Success Stories

Stan came to Loan Lawyers because he was receiving numerous auto-dialed phone calls on his cell phone from a bank trying to collect on a mattress he purchased from a local store. The phone calls were causing a major disruption in his everyday life. The bank would ignore Stan’s requests to stop calling his cell phone and would instead call Stan at all hours of the day. Stan was unable to escape the harassment and felt there was no way to stop the bank from causing him so much agony. Stan informed the bank that he was trying to find a new job so that he could make payments to the bank for the outstanding balance. Instead of stopping the calls the bank continued to call Stan’s cell phone even while he was working at his new job causing problems with him and his boss. Thankfully, Stan found the relief he was looking for from the help of the staff at Loan Lawyers. With Loan Lawyers representing him, Stan filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the bank for violations of the TCPA and FCCPA. Stan alleged that the debt collector willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with an auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded message without Stan’s prior consent. In addition, Stan alleged that the frequency of which the bank called him constituted harassment under Florida law.

Under the TCPA, a person can receive $500 in damages for each violation or $1,500 for each violation if the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA. The matter was resolved; the debt was waived, in addition to Stan being compensated for the phone calls he received. Stan is able move on without the burden that the bank threatening and harassing him. Stan can now move on with his life away from the loan servicer’s disrupting phone calls that haunted him thanks to the staff and lawyers at Loan Lawyers.

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.

*Pseudonym used.

**Results may not be typical. You may not have as beneficial a result.

My hat’s off to our foreclosure defense team on another job well done in this week’s Broward County foreclosure trial. This was a unique case. The bank lost the note and the assignment of mortgage plus they got the completely wrong legal description on the mortgage. You might say that banks lose notes and documents all of the time, however this is a common misconception. It is VERY rare that a bank can not find the documents it needs. Why is the general perception that bank lose paperwork? Banks used to often file foreclosure lawsuits alleging that they lost the note even though they had it. At the time of trial, or shortly before, they would then drop the lost note count in its complaint. I imagine that the banks were so overwhelmed with the sheer number of foreclosures that it was more efficient for them to say they lost the note and then find it later. That being said, there are very few true lost note cases.

This foreclosure trial that we won this week in Broward was one of those few cases. Not only did the bank lose the note, they lost the assignment of mortgage also and they did not even have a copy of it. At trial, the bank witness admitted that they only had a copy of the note and that copy was still payable to the original lender. They had no proof that the original lender ever indorsed the note to the plaintiff which was some securitized trust. In fact, the witness admitted she did not know if the note was ever indorsed. So, the note was still payable to the original lender. Now, the bank can prove standing by introducing the an assignment of mortgage and note. However, they alleged that this was lost too and they did not even have a copy. So, Wells Fargo simply had no proof that the trust properly owned the loan.

To make matters worse, the mortgage that they were seeking to foreclose on did not have the correct legal description. The bank had a count for reformation of mortgage but they never elicited any testimony that the legal description was wrong or what the correct legal description should be. We successfully argued to the court that these were all problems that the bank could not overcome. The court agreed and entered a final judgment in favor of the homeowner. Another satisfied customer.

If you are facing foreclosure in Florida, Loan Lawyers is here to fight for your rights and to do everything we can to save your house. Consultations are free and rates are affordable. Call us now to schedule an appointment with one of our foreclosure attorneys in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach counties.

Score another one for the good guys. This client was put into foreclosure at the end of 2012. According to the bank, he owed $473,000. That does not include attorneys’ fees and costs. Our lawyers immediately went to work on the litigation and a loan modification and achieved a phenomenal result. The principle on his mortgage was reduced to $125,000! That is a huge principle reduction and a a great score for our client.

In addition, the interest rate went from 9.49% to 2% for the first five years and 3.75% for the remainder of the term. The payment went from $3,192.47 to $570.29! This is as good as it gets and my hat’s off to our team for getting this done. These types of results do not come without hard work and believing in what you do.

If you are thinking of hiring an attorney for your foreclosure situation, do your homework. Not all law firms are created equal. While we can never guarantee results like this, if you hire a lawyer without the tools and experience to properly represent you, you have almost no chance of getting a similar result.

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

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.

A client contacted Loan Lawyers because they had been sued by a credit card company for nearly twenty thousand dollars. Our client claimed that a small part of that amount (less than 5) was due to an error as our client was previously a victim of identity theft, and so there were a handful of incorrect charges upon the account. We began to investigate our client’s position and sent out extensive discovery against the debt collector.

In addition, during discovery and analyzing of all of the matters pertaining to our client’s case, we concluded that the debt collector attempting to collect the debt had made errors in one of the disclosure letters it had sent to our client prior to filing the lawsuit. By not including the correct language necessary under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) they had broken the law. We immediately sued them under the FDCPA and took the case on a contingency fee basis so it didn’t cost our client any money out of pocket.

When we received the discovery in our client’s credit card case it corroborated our position that some of the charges were incorrect due to the previous identity theft. We immediately used this evidence as leverage against the debt collector and persuaded them that we would dismiss our FDCPA case against them if they agreed to drop their entire case against our client. They agreed, and due to our hard work we were successful in wiping out a $20,000 credit card debt for our client.

Our client was ecstatic. If this client went to a different law firm the chances are they would have had the client file bankruptcy. Since Loan Lawyers employs a multi-faceted approach to debt elimination we were able to get our clients debt wiped out and save him the cost and process of having to file for bankruptcy.

Client came to us heartbroken. She has struggled and saved for her family, and saw that at the rate she was going, she would never be able to make her ever-increasing loan payments. Our client took matters into her own hands and filed for a modification with her Lender. Despite her best efforts, and despite her still fighting to modify her loan, providing every document, and every paper, the Lender still filed for a foreclosure against her. This single mother from another country was assured by the Lender not to worry, as they knew she was trying to modify her loan. All of the assurances aside, the Lender pressed harder in the foreclosure case and received a default against the client. We fought hard and fought without fear; the default was vacated, and her case dismissed.

Our foreclosure attorneys beat Bank of America in this morning’s foreclosure trial. Here’s the scoop. We propounded discovery requests to the bank, including Requests for Production, Requests for Admissions, and Interrogatories in January 2013. As is usual, we did not get any response. I just love how the banks rush to take someone’s house, but they refuse to follow the rules. Anyway, I digress. When a party fails to answer Requests for Admissions, the requests are deemed admitted pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. So, in this morning’s foreclosure trial, the bank plead a lost note count in their complaint. One of the requests that we asked the bank to admit or deny was that they never really lost the note. The fact that they failed to answer the request means that they admit the note was not lost. Therefore, the bank wold be prohibited from introducing testimony that the note was lost.

So, the bank showed up this morning and filed a Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions asking the court to forgive their mistake and allow the case to proceed without the admissions. Frankly, these motions are generally granted because the law favors hearing cases in the merits, not on technical admissions. After the court heard the bank, the judge asked for my response. I took the court through the whole time line. I explained that our foreclosure attorneys sent the discovery requests in January of this year without any response. When we received the trial order, we asked the bank to provide copies of all trial exhibits pursuant to the trial order. That was about 5 weeks ago. They never gave them to us. So, last week, our foreclosure lawyers emailed them and reminded them that they never responded to discovery nor have they given us copies of the evidence. They finally sent the evidence at the end of the day last Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. The bank then comes to court today with the Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions and answers to interrogatories.

I argued to the court that the interrogatory responses were not responses at all, but they objected to every question and did not provide any real answers. I asked the court to consider the motive in filing the motion. Either they actually wanted to follow the rules and ensure my client receives due process of law or they are trying not to get caught with their pants down. I suggested to the judge that it was the latter. If the bank really was making an effort, albeit late, to comply with the rules, they would have answered the interrogatories, not given ridiculous objections, and they would have responded to the Request for Production. If all they did was answer the Request for Admissions, then its clear that they did not respond to discovery in good faith. The court agreed with me and denied Bank of America’s Motion for Relief from Technical Admissions. The case was over at that point and Bank of America dismissed its foreclosure against my client.

Ok, so what’s the moral of the story? Foreclosure defense attorneys need to propound and pursue discovery. We get clients all of the time who are represented by other foreclosure lawyers and come in with trial dates set. When we review the case, we frequently learn that the attorney failed to send discovery request. Tsk tsk. At Loan Lawyers, you will get aggressive representation at a fair price. We can never promise to win a case and every case has different facts, so results may differ, but we promise to work hard and treat your house as if it were our own.

If you are facing a foreclosure trial, please find a real trial attorney with a proven track record of beating the banks. At Loan Lawyers, we will give you a free consultation with a foreclosure attorney in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach. Call us now to schedule your free consultation.

Client retained us in June 2013 to assist them in their foreclosure matter. Clients were unsuccessful in getting a modification on multiple occasions. Husband lost his job, which created an enormous negative ripple effect in their personal matters. They desperately wanted to remain in their home after having created so many memories in there, however the bank would not offer them a second chance after the husband was able to gain employment. We were successful in getting this young couple a modification with a principal reduction in the amount of $21,718.66. Plaintiff immediately vacated the final judgment against them and dismissed the action. Clients were extremely excited and laughed and cried tears of joy and relief when they came in to sign their permanent modification documents.

Plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, first filed a complaint against our client R. U. on January 28, 2013. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that they were a holder of the Note and a default date of June 1, 2012. This complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff on June 26, 2013, based upon a “completed loan modification.” The clients never received nor applied for a modification, so it appears that the voluntary dismissal was in error. Despite that, Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a second complaint on October 31, 2013, claiming again to be the holder and now alleging a June 1, 2013 default date. The case proceeded through normal litigation and eventually proceeded to trial on March 7, 2016.

The primary issue at trial was Plaintiff’s failure to prove standing and the “negotiability” of the note. The original lender was “Amnet Mortgage Inc., dba American Mortgage Network of Florida”. The first indorsement was from “American Mortgage Network, Inc., dba American Mortgage Network of Florida” to Residential Funding Company. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a connection between “Amnet Mortgage Inc.” and “American Mortgage Network Inc.” and how “American Mortgage Network Inc” was authorized to create the indorsement to Residential Funding Company. Although arguments were made about both corporations operating under the same dba, the Judge agreed that they were two separate entities and no evidence was presented as to how the note passed from the original lender to “American Mortgage Network Inc”. The Judge found that the note lacked negotiability, and since the Plaintiff was traveling as a holder of the Note, they failed to prove standing. Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was granted. Another win for Loan Lawyers and our happy client!