Success Stories

Client had filed chapter 13 bankruptcy twice before but was unable to complete the cases because she had lost her job and fell behind on the plan payments. Her most recent case was dismissed with prejudice of 180 days, which means she cannot file bankruptcy again until after 180 days (6 months). This would be okay if there is no emergency; however, in this case, client’s home was in foreclosure and a foreclosure sale was scheduled right in the middle of this waiting period. The foreclosure court was unwilling to cancel or postpone the sale because it had been canceled multiple times before. Client was stuck and feared being left out on the street by the aggressive homeowners’ association.

We filed a motion to shorten the prejudice period, seeking permission from the court to file bankruptcy again before the expiration of the prejudice period. The homeowner’s association strongly opposed our motion and additionally, sought to extend the waiting period by an additional 60 days, arguing that the debtor has filed bankruptcy a couple of times before, canceled the sale many times, and was acting in bad faith. We argued to the court that the debtor was acting in good faith, made many payments in the previous bankruptcies, but unfortunately was dismissed because she lost her job in the middle of the case and was unable to afford the payments any longer; however, debtor has since found a new comparable job and is prepared to complete this bankruptcy and make the payments. The judge granted our motion to shorten the prejudice period and denied the HOA’s motion to extend the prejudice period; therefore, we were able to file client’s bankruptcy in time to stop the sale.

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.

We were hired by our client to defend a lawsuit filed against them to collect the deficiency of an auto loan. Our client was alleged to have purchased a vehicle and not made all payments on the vehicle, resulting in the vehicle being repossessed. Allegedly, the vehicle was then sold at auction, leaving a balance due on the vehicle. Our client was not sued by the lender, but by a company who claimed to have purchased the vehicle from the lender. We vigorously defended our client’s rights in this matter. The amount sought in the case was substantial. Creditors such as the plaintiff in this case generally buy debts for small sums. The plaintiff in the case realized that the costs involved in fully proving their case were so cost prohibitive as to make pursuing our client a loss for them and ultimately agreed to stop pursuing our client.

In November 2014, a close-knit Church retained us to assist them in a foreclosure lawsuit. The Church’s mortgage was on the verge of maturing within a few weeks and they were unable to make their monthly payments, let alone pay off the loan. With our professional assistance and guidance, we were able to work out a favorable settlement with the Lender. We were able to negotiate an affordable repayment plan whereby the Church was given the opportunity to pay the past due amount, while continuing to make monthly payments. Also, we were successful in extending the maturity date of the loan. The foreclosure lawsuit was dismissed and the sale date was vacated.

Our client, K.R. took out a Note in 2016. Later in 2016, due to a change in financial circumstances, K.R. defaulted on the loan by failing to make an installment payment and in early 2017, the Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action claiming to be the holder of the Note. Attached to their Complaint was a copy of the Note and Mortgage. The copy of the Note attached to the Complaint was made payable to the original lender/Plaintiff.

The litigation was fairly standard. K.R. filed Affirmative Defenses to which the Plaintiff did not reply, however the Plaintiff did move to strike some of the Affirmative Defenses, which was granted in part. In late 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the accompanying affidavits. The Motion for Summary Judgment was set for hearing in early 2018.

Prior to the Summary Judgment hearing, K.R. filed their opposition and accompanying affidavits. In general, standing, conditions precedent and damages were challenged. In particularly, K.R. questioned whether the Plaintiff’s own affidavit qualifies as an exception to hearsay, whether proof of conditions precedent was present, perhaps most importantly, whether the Plaintiff could prove the amount of damages they sought.

Inexplicably, the Plaintiff failed to include a copy of the ledgers/payment history with their own affidavit supporting summary judgment. This issue was directly challenged in K.R.’s opposition and argued at the Summary Judgment Hearing. Unfortunately, and for unknown reasons, the trial Judge decided to grant Summary Judgment for the Plaintiff anyways. K.R. immediately filed an appeal.

Upon filing the appeal, Plaintiff hired additional counsel to look over the merits of the appeal. Thankfully, their new counsel recognized that notwithstanding K.R.’s additional reasons to oppose summary judgment, without at least a payment history provided to support the damages Plaintiff sought, the summary judgment would be overturned on appeal. Instead of going through the lengthy process of appealing the summary judgment, Plaintiff’s new counsel proposed the idea of vacating the summary judgment and dismissing the appeal. This serves everyone best as it cuts back on unnecessary litigation over a pretty clear-cut error and gives K.R. the opportunity to continue defending his home. Moreover, with the new Plaintiff’s counsel, K.R. has been invited to try again for a modification or to explore other options available to help them keep their home.

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.

Plaintiff, US Bank NA, Trustee…for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2004-HE6 filed a complaint against Charles and Wylene Ellington on February 27, 2013. The clients retained Loan Lawyers on March 12, 2013. The case proceeded through normal litigation, including Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Defendant’s Discovery, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The case was placed on inactive status on September 30, 2014 for loan modification/loss mitigation review. Loan modification and loss mitigation eventually failed and the case was set for trial on February 15, 2015. After several continuances, the trial eventually proceeded on October 22, 2015.

The primary issue at trial was compliance with conditions precedent regarding the Acceleration Letter. The property address is 4267 NW 34^thTerr., Lauderdale Lake, FL 33309. The Acceleration Letter was allegedly sent to 4267N 34^th Ter., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309. The Judge allowed all of Plaintiff’s evidence in, but ultimately upheld Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal because the letter was not sent to the proper notice/property address.

Plaintiff eventually filed a Motion for Rehearing, which Defendant’s responded with a Motion to Strike and/or Response to the Motion for Rehearing. Plaintiff argued that a simple Google search would reveal that “4267 NW” and “4267N” lead to the same address. Plaintiff also requested the Court to reopen the case to allow for additional testimony from a US Post Office employee regarding their mailing procedures as well as supplemental business records from Plaintiff. Defendant’s response argued that a Motion for Rehearing was procedurally inappropriate, in that asking the Court to reopen the case to allow additional testimony and evidence was outside the scope what case law would permit. Additionally, Defendant’s argued that allowing the Plaintiff to correct their mistakes and have a second bite at the apple would be inherently unfair and prejudicial to Defendants.

The Court ultimately sided with the Defendants and entered an Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing on February 1, 2016. The Defendants are currently waiting to see if the Plaintiff files an appeal, but absent that, the Defendants are very happy with the results and eager to work on recovering attorney’s fees. Another win for Loan Lawyers and their clients!

One of our clients hired us to assist them in trying to save their home. While reviewing the documents in their foreclosure case to identify defendants, we found a series of violations of a consumer protection law that our client was not aware had occurred. We contacted our client and advised them of the violations and a short time afterwards prepared a lawsuit against their mortgage company pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Even though our client did owe money upon the mortgage and even though they were delinquent on their mortgage debt, their rights had been violated and they were entitled to compensation. We litigated the case and in less than three months the mortgage company was suitably convinced they were going to lose they decided to stop fighting and just pay our client for their illegal conduct.

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.