Shuster & Saben Moves for Dismissal and Sanctions after BAC Home Loans (also known as Bank of America) makes direct contact with client:
One of the things almost every lawyer holds sacred is that if a person is represented by an attorney and the lawyer for the other side or the other side itself wants to talk to the represented person about the legal matter the lawyer or party must speak to the represented party’s attorney and not directly to represented party. In car accident cases when an insurance adjuster hears that an accident victim has retained counsel the conversation usually stops in mid sentence because a Florida insurance adjuster can be disciplined or even lose their license for speaking to a person who the adjuster knows is represented by counsel.
Perhaps BAC Home Loans thought it was above the law when it contacted a client of this firm after the Brevard County client retained Shuster & Saben Foreclosure Attorneys to defend the foreclosure action filed against their Space Coast home.
When our firm was retained we filed a notice of appearance and served a copy on Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle and Singer, the law firm representing BAC Home Loans. The notice of appearance set forth that this firm objected to any exparte communication with our client and instructed BAC to “cease and desist all communications with this firm’s client.” Since some lawyers do not bother to carefully read notices of appearances we also wrote a letter Bank of America’s lawyer, Edward Pritchard telling him to “instruct the servicer to cease all communication with the Defendant.”
To see our notice of appearance click here.
To see our letter to Bank of America’s lawyer click here.
To make absolutely certain that our client would not be bothered by the lender we even sent a copy of the letter we sent to Bank of America’s lawyer directly to the loan servicer.
To our surprise six months later our client called us to advise that he received a settlement offer (loan modification offer) directly from Bank of America. The offer included a tiny reduction of the monthly loan payment but required our client to waive valuable legal rights and defenses he had to the foreclosure action. In our opinion putting such waivers into a loan modification is a violation of HAMP loan servicing guidelines.
Our firm has filed a motion with the Court requesting that the Court dismiss BAC Home Loans lawsuit with prejudice as a punishment for Bank of America’s underhanded and unethical action. A hearing will be held on this motion in late May.
To See a Copy of our motion click here.
Showing posts with label Dismissal of foreclosure Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dismissal of foreclosure Action. Show all posts
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Homeowner gets free house when Florida Judge throws out lender's case
Pasco county Florida resident, Ernest Harpster will be getting a “free house” based upon the ruling of Circuit Judge Lynn Tepper. In an order dated March 25, 2010, Judge Tepper dismissed with prejudice the foreclosure lawsuit that was filed against Mr. Harpster by US Bank National Association as trustee for a securitized mortgage trust.
The judge’s ruling followed a hearing that was scheduled to be commenced at 3:00 p.m. According to the Court order, the law firm for the Bank of America, David Stern, P.A. failed to appear either in person or by phone for the hearing. The matters that were scheduled to be heard were a Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production; Amended Motions in Limine regarding the Promissory Note and a Second Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike based on an allegation of fraud on the court; and finally a Motion for Rehearing."
The Court found that U.S. Bank’s counsel failed to produce answers to interrogatories (written questions to be answered under oath) for an astounding twenty-six (26) months.
The Defendant's Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the filing of the lawsuit, but the document date and date the document was notarized were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.
The attorney for the homeowner discovered this apparent fraud because the assignment was allegedly signed and notarized on December 5, 2007. The notary’s stamp designating when the notary’s license expired had a May 19, 2012 expiration date. Since Notary licenses are only good for four years, a notary license that expires on May 19, 2012 would have been issued four years earlier on Mary 19, 2008. As such the notary license would not have been issued and did not exist on December 5, 2007 when the assignment was alleged to have been executed.
According to the Court order, the notary who notarized the “back-dated” document was Terry Rice. Homeowners and their attorneys who have pending foreclosure cases should be on the lookout for other assignments and affidavits by Terry Rice which might be forged, fraudulent, or back-dated.
The court specifically found “that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing of this action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court.”
Judge Tepper ruled “The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice, based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff. This Court has the power to dismiss a case a showing of a commission of fraud on the Court by a party.” She further ruled that “The Defendant shall go henceforth without day” which means that the Plaintiff, U.S. Bank will not recovery any money and will note be able to re-file the lawsuit. Judge Tepper also ruled that U.S. Bank will have to pay the homeowner’s attorney’s fees.
Our law firm did not participate in this case. Usually I only write about cases our firm was involved in. This case is discussed so that the public becomes aware of the underhanded tactics some banks and some lawyers are using to wrongfully foreclosure on Floridians’ homes. Unfortunately, Judge Tepper’s order did not include the name of the homeowner’s lawyer whose work was extraordinary. (Update we have since leaned that the homeowners lawyer was Tampa attorney Ralph Fisher) This case illustrates what a tremendous difference a talented litigator can make. Some lawyers practice “foreclosure delay” and think that filing a motion for extension of time is sufficient to defend a foreclosure case. At our firm, we listen to our clients to determine their objectives and design a strategy unique to their case and goals. Then we put that plan into action. When we defeat lender motions for summary judgment it is not by accident, rather it is because through discovery requests, depositions, and motions to compel we have obtained the evidence needed defeat the lender’s motion.
If you believe that an assignment of mortgage in your cases was fabricated or back-dated we will review the assignment on a complementary basis. If the assignment is dated after the date the foreclosure lawsuit was filed against you, the lawsuit should be dismissed. To Homeowners with questions about this blog can contact the author at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com. To view a complete copy of the Court's order as a PDF / Adobe Acrobat document click here
For more information about Shuster & Saben's defense of homeowners in foreclosure in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, Orange, and Volusia counties please visit www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com
The judge’s ruling followed a hearing that was scheduled to be commenced at 3:00 p.m. According to the Court order, the law firm for the Bank of America, David Stern, P.A. failed to appear either in person or by phone for the hearing. The matters that were scheduled to be heard were a Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Production; Amended Motions in Limine regarding the Promissory Note and a Second Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike based on an allegation of fraud on the court; and finally a Motion for Rehearing."
The Court found that U.S. Bank’s counsel failed to produce answers to interrogatories (written questions to be answered under oath) for an astounding twenty-six (26) months.
The Defendant's Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the filing of the lawsuit, but the document date and date the document was notarized were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.
The attorney for the homeowner discovered this apparent fraud because the assignment was allegedly signed and notarized on December 5, 2007. The notary’s stamp designating when the notary’s license expired had a May 19, 2012 expiration date. Since Notary licenses are only good for four years, a notary license that expires on May 19, 2012 would have been issued four years earlier on Mary 19, 2008. As such the notary license would not have been issued and did not exist on December 5, 2007 when the assignment was alleged to have been executed.
According to the Court order, the notary who notarized the “back-dated” document was Terry Rice. Homeowners and their attorneys who have pending foreclosure cases should be on the lookout for other assignments and affidavits by Terry Rice which might be forged, fraudulent, or back-dated.
The court specifically found “that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing of this action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court.”
Judge Tepper ruled “The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice, based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff. This Court has the power to dismiss a case a showing of a commission of fraud on the Court by a party.” She further ruled that “The Defendant shall go henceforth without day” which means that the Plaintiff, U.S. Bank will not recovery any money and will note be able to re-file the lawsuit. Judge Tepper also ruled that U.S. Bank will have to pay the homeowner’s attorney’s fees.
Our law firm did not participate in this case. Usually I only write about cases our firm was involved in. This case is discussed so that the public becomes aware of the underhanded tactics some banks and some lawyers are using to wrongfully foreclosure on Floridians’ homes. Unfortunately, Judge Tepper’s order did not include the name of the homeowner’s lawyer whose work was extraordinary. (Update we have since leaned that the homeowners lawyer was Tampa attorney Ralph Fisher) This case illustrates what a tremendous difference a talented litigator can make. Some lawyers practice “foreclosure delay” and think that filing a motion for extension of time is sufficient to defend a foreclosure case. At our firm, we listen to our clients to determine their objectives and design a strategy unique to their case and goals. Then we put that plan into action. When we defeat lender motions for summary judgment it is not by accident, rather it is because through discovery requests, depositions, and motions to compel we have obtained the evidence needed defeat the lender’s motion.
If you believe that an assignment of mortgage in your cases was fabricated or back-dated we will review the assignment on a complementary basis. If the assignment is dated after the date the foreclosure lawsuit was filed against you, the lawsuit should be dismissed. To Homeowners with questions about this blog can contact the author at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com. To view a complete copy of the Court's order as a PDF / Adobe Acrobat document click here
For more information about Shuster & Saben's defense of homeowners in foreclosure in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, Orange, and Volusia counties please visit www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Shuster & Saben obtains Dismissal of Foreclosure Action
For Immediate Release:
The law firm of Shuster & Saben has obtained the dismissal of a foreclosure lawsuit filed against the firm’s Brevard County client. The Plaintiff / Lender filed suit against our client in an attempt of take their Cocoa, Florida investment property. In the subject action, after the lender drastically raised our client’s interest rate (to well over 8% A.P.R.), our client was unable to continue to afford to make monthly mortgage payments. Our client had financed the property with an A.R.M. (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) that was linked to the LIBOR index, and faced an increase in their interest rate after their initial rate expired. Despite the fact that interest rates declined from 2007 to 2009, the lender still raised the client’s interest rate to a point that it was no longer affordable. Several months after the client stopped making mortgage payments the lender filed a Notice of Lis Pendens and a Complaint for Foreclosure in the Brevard County Circuit Court.
The client consulted with several other Space Coast attorneys before choosing Shuster & Saben to defend the foreclosure action. After Shuster & Saben filed its notice of appearance and voluminous discovery requests the lender decided to dismiss the case and cancel the lis pendens. Counsel for the lender advised that the lender has decided to write off the loan. To view the actual Notice of Dismissal click here.
The law firm of Shuster & Saben has obtained the dismissal of a foreclosure lawsuit filed against the firm’s Brevard County client. The Plaintiff / Lender filed suit against our client in an attempt of take their Cocoa, Florida investment property. In the subject action, after the lender drastically raised our client’s interest rate (to well over 8% A.P.R.), our client was unable to continue to afford to make monthly mortgage payments. Our client had financed the property with an A.R.M. (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) that was linked to the LIBOR index, and faced an increase in their interest rate after their initial rate expired. Despite the fact that interest rates declined from 2007 to 2009, the lender still raised the client’s interest rate to a point that it was no longer affordable. Several months after the client stopped making mortgage payments the lender filed a Notice of Lis Pendens and a Complaint for Foreclosure in the Brevard County Circuit Court.
The client consulted with several other Space Coast attorneys before choosing Shuster & Saben to defend the foreclosure action. After Shuster & Saben filed its notice of appearance and voluminous discovery requests the lender decided to dismiss the case and cancel the lis pendens. Counsel for the lender advised that the lender has decided to write off the loan. To view the actual Notice of Dismissal click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
