Success Stories

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.

For those of you who read our blogs often, you know that we often call a foreclosure trial victory sweet but this one is really sweet. This foreclosure client came to Loan Lawyers about 3 years ago after being sued by Nationstar. They had another foreclosure defense attorney in Broward who really botched the case. Their house was due to be sold in 2 weeks, that is until we got involved. We busted the bank with an obvious fraudulent affidavit. How the previous attorney did not see it is beyond me. We immediately filed a motion to vacate the final judgment and to cancel the sale which was granted. The bank had 30 days to amend their foreclosure complaint. They waited about one year. As it turns out, this was the client’s saving grace, as I will explain.

I have never seen a case where a bank flaunts the rules and court orders like this one and I’ve seen some pretty crazy stuff. The bank never provided any documents to us despite our sending a Request for Production. They never responded to interrogatories nor did they respond to our Request for Admissions. A Request for Admissions is when we send a document to the bank requiring them to admit or deny certain factual allegations. If a party does not respond within 30 days, they are automatically admitted and the bank is prohibited from introducing testimony or witnesses that contradict the admissions. More on that soon.

So, not only did the bank not comply with the discovery rules and respond to our discovery requests, they jerked us around for 3 years on modifying the loan. This family was not looking for a free house or a free ride. The hit a temporary rough patch and got back on their feet. All they needed was a little cooperation from the bank and they could have began paying their mortgage. The bank played 3 years worth of modification games with us. They would take so long to review the modification that the documents would get a month or two old, so the bank made us update documents constantly. Finally, we had enough and we schedule a mediation so we could sit face to face with the bank and try to get things done. Guess what? The bank never showed up! (They finally showed up at the second one, but were unprepared). After three years, we finally get a response weeks before trial that we did not get documents in on time so they denied the mortgage loan modification. This was infuriating because we had proof they had the documents in time. This is a typical modification nightmare. That was the final straw, it was time for the gloves to come off. I have never seen a bank act this bad time and time again.

So, we were set for trial this week. Pursuant to the trial order, the bank had to produce its exhibits that they intend to introduce at trial. We send a request several weeks before trial, but the bank never responded. We followed up several times, again without a response. Finally, the afternoon before trial the bank started sending documents over. So after three years of foreclosure litigation, the bank first sent its evidence to us less than 24 hours before trial in violation of the trial order and the rules of civil procedure. To make matters worse, they even had the chutzpah to send more documents as I was literally driving on the way to trial. So much for giving a homeowner time to prepare. So, I get to court and ask the court to strike all of their evidence due to late notice. I really thought the judge would agree with me, but I thought wrong. The judge did not want to take such harsh action against the bank and told me I could have a continuance to get more time to prepare. I did not want the continuance because I felt I had the bank right where I wanted them even despite not having proper time to prepare.

Ok, back to the Request for Admissions. As we were walking up to court, the bank handed me their responses to the admissions. Remember, if the bank did not answer within 30 days, then by default they admit everything. So, the bank’s responses were 1 1/2 years late. Thus, their responses are a nullity unless the court allows the bank to file late responses, which I objected to. Fortunately, the judge had enough and although she did not strike their evidence, she did not allow the late response to the request for admissions. So, by default the bank admitted it did not have standing. Game over folks. The bank still wanted to go to trial for some reason. The judge looked at them and asked how in the world they plan on proving their foreclosure case. It was impossible now. After a brief recess and the bank lawyer and witness speaking about the case, Nationstar finally came to its senses and dismissed its foreclosure case. What’s great about this case is that it appears to be past the statute of limitations, thus the bank may NEVER be able to file another foreclosure action against our clients. After everything the bank put this poor family through, the bank deserves what they got. At the end, the bank is the victim of its own delay tactics and I could not be happier for our clients!

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are staring down the barrel of foreclosure, please do not go at it alone. At Loan Lawyers, we are a team of experienced litigators with all of the tools and knowledge necessary to properly defend you. Call our foreclosure defense attorneys today to schedule your free consultation. (844) 344-4813.

As I have pounded over and over again, you need a foreclosure lawyer that is suing banks. At Loan Lawyers, we take an aggressive approach against the banks. We file many TILA (Truth in Lending act lawsuits). Under TILA, if a bank purchases a loan, the new bank must disclose this fact to the borrower. What we see time and time again for years is the banks doctoring up the assignments, allonges, and note indorsements days before a foreclosure lawsuit is filed. We view this as a violation of 1462(g) of the Truth in Lending Act and we sue accordingly. Wells Fargo tried to have our lawsuit dismissed claiming that even though the assignment of mortgage was done shortly before the foreclosure was filed in court, the transferred occurred years earlier. The federal court ruled in our favor and did not buy the bank’s argument.

Congratulations to Yechezkal Rodal for another TILA win. We sued Bank of America and Freddie Mac for failure to properly respond to our request for the name, address, and phone number of the current owner of the loan. They provided the name and address but not the phone number. Six months later (after we started suing them for providing incomplete information) they amended their response to include the phone number. We sued them anyway because they violated the Truth in Lending Act by not providing the phone number initially. The bank made the same argument that it makes in other cases that they are not liable, blah blah blah, but the court correctly saw through their nonsense and found that we have stated a viable claim.

The question was whether the court should impose vicarious liability to the owner for the servicer’s mistake. The court followed the Khan line of cases that state they are a liability. It is also worth noting that Khan was also a Loan Lawyers case that was also handled by Mr. Rodal. There was also the issue of whether they are exempted from liability because they eventually provided the correct information. The court shot that argument down as well.

All homeowners have the right to request this information from the loan servicer. We catch banks lying all of the time and providing inconsistent information. This is one of the greatest tools that homeowners have in their fight against the bad guys.

At Loan Lawyers, we will help all Florida homeowners obtain this information for FREE. Further, if the bank plays around with the request, we will sue them for you on contingency. We won’t get paid unless we win. What a bargain!

Call one of our TILA lawyers at 1-888-FIGHT-13 to schedule your free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach County. Our foreclosure and TILA lawyers are ready to fight for you!

As we have stressed over and over again, if you are facing a Florida foreclosure, you need a foreclosure lawyer that is not afraid to sue the banks. Here are 7 settlement checks that we have received last week for our foreclosure clients. These checks are for either the bank contacting our client when we told them not to do so or for the servicer’s failure to identify the owner of the loan, as well as their address and phone number. Our approach is to sue the banks for these consumer protection violations because it is not uncommon after the bank starts stroking these checks to start paying attention to our clients and offering real modifications. Our attorneys routinely sue banks and servicers for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act. So, even if the bank does not agree at that point to a principle reduction, the homeowner is receiving a check from the bank while they are in foreclosure! The banks moan and complain, but hey, even they have to play by the rules. Unfortunately, not enough foreclosure lawyers in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach take them to task.

We had many people following our foreclosure trial against Chase Home Finance LLC today, so i wanted to give the final update on my blog. Here’s what went down in Miami-Dade Circuit Court this morning. Actually, I’ll back up to yesterday. The bank called us up yesterday afternoon to see if we would simply agree to a final judgment of foreclosure if they let the client stay in for another 90 – 120 days. Yeah right, offer rejected.

So trial was set for 8:45 this morning. The courtroom was a zoo. There were about 90 foreclosure trials set for this morning. In the vast majority of cases, the foreclosure defense attorneys agreed to the foreclosure in exchange for a 90 – 120 day sale date. In my humble opinion, defense attorneys need to push more of these cases to trial. I think many of these cases can be one. (My hat’s off to a young attorney who actually did her first trial ever this morning for a foreclosure client. She lost, but put up a good fight).

So, the bank’s attorney came up to me this morning and asked again if I would agree to the foreclosure and my response was the same, a resounding – NO! We actually has a really good defense and I believe we would have prevailed. The case was called and the bank asked for a continuance to postpone the trial. The judge denied that request and put us at the end of the docket for trial. The end of the docket finally came after a couple of hours. The case was called for trial and the bank again requested to postpone the trial and the judge again denied that request. So, the bank took a dismissal rather than go to trial and prove its case.

I guess I wasn’t the only one who thought I had a good case.

Our foreclosure lawyers are available for free consultations in our offices located in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach.

This client had a foreclosure action pending against him. He never got a lawyer and the bank just steamrolled right over him. They doctored an assignment of mortgage and forged a notary certificate. The client came to us just weeks before his sale. We were able to get the sale cancelled and the case is now pending in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Not to mention that the client is still in his home almost 3 years after it was to be sold. As far as I know, this is the first appeal in Florida dealing directly with fraud in a foreclosure action as well as the first appeal to address whether a securitized trust must comply with the pooling and servicing agreement in order to have standing to sue for foreclosure.

Client was faced with a foreclosure sale on her homestead property 16 days from the day she retained Loan Lawyers to attempt to save her house through a cure and maintain in a bankruptcy case. This allows the homeowner to pay the arrears over a 60-month period while making their regular mortgage payment. However, client had previously filed a total of three bankruptcy cases in the two years preceding this potential case – each of which was dismissed.

Understanding that much had to be done in the 16 days leading up to Debtor’s sale, Loan Lawyers immediately filed two emergency motions, one to re-open Debtor’s most recent filing and a second seeking to shorten the prejudice period prohibiting Debtor from instantly filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Generally, when a case is dismissed, its dismissed with a 180-day prejudice period. This is to prevent serial filings and to deter people from abusing the bankruptcy courts. Debtor had faced many personal situations which impaired her ability to successfully move forward with this dismissed case and Loan Lawyers thoroughly explained Debtor’s situation. Loan Lawyers further stressed that the foreclosure sale was scheduled on Debtor’s primary and only residence. Fortunately, both motions were granted and Debtor was permitted to instantly file a fourth bankruptcy case.

Debtor’s sale date was not yet cancelled, however. The Bankruptcy Code holds that a second (or third) bankruptcy case filed within a year is filed in bad faith and it is up to the Debtor to prove otherwise. As the debtor had three active cases within a one-year period, and fourth overall, the filing of Debtor’s case did not impose an automatic stay and her mortgage lender was free to move forward with the sale date despite a filed bankruptcy. To correct this situation, Loan Lawyers filed a Motion to Impose the Automatic Stay and made similar arguments in hopes of having Debtor’s motion granted. Debtor’s motion was granted and her sale date was ultimately cancelled.

This is just one case that outlines the risks associated with multiple bankruptcy filings. On your first filing, the Court affords you all of the benefits of a bankruptcy automatically, such as the automatic stay and any necessary extensions to complete your documents. However, should this first case be dismissed and multiple cases are necessary, the Court increases the burden on the Debtor to provide why they are a Debtor who should benefit from the bankruptcy system. This leads to a stressful situation that is full of additional expended time and costs. It is important to discuss your first case with an experienced attorney to avoid any potential issues and to have the case progress correctly the first time.