Success Stories

Our client was sued over a loan allegedly made for the sale of a car. According to the creditor, our client purchased a car, took out a loan and then failed to repay it. We fought back against the lawsuit alleging that the debt was beyond the expiration date of a debt, also known as the statute of limitations.

While there are many exceptions and determining the precise date that the statute of limitations runs can be complicated, many debts will eventually expire if no charges or payments are made, as was the case here. We also argued in response to the lawsuit that the vehicle was sold in a commercially unreasonable manner. According to the documents attached to the lawsuit, after the vehicle was repossessed, it was sold for only a tiny fraction of the sale amount, so we alleged that if any debt was due at all, the amount was wrong.

The creditor engaged in a variety of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We also raised arguments as to whether or not the company suing our client actually owned the loan. In the mortgage crisis where loans for homes were packaged up, carved up and sold in pieces, the same thing happens for auto loans and many companies harassing members of the public over auto loans may not actually be the company who own them. We fought back very aggressively in the case and the creditor agreed to drop their lawsuit and leave our client alone.

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. You may not have as beneficial a result.

We just received a ruling from a Florida County Court Judge finding that Wells Fargo (as trustee for a mortgage backed security) is vicariously liable for the servicer’s failure to comply with Section 1641(f)(2) of TILA (Truth in Lending Act). This is believed to be the first reported order in a Florida State Court for a 1641(f)(2) claim. Basically the Dodd-Frank Amendments to TILA were not the most artfully Federal statutes. These amendments, amongst other things, gave a borrower the right to sue a loan owner for TILA violations. However, the duty to comply with TILA rests with the servicer, not the loan owner, in many instances. So, we sue the loan owner for the servicer’s failure to live up to the TILA obligations. The loan owners typically argue in court, as Wells Fargo did in this case, that they can’t be held responsible for the servicer’s failure to comply. The vast majority of courts in this country have found that the loan owners are vicariously liable, however. Of all of the cases that have been filed in Florida state and Federal courts, Loan Lawyers has handled all of them except for one and most of the courts have ruled in our clients’ favor on the issue of vicarious liability.

This order is very written and very thorough in its listing of cases that have addressed this issue. Loan Lawyers is proud to be spearheading the effort in Florida and around the country to find loan owners liable for TILA violations. ITS TIME TO PUT THE TRUTH BACK INTO THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

If you think that your lender has violated TILA, give Loan Lawyers a call for your free consultation. Our foreclosure and TILA attorneys are available for consultations in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach.

Our client received a lawsuit from a company which alleged that it had purchased an account exceeding a balance of over $10,000. We prepared a response to the lawsuit and explained to the company harassing our client that they were in violation of multiple portions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in that they attempted to collect a debt which was not owed, misrepresented the character, amount and legal status of a debt and that they had violation Florida’s usury statute by attempting to collect an unlawful and excessive rate of interest. State usury laws may not be binding upon national banks but the debt buyer was not a national bank, they simply claimed to have purchased the account from one.

Ultimately a settlement was reached in the matter much to the satisfaction of our client, resulting in no payment upon the alleged account by our client and the debt being removed from their credit report.

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.” Mandatory disclosure from The Florida Bar.

Client is retired, had been paying another law firm monthly to try to obtain a mortgage modification. After a year of submitting documents and making payments, client was hit with devastating news by her former counsel letting her know that a foreclosure sale was taking place in just two days. Former counsel tried to cancel the foreclosure sale in foreclosure court but the motion was denied just two days before the sale date. Client came to us the day before the foreclosure sale and after gathering the necessary information, we successfully filed her chapter 13 bankruptcy case the morning of the foreclosure sale and stopped the sale in its tracks. Now that the bankruptcy was filed, the debtor does not have to worry about the lender aggressively trying to race her to the finish line, while she comes current on the arrears in a comfortable five year payment plan.

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.

Our client was a member of the public and a borrower upon an alleged mortgage debt. Our office represented our client in a foreclosure action, an attempt to take their home for supposedly not paying a mortgage. While this was occurring the mortgage company continued to send our client bills in the mail every month, something forbidden by the Fair Debt Collection Practices act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. We filed a lawsuit against the mortgage creditor for what amounts to harassment. Just because our client may have owed money to the mortgage creditor does not mean that they can simply violate the law. Realizing that they were going to lose the harassment case, the mortgage creditor decided to give up and simply pay our client for their harassment of them.

Even though our client may have owed the mortgage creditor money, they will now be receiving a payment from the mortgage creditor as a consequence of their unlawful and illegal conduct.

Just because you may owe someone money does not mean that you do not have any rights. If a creditor is treating you poorly, they may have violated consumer protection laws and you should consider contacting an attorney. Our office offers free consultations and we would be happy to discuss your legal issues with you and determine if you have any claims.

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. You may not have as beneficial a result.

Our client hired us on a Friday evening to attend a Pre-Trial Conference the following Monday as to an alleged credit card debt which had allegedly been purchased by another company, a “debt buyer”. We appeared at Court the following Monday and explained to counsel for the debt buyer a number of defects contained within the complaint which might expose them to liability for filing improper papers with the Court. The debt buyer was persuaded on the spot to cease collection activities against our client and drop their lawsuit.

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.