothing but delay your case. This is what many law firm do, unfortunately.

We offer free consultations with our foreclosure attorneys in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach with appointments available in Plantation / Fort Lauderdale, Delray Beach, North Miami Beach, and Coral Gables.

It just doesn’t get much better than this. (Don’t flame me about a free house being better please). This foreclosure client had a total amount due of approximately $241,000 on her mortgage. She was put into foreclosure in 2009. Our foreclosure lawyers have been working on her file since the beginning of 2010. The bank finally relented and the principle balance on her mortgage was reduced to $50,000! That is almost an 80% reduction in the client principle.

The new mortgage payment on this property is $228.12! Not too shabby and kudos to our litigation team and modification teams. Results like this can never be guaranteed and every case has different facts, but if you want to have a chance of getting a modification like this, you need to fins a foreclosure defense lawyer who knows how to litigate a case.

At Loan Lawyers, we have decades of combined legal experience and we are ready to fight the bank for you. You need to to take the first step and call us. We offer free consultations with our foreclosure and modification lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties. Put our foreclosure defense and loan modification experience to work for you.

Once, one of our foreclosure defense clients really wanted to save their home, but unfortunately didn’t have enough income for a loan modification. Client worked with us on a modification, but was eventually denied due to lack of income. The Client would need an additional $4000.00 a month to qualify, which was not feasible for her. Since the client had equity in the property she began working on selling it as a last resort, but ultimately wanted to retain the property.

The case eventually became at issue and set for trial on 3 separate occasions. After discussing the risks involved with fighting the trial, the client ultimately decided that she wanted to fight. We proceeded with the trial, and were able to convince the Court that the Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action in their complaint. The original complaint alleged a default date of 9/1/12, while the pay history showed that payments were made, accepted, and applied, thus pushing the actual default date to 12/1/12. The client was extremely happy to hear the good news. Another hard fought case where Loan Lawyers was victorious in saving our client’s home.

Contrary to popular belief, the banks are not always the ones dragging their feet; sometimes the borrower is the party responsible for being untimely. A middle-aged client initially retained Loan Lawyers in January of 2014 with the goal of modifying her mortgage loan to more affordable terms. Of important note is the fact that the client originally mortgaged her home in late 2008, and she had already modified her mortgage loan twice (once in 2010 and again in 2013) before retaining Loan Lawyers to attempt to modify her mortgage loan yet again.

While the loan modification process differs, often substantially, depending on the particular lender, even the most cooperative of lenders typically will not agree to modify a mortgage loan more than once within a year’s timeframe and any more than twice throughout the life of the loan. Consequently, the moment our client retained us to attempt yet a third modification of her mortgage loan within roughly a five-year period, the odds were already stacked greatly against her.

Our client’s original mortgage loan consisted of monthly principal and interest payments in the amount of $832.86, at an annual interest rate of 6.5%. Our client allegedly defaulted on her second loan modification in April of 2013, and the bank subsequently filed for foreclosure against her home. After retaining Loan Lawyers, unfortunately our client proved extremely difficult to contact, was consistently late in responding to us, and often failed to provide us all of the necessary information and documentation required to efficiently process her third loan modification application. Nevertheless, we did not give up in our efforts to maintain communication with our client; we aggressively fought the bank in Court and were able to successfully cancel the foreclosure auction of our client’s home four times; and we finally achieved a third loan modification for our client that resulted in a $10,000.00 principal reduction, a significantly reduced interest rate of 3.75%, and monthly principal and interest payments of $796.44.

Due to our persistence with both the bank and our own client, Loan Lawyers was ultimately able to obtain a competitive loan modification on behalf of our client, despite her needing a substantial amount of extra care and attention from our office during the long journey to attaining her goal. If you are looking to modify the terms of your existing mortgage loan, please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your options. Loan Lawyers is committed to helping each of our clients, regardless of their particular circumstances, every step along the way.

On countless occasions, Loan Lawyers has been retained by homeowners seeking further foreclosure defense legal representative after they have already been represented by prior legal counsel with an unfavorable outcome in their case. Such was the circumstance with a particular husband and wife who sought out our legal services. The mortgage lender had filed a foreclosure lawsuit against the married couple back in 2012. The couple were previously represented by a prominent law firm, and the borrowers’ defenses raised in the case included alleged criminal activity on the part of the lender as to severe misallocation of the borrowers’ submitted mortgage payments, as well as intentionally falsely reporting to the borrowers a significantly overinflated outstanding mortgage loan balance. As the case progressed through the court system, other disconcerting issues arose that ultimately resulted in the trial judge assigned to the case being recused and another trial judge being assigned to the case. The case eventually went to trial, but despite the abundance of extremely questionable conduct on the part of the lender, the homeowners nevertheless lost at trial. The court entered final judgment of foreclosure against the homeowners in the amount of $362,402, and set a foreclosure auction date less than two months from the date of the trial.

The homeowners terminated their prior legal counsel and promptly retained Loan Lawyers to represent them post-judgment. We worked with the clients to expedite the assembling and submission of a loan modification application package within approximately two weeks of being retained by the clients. Due to the pending loan modification review, we were successful at post-judgment hearings in twice obtaining postponements of the foreclosure auction.

Although the final judgment amount was $362,402, the appraised value of our clients’ property was only $184,524 in the current state of the economy. Diligently persisting with the mortgage lender’s legal counsel while tactfully negotiating with the lender’s representatives, we were able to attain a phenomenal loan modification on behalf of our clients. The mortgage lender ultimately agreed to offer a principal reduction of $146,570, thus decreasing our clients’ outstanding mortgage balance to within 85% of the diminished, current value of their property. Naturally, our clients were extremely relieved and thankful that Loan Lawyers was able to achieve a positive result after all.

Loan Lawyers had two clients who found themselves in a similar predicament. They had a scheduled court ordered sale date on their home while the bank was actively reviewing their application to modify their mortgage. The bank argued that they were only days away from having a decision and moved to cancel the sale of the home, unfortunately the court would not agree to canceling the sale.

The only way in which the borrowers could cancel the respective sale of their homes was by filing for bankruptcy. The filing of a bankruptcy stays all collection activity including the sale of a home. The bankruptcy court has initiated the mortgage modification mediation program. Essentially, it allows those in bankruptcy to apply for a modification through their bankruptcy case.

Luckily for these clients, they did not have to reapply for a modification through the court’s modification program. Within weeks of filing their respective bankruptcies, they were approved for a modification which they applied for prior to filing the bankruptcy and were able to save their homes.

For the first client, the foreclosure was her only debt which needed to be addressed through her bankruptcy filing. We were able to dismiss her case as there was purpose for her to stay in a bankruptcy – now that she saved her home and had no other substantial debt to address.

The second client elected to remain in his bankruptcy. He was behind on his homeowners association who had threatened to put him into foreclosure. Remaining in a Chapter 13, allowed him to remove the lien the association had placed against his home. By staying in the bankruptcy, he was able to save his home and address his credit card debt. Chapter 13 allowed the opportunity to round up his creditors and deal with them in a unified manner.

Plaintiff, American Home Mortgage Servicing, filed their complaint on 11/15/11. The Complaint alleged that the Plaintiff was the holder and a default date of 1/1/10. Plaintiff also included a reformation count, as the legal description in the mortgage was wrong. The legal description was a completely different from the correct description (Racquet Club Apartments… compared to Stoneridge Lakes Estates…). Attached to the Complaint was a Note payable to Home Banc Mortgage Corporation with no visible indorsement, a Mortgage that included paragraph 22, and an Assignment of Mortgage from American Home Mortgage Servicing as agent for Home Banc Mortgage Corp to American Home Mortgage Servicing.

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied. On 4/17/11, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of their reformation count. Defendant propounded discovery and filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on 4/27/12. On 3/28/14, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff, changing the Plaintiff from American Home Mortgage Servicing to Ocwen Loan Servicing. An Agreed Order to that effect was entered on 7/24/14. The case was set for trial and rescheduled several times. Ultimately, trial occurred on 5/26/15.

At trial, the Defendant moved for involuntary dismissal, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prove reformation of the legal description or in the alternative, that the Plaintiff was foreclosing on the wrong legal description, and for failure to comply with paragraph 22 conditions precedent. The court granted the dismissal and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Rehearing on 6/10/15.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider reformation, but if it did, Plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence of reformation, and that the Plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence of a routine business practice to establish compliance with condition precedent. Defendant responded to the Motion for Rehearing by arguing that if the Court lacked jurisdiction, than Plaintiff would admittedly be foreclosing on the wrong property. Additionally, the Defendant’s response argued that the Plaintiff put forth only minimal evidence of intent of the parties as it pertains to the reformation of the legal description. Specifically, the Plaintiff’s witness offered no testimony and the only evidence before the Court was the actual note and mortgage, which was insufficient to prove a different legal description was intended. Finally, the Defendant argued proof of mailing a prior demand letter was not proof of mailing the material demand letter. Moreover, the witness was not able to establish a routine business practice as the witness was not familiar with the vendor’s policies and procedures for mailing out a demand letter sufficient enough to warrant a finding that mailing the letter was routine practice for the vendor.

On 9/10/15 the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing and Defendant filed their Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The parties are in the process of negotiating fees, however the client is ultimately happy with the outcome.

A married couple with a young child retained Loan Lawyers in January of 2017, after a final judgment of foreclosure had already been entered against them and a future foreclosure sale date of March 6, 2017 had been set by the Court. Our team of staff at Loan Lawyers worked diligently with our newly retained clients to be able to compile and submit a complete loan modification application package to the mortgage lender’s loan servicer by January 30, 2017.

Despite having submitted a complete loan modification application package, the mortgage lender never provided Loan Lawyers any timely written communication stating whether the loan modification application package was actually deemed complete or incomplete. Pursuant to the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, a mortgage lender or its loan servicer must provide the borrower, or the borrower’s attorney if the borrower has retained legal counsel, a timely written notice after receipt of a loan modification application package stating whether the application is complete or incomplete. If the application is deemed incomplete, the written notice must specify the additional documents and/or information that the borrower must submit in order for the loan modification application package to be deemed complete.

On February 24, 2017, Loan Lawyers therefore issued a written notice of error to the mortgage lender’s loan servicer advising that the loan servicer was not acting in compliance with the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act because the loan servicer had failed to provide the required, timely written notice stating whether our clients’ loan modification application package was deemed complete or incomplete. Also on February 24, 2017, Loan Lawyers, LLC filed with the Court a motion to cancel the upcoming March 6, 2017 foreclosure sale, due to our clients’ submitted loan modification application package to which we had not yet received any timely reply as to whether it was deemed complete or incomplete.

On the same day that Loan Lawyers issued the written notice of error and filed the motion to cancel the upcoming foreclosure sale, we received a reply notice through the mortgage lender’s attorney stating that our clients’ loan modification application package was deemed complete and that no additional documentation was necessary for the loan servicer to complete its review of our clients’ loan modification application package.

Just three days later on February 27, 2017, our clients were approved by the mortgage lender for a permanent loan modification, and the mortgage lender agreed to cancellation of the March 6, 2017 foreclosure sale. Through the diligence of our team of competent staff and our attorneys’ extensive knowledge and experience in the realm of mortgage foreclosures, Loan Lawyers was successfully able to obtain a permanent loan modification for our clients and a cancellation of the foreclosure sale of our clients’ home, within less than a month from the date that our clients’ loan modification application package was submitted to the mortgage lender’s loan servicer.