Success Stories

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.

This is a huge opinion with huge implications. We sued Fannie Mae on a two count complaint. I will address both counts, but I will start with the most significant, Count II. We sued Fannie Mae in Count II for the servicer’s (Seterus) failure to respond to a pay-off request. We sued for a violation of Regulation Z, section § 226.36(c). We argued that liability and private cause of action rests in 15 U.S.C. § 1639(l)(2) which states “The Bureau, by regulation or order, shall prohibit acts or practices in connection with mortgage loans that the Bureau finds to be unfair, deceptive or designed to evade the provisions.” Well, a violation of § 226.36(c) has been found by the Board to be unfair. Therefore, there should a private right of action. This argument gets fairly technical so I won’t bore you with the gory details, but you can click the link at the end of this post and read the order for yourself. There has never been a court in this country that has found a loan owner liable for this violation of this section until this TILA lawsuit filed by Loan Lawyers. This is a huge opinion and should open the floodgates to further litigation against the banks who continue to ignore the law and violate borrower rights. Will other lawyers start to sue banks for TILA violations???? Hello…wake up my legal brethren and start standing up for your clients’ rights!

On to Count I. This count was unfortunately dismissed, but we have filed a motion for reconsideration and we expect that the court will reverse itself on this issue. We sent a request to Seterus asking for the name, address, and phone number of the master servicer. The response that Seterus sent said that Fannie Mae “contracted with Seterus to collect payments and respond to inquiries regarding the loan.” However, the response did not state that they were the master servicer. The court found that the language used was sufficient to show that Seterus was the master servicer of the loan. The basis for our argument is that the MERS print-out stats that Seterus is the sub-servicer not the master servicer. Also somewhat of a technical argument and one which we expect to prevail on. So, did Fannie Mae mislead the court into believing that Seterus was the master servicer? We’ll find out one way or another and if so, Fannie Mae will be in a lot of trouble with the court.

If you are in foreclosure and paying a lawyer to represent you, ask yourself “Is my lawyer looking for violations of TILA and other consumer protection statutes and willing to sue the bank on a contingency fee basis?” If the answer is “no”, its probably time to look for a lawyer who is not afraid to fight the bank in court and take your case all the way.

Our foreclosure lawyers offer free consultations in Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, Delray Beach, North Miami Beach, and Coral Gables. We offer affordable payment plans and all of our plaintiff consumer cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, so there are no fees or costs unless we are successful in obtaining a recovery for you.

Your house is too important to trust to someone who is not properly equipped and trained to represent you in foreclosure proceedings. Our foreclosure attorneys have the skills and experience to effectively fight for you. We handle cases in all Florida counties, not just Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Call us today at 1-888-FIGHT-13 to schedule your FREE consultation with one of our lawyers.

D.H came to Loan Lawyers seeking foreclosure defense against his Lender. He was facing foreclosure of his homestead by the lender. This was the second time the lender filed a foreclosure action. Our office immediately jumped into the case and litigated the file. We filed a very aggressive Answer with multiple Affirmative Defenses which immediately caught the attention of the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel attempted to obtain a quick judgment by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment. We filed a very aggressive opposition and an affidavit in support of our opposition and the Lender immediately cancelled their Motion for Summary Judgment hearing because they wanted time to sort it out! We effectively saved our client’s home by drafting well thought out and an aggressive opposition to the Banks motion.

The key to defending against these motions in very bank friendly area, is to not leave any stone unturned. Substantive and procedural issues need to be analyzed and articulated in an opposition to the Banks case in chief. We immediately asked our client to come to the office and drafted an Affidavit in Support of our Motion for Summary Judgment. The plan is to file the Motion immediately, while the Bank ponders their own motion, with the hope of entering Judgment for our client. With an aggressive and strategic approach, we plan to dismiss this case and save our clients home.

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.

Client was facing foreclosure from his HOA for failure to pay past due assessments. We defended this foreclosure, filed the appropriate Answer and Affirmative defenses, and filed a Motion for Mediation. Our client did in fact fail to pay his homeowners assessments, but it was obvious the HOA did not want to litigate against our firm and agreed to attend the mediation. At the mediation, we successfully negotiated a huge reduction in what the HOA claimed was due and owing. Our client was very happy and continues to live in his house due to our hard work. If you or someone you know is facing foreclosure by a HOA, please contact us immediately. There is a lot of work that has to occur right off the bat in order to properly posture the case to either dismiss the HOA’s foreclosure case or enter into a very favorable settlement with the HOA in lieu of a foreclosure judgment.