Success Stories

John C. (real name withheld for privacy) came to Loan Lawyers with a problem regarding forced-place insurance on his property. John owned his house free and clear and needed some cash for his business. He applied and was approved for a home equity line of credit for a small fraction of the value of his home. Part of his deal with the bank was that he would not have to carry any additional insurance on the property than he already had. John made his monthly payments in full and on time and paid his property insurance premiums in full and on time for the next 8 years. After 8 years, the bank decided to force-place insurance on the property and raised his monthly payments over $200.00.

John repeatedly went into his local branch where he had first obtained the loan and spoke with everyone he could, but to no avail. He also sent letter after letter to the bank trying to get to the bottom of the issue. The bank sent inspectors to his house to take photographs, and one inspector even told John’s neighbor that he was taking pictures because the property was in foreclosure, which was a lie. Loan Lawyers took John’s case on a contingency basis, so John wasn’t obligated to pay Loan Lawyers anything unless the prevailed. While discussing his force-placed insurance issue, Loan Lawyers looked into the totality of the debt issue to determine what other causes of action John may have available to him. After additional questioning, we found out that the bank had started calling him on his cell phone about his debt. John initially kept asking the bank to stop the calls and even wrote them about it. However, the calls kept coming. John had just been ignoring the calls and had mostly stopped using his cell phone because all of the calls were driving him crazy.

Loan Lawyers immediately filed a lawsuit against the bank and alleged violations of various federal and state laws. One of the counts in the lawsuit was for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C §227, et seq. (“TCPA”). The TCPA makes it illegal for a company to call someone’s cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system without the person’s express consent. The penalties for each violation are between $500.00 and $1,500.00 per call. Due to the high value of the case, the bank fought tooth and nail and hired a top law firm to represent them. Loan Lawyers fought hard for our clients rights and during the heavy litigated case discovered that the bank had called the client over 1600 times in less than a year. Loan Lawyers was also able to prove that the client had repeatedly asked the bank to stop the barrage of calls. We were successful in settling John’s case for $975,000.00, which was a life-changer for our client. Had John gone to most other law firms, they would have addressed the insurance claim and ignored the phone calls because the client hadn’t mentioned them. Since Loan Lawyers takes a comprehensive and holistic approach to every case, we were able to obtain an incredible result for our client.

Another happy Miami-Dade foreclosure client. Our foreclosure defense lawyers beat Specialized Loan Servicing (“SLS”) at last week’s Miami-Dade foreclosure trial. The plaintiff was Wells Fargo as trustee of some securitized trust, but SLS was the servicer. I actually thought that this case would be an easy win, but we had to work really hard to achieve this result. The foreclosure trial went on for many hours. We were successful in keeping out much of the bank’s evidence, but they got in much of what they needed to win the case.

The bank still had to admit the loan payment history and the default letter. They were both prepared by the prior loan servicer, Bank of America. The bank’s witness worked for SLS, not Bank of America. He was very honest and admitted he did not know anything about Bank of America’s business practices. Based upon this, our foreclosure lawyers argued to that the loan payment history is hearsay and inadmissible. The bank argued that it was admissible under the “business records exception”. I pointed out to the court that these were the records of Bank of America, not SLS and without testimony and Bank of America’s record keeping practices the loan history is inadmissible. I argued case that support my position such as Glarum and Yang. The court disagreed with my position (much to my surprise) and allowed in the loan payment history. Things looked pretty bleak at that point because the last thing the bank needed to win was to get the default letter into evidence and if the court allowed in the loan payment history prepared by Bank of America, it seemed likely she would admit the default letter. However, like any good trial lawyer, you never give up.

After my voir dire of the witness on the default letter, much to my delight, the court kept it out of evidence. This was the last few minutes of the trial and was a huge victory. Without this letter in evidence, the bank could not prove that it met the condition precedent. The bank did not take a voluntary dismissal at that point and they rested their case. I asked the court to involuntarily dismiss the case because they failed to prove that they properly accelerated the loan. The court agreed and involuntarily dismissed the case.

By the way, when you read other attorneys’ website who claim to be foreclosure fighters, how many of them actually post the court’s findings so you can see for yourself?

The best part of this case is that my client is an 88 year old woman. How in the world could I ever break the news to this elderly woman she has to leave her house because the bank won? Thank G-d I did not have to tell her that I got to share the great news that we won! There’s no questions about it, I love representing homeowners. Of our 5 trials so far this year, we have won/dismissed 4 of them. I head to Flagler County for trial tomorrow. This is going to be a busy year for trials!

This was actually my second trial last week with SLS. On the first trial, the bank knew they had evidentiary problems, so rather than risk a loss, they took a voluntary dismissal.

If you have a trial set on your foreclosure case, you need to find a great trial lawyer NOW. Do not go to trial on your own, you will almost certainly lose. If you have an foreclosure defense attorney, make sure that they are a trial attorney who knows their way around a courtroom. Our foreclosure lawyers are available for a free consultation in Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Call us NOW at (844) 344-4813.

We just scored another bog principle reduction for a foreclosure client. As always, we try to post results online so that you can see them for yourself. How many other foreclosure lawyers are doing that? Advertising is one thing, putting your results out there for the world to see is another.

The principal balance on this loan went from $136,000 (the original loan amount) to $55,000. I’m too tired to figure out the exact percentage, but its pretty stellar. The interest rate went from 8.724% to 2% for 5 years, then 3.32% for the remainder of the loan. This is not a new 30 or 40 year term, the modification keeps the current maturity date.

Overall, the principle and interest payment went from $1020.25 to $238.68. Again, I’m too tired to do the math right now, but percentage-wise, it’s rather significant. Kudos to our foreclosure lawyers for getting this done.

Results like this are never guaranteed and are not always easy to achieve, but if you want to have any chance of getting a result like this, you need to find a law firm that has a proven track record and a reputation for being fighters and not being afraid to go toe-to-toe with the banks and their liars, I mean lawyers.

This client was in foreclosure since 2009. The bank would not give a principle reduction. They offered a modification previously that was a new 40 year term and did not offer any principle reduction. The client rightfully turned it down and instructed us to continue to pound away.

The bank finally relented and offered to reinstate the loan (not a new 40 year term) taking the interest rate from 10.99% to 3.83% and reducing the principle from the original amount of $275,000 to $139,000.

This equates to approximately a 60% principle reduction!

This client lived in the home for 3 years and made no mortgage payments during that time. The balance before the loan modification was over $300,000 due to unpaid interest and other fees and costs.

The only catch is that we have to release them from liability under the Truth in Lending Act and any other cause of action we have against them. For a $160,000+ principle reduction, no problem! This is further proof that you need a law firm that will sue the bank when appropriate and will actually fight, not just delay your foreclosure.

If you are facing a foreclosure in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach county, we are ready to fight for you as well. We offer free consultations with our foreclosure lawyers in Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, Delray Beach, Coral Gables, and North Miami Beach. Call us today for your free consultations with one of our Florida foreclosure defense lawyers at (844) 344-4813.

Client came to office after having her house sold because of the bank’s failure to stop her sale while she was approved for a FINAL modification. The Client was forced to pay thousands of dollars to a third party to get her home back. She paid the money to keep the roof over her head, but it was money she simply didn’t have. We then got involved, demanded the bank reimburse her all the money she had to spend to get back her home. The bank refused. We sued them in Federal Court and eventually were able to get her back more than what she paid and have all of her attorney’s fees and costs paid for as well.

Plaintiff, Bank of New York Mellon, Trustee…for CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-HY13… filed a complaint against Julian Siegel on September 30, 2011. We retained the clients on October 07, 2013, after prior Defense Counsel stepped out of the case. Case proceeded through normal litigation, including Defendant’s Discovery, and several attempts at a deposition. The case was set for trial, however the trial was continued and eventually placed on inactive status.

The clients wanted to retain their property and were interested in a payoff. Opposing counsel and Plaintiff initially would not consider any offers for a short payoff and were requesting over $1,000,000.00. Plaintiff was basing their BPO’s on an exterior/drive by appraisal and outdated comps within the area. Client was not willing to pay for a full payoff since the house was damaged and he could purchase a newer/bigger/better home elsewhere for the same money.

After several rounds of negotiating, opposing counsel and the Plaintiff finally agreed to an interior inspection to help calculate a new BPO. After the inspection, Plaintiff readjusted their expectations for what they would recover at REO and agreed to a full payoff at $827,000.00. Client was thrilled and was able to come up with the funds. Client completed the wire transfer for a payoff on 2/26/16. We are currently awaiting for from Plaintiff about dismissing the action, releasing the LP and recording a satisfaction of mortgage.

Talk about a holiday gift! Another great job by the Loan Lawyers team and another house saved. This client received an immediate and permanent reduction in principle of over $241,000 representing an approximately 70% principle reduction.

The interest rate went from 9.9% to 2.375% for 5 years then 3.375% for the next 24 years. Notice that this was not a new 30 or 40 year term, but the remaining term under the loan.

The payment went from $2,097.39 to $467.32 for principle and interest. That equates to an almost 80% reduction in payments. Short of a mortgage that gets wiped out, it just doesn’t get any better than this. There’s no guarantee that anyone would get a result such as this, but to have a fighting chance, you need a law firm that knows how to fight.

If you are trying to choose a lawyer in Florida to represent you in your foreclosure proceedings, wouldn’t you want the firm with the reputation as fighters on your side? Call today for your free consultation with one of our foreclosure lawyers at one of our offices located in Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach counties.

Clients retained our services in October 2010 to assist them in the defense of their foreclosure lawsuit. After exploring multiple loss mitigation options, the homeowners wanted to sell the property in a short sale. After multiple issues we were able to over come, cancelling the sale for the seventh time seemed to pose a huge challenge as the clients only needed an additional two weeks to close. Not only were we able to overcome the sale date, but the clients were able to successfully close in the short sale transaction and Plaintiff filed their Motion to vacate the final judgment and dismiss the foreclosure lawsuit today.

Client came to us with a “standard” foreclosure action. Original Plaintiff, BAC Home Loans Servicing filed their initial complaint which included only one court for foreclosure. However, several months later, the Plaintiff sought leave to substitute the party Plaintiff to Bank of America and amend the complaint to include a reformation of mortgage count. We specifically denied the reformation relief in our Answer and Affirmative Defenses, to which Plaintiff did not file a response.

The case proceeded to trial and almost no objections were made by the Defendant. Without much fight, all the proffered exhibits were entered into evidence. Strategically, this worked in the client’s favor, as this threw opposing counsel off and the Plaintiff failed to put into evidence anything regarding the reformation. After resting, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal based on a failure to reform the legal description in the Mortgage. More specifically, the Trial Court found that the Plaintiff’s witness admitted that the legal description was incorrect and refused to reform or grant a foreclosure on the “wrong” property.

Plaintiff attempted a motion for rehearing, which was denied. Finally, Plaintiff appealed to the 4th DCA. The crux of their argument consisted of a prior agreed order amending their complaint which included the language of correct legal description. While this agreed order was never raised at trial, it still presented a unique issue on appeal – could the appellate court correct the reformation issue because the Defendant technically “agreed” to what the correct legal description is. Thankfully, we were able to distinguish this scenario and show the Appellate Court that raising this issue for the first time on appeal and not at trial was improper while also persuading the Appellate Court to agree that the agreed order does not change Plaintiff’s burden to prove the reformation count.

While we can probably expect another foreclosure attempt down the road, for the time being the client defeated the Plaintiff at trial, successfully defended their appeal and presently is not in foreclosure.