Firm Obtains $65,523.75 judgment against HSBC

Excerpt from 5 page Final Judgment for Attorney's Fees & Costs

Shuster & Saben has obtained what is believed to be the largest 2014 attorney fee judgment awarded in a Brevard County foreclosure action.  The award was entered in favor of our client, a Space Coast homeowner, whose foreclosure action the firm defended since the action was filed in early 2010.  The firm spent over 100 hours defending the case before ultimately defeating HSBC Mortgage Services and their counsel, Albertelli Law, P.A.  After we obtained judgment on the pleadings against HSBC, the bank appealed the case to the Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal.  The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed HSBC’s appeal after the bank failed to pay an appellate filing fee after being ordered to do so by the Appellate Court. 

At the inception of the case, we asked HSBC to modify our client’s loan.  As a foreign bank  H.S.B.C. (stands for Hong Kong Shanghi Bank of China ) did not receive TARP bailout money so they had no obligation to the U.S. Treasury to make loan modifications under HAMP.  HSBC denied our request for loan modification and advised that our client’s income exceeded income thresholds for their internal loan modification program.  Once diplomacy failed it was time for firm to do everything in our power to keep the client in his home.  Our fight came to end nearly four years later after we defeated HSBC in the trial court and again on appeal.

Our client hired our firm under a partial contingency fee agreement in which the client paid for the first hour we worked on his case each month.  All of the rest of the hours the firm worked were on a pure contingency fee basis.  If we did not win this case our firm would have been paid for less than half of the hours we spent on the case.   True foreclosure defense meaning defending a case with a goal of winning the case at trial takes far more work than engaging in mere stall tactics that are commonly employed by some general practitioners who “handle” foreclosures from time to time.  By using a partial contingency fee agreement our firm can offer services that are affordable to the consumer but still get paid for the huge investment of time that goes into winning a foreclosure case. 

When our firm collects on this judgment our client will receive over $20,000.00 from the recovery and will get almost all of the money he paid our firm back.  Our client remains in his Palm Bay home.  Now that the time for HSBC to appeal the attorney fee judgment has expired our firm will levy on the judgment by having the Sheriff seize the bank's assets if the judgment in not paid within a reasonable time. To view a redacted copy of the judgment click here.

New Video: Continuances in a Foreclosure Defense Case

Firm defeats JP Morgan Chase in Brevard Foreclosure Case

Shuster & Saben was not the first law firm hired by a Viera, Florida homeowner to defend their foreclosure case.  Their first lawyer handled their bankruptcy case but when JP Morgan’s counsel began to aggressively move the case toward trial their bankruptcy counsel suggested they consult with our firm to obtain counsel that would fight their case through trial.

While the firm prepared for war by serving discovery requests and conducting a thorough investigation of the case we also tried to make peace by extending settlement offers.  Our position was that since the client discharged the debt in bankruptcy, JP Morgan could still take the house but could not take the client’s money.  The client owned nearly twice what their house was worth.  Before the client hired our firm JP Morgan put the client in a terrible loan medication that locked the client into a fixed rate of nearly 7% and removed the variable interest rate feature of the mortgage less than a year before it would have adjusted to a lower rate.  We reasoned that if getting the house was the best JP Morgan could ever do, a principal reduction loan modification that would give JP Morgan a mortgage balance substantially above the current value of the home but substantially lower than the current loan balance would be a reasonable compromise and a win-win settlement.  JP Morgan rebuffed our efforts to settle by making only one take-it or leave-it offer with a tiny interest rate reduction and no principal reduction.  JP Morgan told us it was their way or the highway.  It was time to prepare for battle.

On September 11, 2013, after JP Morgan’s attorney’s Choice Legal Group failed to respond to requests for admission, our firm filed a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Defendant homeowner.  The motion for summary judgment was scheduled for October 17, 2013.  Choice Legal, even after getting the motion for summary judgment failed to respond to the requests for admission.  When the motion was set for hearing they continued to do nothing.  On October 17, 2013, the Court adjudicated our motion for summary judgment.  Since JP Morgan Chase never responded to our requests for admissions the Court deemed that it was admitted that JP Morgan did not own or hold the note.  The Court entered summary judgment and final judgment based on the admissions.  Our client has won the case and has proven that JP Morgan does not own or hold the note.  The Court’s order provides that JP Morgan shall take nothing from this action meaning they will not get our client’s home or one thin dime of our client’s money.  Our client as the prevailing party will recover attorney’s fees from JP Morgan.  To read the entire order click here.

About Shuster & Saben,LLC… Shuster & Saben aggressively litigates foreclosure cases.  Our active counter-attacks on banks and loan servicers give foreclosure mill attorneys plenty of chances to drop the ball.  Lawyers whose goal is delay might be content to wait for the bank’s lawyers to pick up the ball.  Not us.  We play to win.  We know its our job to recover the fumble and head for the end zone. That is how we win cases like this one.  

Foreclosure Appeal Victory for Space Coast Homeowner

Shuster & Saben Defeats US Bank & Douglas Zahm PA in Foreclosure Appeal

In 2011, firm attorney Richard Shuster obtained the dismissal of a foreclosure case filed against a Brevard County law enforcement officer.  After the case was dismissed our firm filed a motion for attorney’s fees to recover money from U.S. Bank to reimburse as much as possible of the fees paid by the homeowner to our firm and to recover payment for the portion for our time that was spent on a pure contingency fee basis.  (Under our firm’s retainer agreement, a substantial portion of the time spent on the case is on a contingency fee basis meaning unless we win the case and recover fees from the bank we do not get paid for the time).  On January 12, 2012, a fee hearing was conducted before Brevard Circuit Judge John D. Moxley, Jr. to determine the amount of attorney’s fees US Bank would have to pay.  The case had numerous hearings after U.S. Bank’s lawyers, Douglas Zahm, P.A. had objected to almost all of the homeowner’s discovery requests, and our firm had to repeatedly go to Court to obtain orders overruling the bank’s objections and ordering the bank to provide discovery.

The time sheet filed by Douglas Zahm’s office showed they had worked approximately seventy hours by the time the bank moved for summary judgment.  Ultimately our firm worked over 100 hours on the case before we obtained a dismissal.  At the fee hearing the Court awarded 95 of the 101 ours we requested. After adding expert witness fees, costs, and interest, the attorney fee judgment against U.S. Bank came to $46,878.20.  This judgment was the largest fee judgment rendered against a bank in Brevard County in 2012.  The hours were much higher in this case because both firms fought the case very hard and “went to the mat.”

Trial & Appellate Files Stacked On Top Of Each Other

U.S. Bank brought in Lee L. Haas, a board certified business litigation attorney to handle the appeal.  Firm attorney, Richard Shuster, who handled the case at the trial level, fought on for the homeowner in the appeals Court.   While this was the firm’s first foreclosure appeal, Shuster had prior appellate experience in the First and Third District Court’s of Appeal.  The firm handled the appeal on a pure contingency fee basis, meaning the client paid no fees to our firm while the appeal was pending and the firm would only get paid if we won the appeal and appellate attorney’s fees were awarded.  During the fifteen months the appeal was pending our client paid nothing for attorney’s fees and made no mortgage payments.  The firm will now collect the original trial level fee award from the appellate bond paid by US Bank and seek additional appellate fees for writing an appellate brief that was approximately 40 pages long.  To view a redacted copy of the 5^th DCA’s Per Curium Affirmed Opinion clink here.  A Per Curium Affirmed opinion means the appellate Court unanimously found that the trial Court did not commit any errors.

About Shuster & Saben:  Shuster & Saben is a civil litigation firm with offices in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Satellite Beach.  The firm represent consumers in insurance litigation, consumer protection matters, fair debt collection practices act, and foreclosure cases. Homeowners looking for counsel with trial and appellate experience or with foreclosure questions can reach the firm at www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com or e-mail Richard Shuster at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com 

Three Year Old Foreclosure Case Settled with Short Sale

When the recession of 2008-2010 hit, a young Florida mom’s employer closed and in a short span of time she faced financial hardships of both unemployment and divorce.  In her divorce she kept the family home in Palm Bay, Florida.  Unfortunately, the value of the property fell more than 60% when the local real estate market collapsed.  She now owed nearly $150,000 on a property worth less than $50,000 and her limited income from unemployment was insufficient to pay her mortgage.  When Space Coast Credit Union filed a foreclosure action against her in 2009, the homeowner traveled to a legal aid office in Daytona Beach where a legal aid lawyer helped her draft a do it yourself ( Pro Se ) Answer. 

The homeowner originally obtained the loan on her home from Space Coast Credit Union ( SCCU) who in turn sold the loan to the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae or FNMA.  In 2009, SCCU filed a foreclosure action against the homeowner which she defended herself through 2009 and part of 2010.  In 2010, the homeowner found a job as a legal assistant and attempted unsuccessfully to modify her mortgage.  In 2010 after mediation was unsuccessful and Space Coast’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment the homeowner hired Melbourne Florida foreclosure defense attorney, Richard Shuster, to defend the foreclosure action.

Shuster & Saben defended the foreclosure action for two additional years during which time the homeowner made no mortgage payments.  During the three years that the client made no mortgage payments she was able to use the savings to provide for her family, and later after finding employment, to replenish her savings that were wiped out by unemployment and divorce. 

Shuster went on the offensive in the foreclosure action and deposed Space Coast’s corporate representative.  The firm hoped to win the case under a theory that the proper plaintiff was Fannie Mae the loan owner and not the loan Space Cost the loan servicer.  The firm used testimony from the deposition to defeat Space Coast’s motion for summary judgment. Unfortunately, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment the firm filed on behalf of the homeowner.  Since the Court denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment the case would ultimately have to be resolved by trial.

Shuster & Saben wins another foreclosure case against Bank of America

Shuster & Saben won another foreclosure case against Bank of America subsidiary BAC Home Loans. This victory in Brevard County, follows a trial victory for the firm, in another case against Bank of America pending in Miami-Dade. The firm’s victorious foreclosure client was a family living in Palm Bay. At the onset of the case, the firm diligently assisted the client in submitting a complete loan modification request under HAMP. When the firm’s efforts to reach a reasonable settlement were not countered with a single loan modification offer, firm lawyer Richard Shuster knew it was time to go on the attack. The firm served requests for admission on Bank of America that asked the bank to admit that the bank did not own the note and mortgage on our clients home and did not hold the note.

When Bank of America failed to reply to the requests for admission within thirty days the requests were deemed admitted by operation of law. The firm then filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the homeowners. The firm expected that the bank’s lawyers would files responses to the requests for admission prior to the summary judgment hearing but the bank's lawyers never filed responses to the requests for admission. At the hearing on the Defendant / Homeowner's motion for summary judgment, the bank, for the first time made an oral motion for relief from admissions. The motion was untimely and was denied by the Court. The Court then granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and adjudicated that Bank of America did not own or hold the loan. Since this was an adjudication on the merits Bank of America will NOT be able to re-file the case. The firm will now seek prevailing party attorney’s fees on behalf of its client to be paid by Bank of America and will commence an action to quiet title to the client's property.

Lawyers and scheduling staff at Shuster & Saben are often told by judges and Court scheduling assistants that very few foreclosure defense lawyers go on the attack and file offensive motions for summary judgment. Often foreclosure defense lawyers are content to simply file a motion to dismiss. Unfortunately, when a motion to dismiss is granted, it is usually either with leave to amend or with leave to re-file a new lawsuit. When a homeowner wins a motion for summary judgment on a pertinent issue, the losing bank will not be able to prosecute a new lawsuit under the principals of res judicata. Shuster & Saben has won other cases with this aggressive strategy and encourages other foreclosure defense lawyers to give this technique a try.

To view a redacted copy of the entire order please click the link below:
REDACTED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben, LLC is firm of eight civil litigators, practicing foreclosure defense, insurance litigation, and consumer protection law, from four Florida offices in Miami, Doral, Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne. The firm passionately defends foreclosure cases pending in counties within two hours drive of the firm’s 4 offices. The firm can be reached by E-mail at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com

Shuster & Saben, LLC obtains judgment against Chase Home Finance.

A Florida court has entered Final Judgment against Chase Home Finance in a foreclosure case won by the foreclosure lawyers at Shuster & Saben, LLC. The judgment commands Chase to pay the homeowner and his attorneys $9,950.00 for attorney's fees and costs. Previously, Shuster & Saben obtained a dismissal of the case as a sanction against Chase after Chase failed to comply with two Court orders concerning answering interrogatories (written questions answered under oath) and providing written discovery.

Under Florida law in most cases where the homeowner wins their foreclosure case the bank must reimburse the homeowner for their legal expenses. The amount of the judgment obtained substantially exceeds the amount of money paid by the homeowner to Shuster & Saben because the judgment includes reimbursement of $1,750.00 for an expert witness to testify at the attorney fee hearing ( a cost paid for by the firm not the client ) and for work performed by the firm that was not changed to the client.

From this judgment Shuster & Saben firm will reimburse our client’s legal expenses. When this case began, all our client wanted was a waiver of deficiency on an upside-down rental property. At the onset of the case our firm offered to settle the case by Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure or agreed judgment of foreclosure with waiver of deficiency. Chase as the servicer of a FNMA loan did not accept the settlement offer. Now, a year later, Chase does not have the property and has spent thousands of dollars paying both their lawyers and for all of the time our firm spent defending the case.

To review a redacted copy of the judgment obtained against Chase please click the link below.

Redacted Final Judgment Against Chase

About Shuster & Saben: When the foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben win foreclosure cases we aggressively seek to recover attorneys fees from the bank minimize or eliminate or client’s legal expenses.

Shuster & Saben obtains Principal Reduction Loan Modification from $229,048 to $123,644.

A Shuster & Saben foreclosure client is the big winner in a war of attrition with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The client, a painter, was trapped in a bad subprime loan at an outrageous interest rate of 8.65% and owed slightly over $229,000 after missing over two years of mortgage payments. When the recession hit, panting jobs came to a stand still and our client could no longer afford his home. The client’s home according to Zillow was worth approximately $138,000. The client defended the foreclosure action himself (pro-se) for over six months but when a summary judgment action was filed by the lender he knew he was in over his head and needed legal counsel. The client turned to a family friend and community business leader who referred him to Shuster & Saben.

In the first 48 hours after Shuster & Saben was hired the firm served over twenty pages of discovery requests on the bank’s lawyers including requests to produce, interrogatories, and requests for admission. This was followed by a qualified written request to Ocwen. One month later, when the hearing on the lender’s motion for summary judgment came before the Court, the bank’s lawyers had not answered the discovery requests. The Court agreed with Shuster & Saben’s argument that the bank could not go forward with the hearing because discovery had not been completed. The firm continued to litigate discovery issues for the next nine months.

In September of 2010, Ocwen sent its first settlement proposal in which it offered to reduce our client’s interest rate from a horrible rate of 8.65% to a merely poor rate of 5.375%. Firm partner, Richard Shuster wrote back to Ocwen to tell them that their offer was pathetic, and that they needed to come up with a real offer that reduced our client’s loan balance if they wanted to settle the case. (To Read our firm's response to Ocwen's Initial Offer click here)

Ocwen’s second settlement proposal was much better and offered to reduce the loan balance from $229,048 to $123,644 which equates to $103,404 of principal reduction. By accepting this deal our client would reduce his loan balance by over 45%. Since our client’s home is worth more than $123,000 once the offer was accepted our client would have equity in his house. The deal would also reduce our client’s interest rate from 8.65% to 4.83%. When the client met with firm attorney Richard Shuster, the advice given was straight to the point, accept the offer and do whatever it takes to come up with the $1,256.00 payment required for acceptance.

Our client took our advice. His new principal and interest payment (after the initial month) will be a very affordable $723.36. Our client will exit foreclosure in a much stronger financial position then he was in when the lender filed suit against him. Thankfully along the way his income in the construction, renovation and building trades has improved (but has yet to return to pre-recession levels). Without counsel our client would have lost his case at the summary judgment hearing in April of 2010. With this settlement we believe he will keep his permanently.



To Review the actual settlement offer please click the link below:
Redacted Loan Modification Offer from Ocwen

About Shuster & Saben:
The foreclosure defense attorneys at Shuster & Saben will tell you that most loan modifications (even ours) do NOT have principal reductions. A bad loan modification is not any better than a bad mortgage. Many times (including in this case) the lender's first offer is not their best offer. Not every home can be saved and some homes are so far upside down that they should not be saved. If you are in foreclosure, our professional, frank, and objective advice can be received in a free, no obligation initial consultation. Our firm's offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation, and Melbourne defend homeowners in foreclosure from Miami to Titusville on the east coast, in Collier and Lee County on the west coast, and in Orange and Seminole County.

Shuster & Saben Sues Strategic Recovery and Vantium Capital

Shuster & Saben, LLC, filed suit in Brevard County against Strategic Recovery Group, a division of Texas based Vantium Capital. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Brevard County homeowner who the firm is defending in a foreclosure action. Prior to retaining the Shuster & Saben, the client filed a Chapter 7 (liquidation bankruptcy) and obtained a discharge of his personal obligation on Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) on his home. At the time our client filed bankruptcy, the HELOC Mortgage was held by Wilshire Bank. According of documents received by the firm, despite the fact that our clients debt was discharged in bankruptcy and the fact that our clients home is worth $50,000 less than the loan balance on his first mortgage, Wilshire sold the loan to Bank of America, who retained Strategic Recovery to attempt to collect on the debt.

The client initially retained the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben to defend a first mortgage filed against his home by CitiMortage. The client brought us a letter he received from Strategic Recovery because he was concerned as why Strategic was seeking to collect a discharged debt. Our firm commenced an investigation to confirm that the original creditor was notified of the bankruptcy and sent Strategic Recovery a Qualified Written Request (QWR) pursuant to RESPA, ( Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ) and request for verification of the debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

When we did not receive written confirmation for Strategic Recovery that they were abandoning collection activity suit was filed in Brevard County Court against Vantium Capital, the parent company of Strategic Recovery. The firm continues to defend the foreclosure action filed by first mortgage holder, Citimortage, a separate case that is now over two years old.

To view a redacted copy of the law suit filed against Strategic Recovery please click the link below.

Strategic Recovery Lawsuit

About Shuster & Saben:
Shuster & Saben is a civil litigation firm of seven attorneys that defends foreclosures from four offices located in Miami, Doral, Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, and Melbourne, Florida. We believe the best defense is a good offense. If a lender, loan servicer or bill collector violates the law in their attempt of collect on a debt allegedly owned by our client we will not hesitate to sue the offender and use such suit for leverage to achieve our clients desired resolution. We believe there is a difference between foreclosure delay and foreclosure defense. Click here to find our why we are different or e-mail foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com with your Florida foreclosure questions.

Shuster & Saben, LLC settles Wells Fargo Foreclosure Case with 3.125% Loan Modification

Before hiring Shuster & Saben to defend a foreclosure law suit filed against their Brevard County home our Rockeledge, Florida client all but begged Wells Fargo to modify their mortgage. The client completed a HAMP RMA (request for modification) sent Wells Fargo their bank statements and pay stubs and did everything asked of them by Wells Fargo. Ultimately Wells Fargo refused to permanently modify the client's mortgage despite the fact that the client's income qualified under HAMP guidelines. The client ultimately stopped paying their mortgage and continued to submit additional applications for loan modification. While their third application was pending the client received a notice of acceleration and ultimately a foreclosure action was filed against them. After receiving a free, no obligation consultation at the firm’s Melbourne foreclosure defense office, the client hired Shuster & Saben to defend the foreclosure action. After being hired the firm sprung into action by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the Wells Fargo’s failure to verify the complaint and began an investigation of whether Wells Fargo violated HAMP serving guidelines by failing to modify the loan and by filing suit while a HAMP application was pending. At the first Court skirmish with Wells Fargo’s counsel, firm partner Richard Shuster, won a motion to dismiss and obtained a court order dismissing the foreclosure complaint (with leave for Wells Fargo to file an amended complaint within 20 days). ( Click here to read the Court Order ) Thereafter, Wells Fargo filed an amended complaint that was verified as required the recent amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.110(b) which requires foreclosure complaints to be verified.

Shortly thereafter, Wells Fargo, extended a settlement offer wherein our client’s interest rate would be reduced form 6.875% to 3.125%. This modification would lower the client’s monthly mortgage payment from $1,910.47 (principal & interest without escrows) to $1,280.43 (principal & interest without escrows). With the modification our client will be able to keep and afford their home. During the next five years alone our client will save over $37,800 on their mortgage. Our clients case was resolved in under six months and as such their legal expense was a very small fraction of the amount they will save on their mortgage.

To review a copy of the loan modification agreement please click to the link below.

Loan Modification Agreement


About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben is a law firm that understands the difference between Foreclosure Delay and Foreclosure Defense. We listen to our clients to understand their financial circumstances and tailor or defense strategies to achieve the clients goals. For clients that do not know what to do, we evaluate whether in makes financial sense to save their home and craft exit strategies for clients where loan modification is not a viable option. Where the lender bringing the lawsuit does not own the note or have legal standing to foreclosure we seeks the dismissal of the action against our client. We believe that banks are most likely to make offer generous settlements when they are met with a vigorous and through defense. Shuster & Saben is a firm of six lawyers with offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation / Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne, Florida.

Three Rules For Defeating the Bank's Motion For Summary Judgment in Foreclosure Cases

One of the attorneys in our Miami office watched a sole practitioner foreclosure defense attorney ( at attorney who is NOT associated with this firm) go down in flames on a summary judgment hearing before a Miami judge. As a civil litigation firm that successfully handled well over one thousand summary judgment hearings in general civil and insurance cases, I wanted to explain for other foreclosure lawyers and for homeowners some important pointers for successfully defending a lender’s motion for summary judgment in a foreclosure case.

Rule One: Always Bring a Court Reporter: In most (but by no means all) foreclosure cases if the bank wins their summary judgment motion then the bank wins their case and the Court will set a sale date in 30 to 90 days. A foreclosure defense lawyer should consider the bank’s motion for summary judgment to be equivalent of a trial. If the motion is lost, the homeowner is unlikely to get a second chance. Since the summary judgment is a critical part of the case it is ESSENTIAL that the homeowner’s attorney bring a court reporter to the hearing. By having a court reporter there is a record of the proceedings. If the judge makes an erroneous ruling either by disregarding applicable case law (controlling legal precedent) or disregarding evidence or lack of evidence then the homeowner will need a record of what happened in order to appeal the judge’s ruling.

Some judges do not like presiding over foreclosure cases. Some judges feel that if the homeowner did not pay the mortgage then the bank should win. One judge in Southwest Florida even commented to the press that the rapid processing of foreclosure cases was necessary so that real estate prices would stabilize. If there is no court reporter at the hearing the judge can rule against the homeowner and know that the homeowner will be unable to appeal. If a court reporter is present the judge knows that if he or she does not follow the law the judge may be reversed on appeal by a higher appellate Court. Most judges hate being reversed on an appeal. For a judge, being reversed means a higher Court writes an appellate order saying the judge made a mistake. Rulings of Florida’s appellate Courts are published in the Florida Law Weekly and Florida Law Weekly Supplement which is mailed to every Court in the state and sent by subscription to most Florida law firms.

Rule Two: Prepare: A lawyer can’t wing a summary judgment hearing. Meticulous preparation is required. The attorney should review the lender’s motion for summary judgment, analyze the case law cited in the motion, prepare a counter argument, anticipate the bank’s lawyer’s counter-attacks, and bring to Court three copies of each case they cite in opposition to the lender’s motion.

Rule Three: Do not waive objections: In the hearing where a Miami sole practitioner lost the case, the lawyer asked the Court to continue the summary judgment hearing because the bank had not provided discovery responses. Florida appellate courts have consistently held that summary judgment motions should not be heard until discovery is complete. The Court refused the continue the summary judgment. The judge rejected the last minute oral request for a continuance and explained the homeowners lawyer that if the bank did not provide discovery responses then the homeowner’s lawyer should have filed a motion to compel. The judge also felt that a motion for continuance should have been in writing and served long before the summary judgment hearing. If the homeowners lawyer was counting on a continuance perhaps he did not prepare as hard for the hearing. The solo should have reviewed their file when they received the motion for summary judgment and prepared a motion to compel if discovery was still outstanding.

I often wonder whether the foreclosure lawyers who change a “one time fixed fee” are able to spend adequate time to prepare and argue motions to compel. When clients go to the cheapest foreclosure lawyer, does that lawyer plan to bring a court reporter to the summary judgment hearing or even attend the hearing themselves. When homeowners interview prospective lawyers for foreclosure defense the homeowner should inquire about how the firm defends summary judgments and whether the price they are paying will include having a court reporter at the hearing.

The foreclosure lawyers in the Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne offices of Shuster & Saben, begin preparing for summary judgment the moment we open the file. Our discovery is planned and drafted for the purpose of defeating the lender’s motion for summary judgment and winning cases for our clients. When lender’s do not provide the discovery we ask for we follow through with motion to compel. Most homeowners cannot successfully defeat summary judgment without an attorney. When hiring counsel the homeowner should act as soon as possible so that their lawyer has time to conduct discovery prior to the summary judgment hearing.

Shuster & Saben, LLC, announces Written Limited Money Back Guarantee on Foreclosure Defense Cases

For Immediate Release:

Shuster & Saben announces its new written limited money back guarantee for foreclosure defense cases.

Shuster & Saben is a law firm of five attorneys with offices in Miami and Plantation / Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The firm defends homeowners in foreclosure cases for a flat monthly fee of $495.00 per month on loans under $500,000.00.

A complete copy of the written limited guarantee is available online at:

http://thetruthaboutloanmodification.wordpress.com/files/2009/07/foreclosure-limited-guarantee-2009b.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions About the Guarantee:

Q: Does the program guarantee legal results?
A: No. The results of litigation are not within the complete control of legal counsel and therefore no attorney can guarantee legal results.

Q: What is guaranteed?
A: Clients in the program are guaranteed a 100% refund if their home is lost to writ of possession (following court ordered judicial sale) of their home with six (6) months of the filing of suit, a 75% rebate if the home is lost to foreclosure within nine (9) months and a 66% refund if the home is lost to foreclosure between 9 month to one year from the filing of suit.

Q: What are the eligibility requirements for the guarantee?
A: To be eligible the client must (a) retain the firm within twenty (20) days of being served with the foreclosure complaint, (b) sign up for billing be credit or debit card, (c) maintain their credit or debit card account such that their monthly bills are paid in a timely fashion, (d) assist their counsel by providing assistance with discovery and attending any depositions or medication set in their case.

Q: What is the purpose of the guarantee?
A: The purpose of this limited money back guarantee is to enhance the client’s financial security by eliminating or substantially decreasing the cost of the firm’s services in the infrequent cases where the legal work performed by the firm does not produce the intended outcome set forth below. A further purpose of this guarantee is to limit or partially alleviate client financial hardship.

Q: If it has been more than twenty (20) days since a homeowner was served but a default has not been issued can an exception be made with respect to eligibility requirements?
A: If a client retains the firm more than 20 days after being served, but before a motion for default is filed and before a motion for summary judgment is filed, the firm will evaluate the case for inclusion in the program on a case by case basis.

For more information about Shuster & Saben, LLC
please see our website.

What the bank's lawyer does not want you to know.

What the bank's lawyer does not want you to know:

As insurance and foreclosure litigators who are in Court just about every day to keep the roof over our clients heads and prevent our clients homes from being sold out from under them, I wanted to share the view from the front lines from our battles with the banks in courtrooms in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Naples, Orlando, and across the great state of Florida. The banks and lawyers they hire would like the homeowners to believe that bank’s case is easy. Many of our clients have asked:

Q: If I borrowed money and I have not made all of the payments … what is there for you to do?

A: We make the bank prove its case. We search for legal violations by the mortgage broker, original lender, appraiser, loan servicer, and law firm representing the bank. We make the party bringing the lawsuit (which is often a trustee for various institutions who purchased securities representing claims on a pool of securitized mortgages) prove that they actually own the mortgage and note, have legal standing to file lawsuit, and have the evidence to prove the loan was properly transferred between each of the entities that owned the mortgage at various times. We assert all affirmative defenses and counterclaims that we know of and conduct discovery to support any claims our client may have against the bank or any other entity involved in the lending process.

In short there is plenty of things for a lawyer to do when defending a homeowner in foreclosure. Some homeowners decide to file a simple answer denying the allegations in the lenders complaint. Filing a simple answer will avoid a default but foreclosure defense litigation is much, much more then filing an answer. Sadly some “foreclosure defense” lawyers do little more filing a simple answer with lawyers bar number on it.

Twenty years ago it was very easy for the banks lawyers. Twenty years ago all the banks lawyer had to do was fill out forms. In days of old a homeowner had to put 20% down to purchase a home. If a home owner put 20% on a $200,000 house they would have to put $40,000.00 of their own money down at the time of the sale. Over the next few years the house might appreciate to $215,000 and the homeowner might pay off $5,000 to $10,000 of the debt. As such three to four years after buying the home the homeowner would have $60,000 to $65,000.00 in equity. Let us consider what would happen if this homeowner lost their job or was hospitalized and missed four mortgage payments. If the bank brought a foreclosure action, the homeowner with substantial equity would do one of the following:

(1) Borrow money from a family member, credit cards, or a loan shark to pay the four missed payments, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees & costs, and obtain a dismissal by bringing the account current.

(2) Sell the house at a significant profit (around $215,000) and use the sales proceeds to payoff the full loan balance.

(3) Refinance the house, and payoff the original mortgage with the loan proceeds.

Whether the homeowner brought the account current, sold the house, or refinanced the bank got paid in full. After the bank and the bank’s lawyer received their principal, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees and costs, the case was dismissed. The bank’s lawyer only needed to fill out the forms and every homeowner with equity would capitulate and pay whatever the bank says was due.

Since the law firms representing the banks mostly just filled out forms at many of these firms paralegals were hired to fill out most of the forms. The lawyers at many of these firms did not have to litigate very often and thus while they were very good at filling out forms many of them rarely got a chance to develop litigation skills in evidence and civil procedure.

Today most homeowners facing foreclosure never hire a lawyer. CNN did a story about what happens to Ft. Myers homeowners who go to court without a lawyer. Here is a link to a video segment about this on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/23/rocket.docket.foreclosures/#cnnSTCVideo


In Ft Myers (Lee County) there is a judge who will hear 300 unrepresented foreclosure cases in an afternoon. The hearings last as little as 45 seconds. In these cases, since the homeowner has not filed the proper written legal defenses, the judge would merely ask:

Q: Are you current on the mortgage?
A: NO …and
Q: Are you living in the house
A: Yes

The judge would then grant summary judgment for the bank and ordering a sale in sixty days. For a homeowner going to Court without a lawyer is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Most unrepresented homeowners get slaughtered.

When the bank’s lawyers have to battle real litigators the battle is very, very different. Many times the bank has lost the original note that is usually a prerequisite to foreclose. In other cases the mortgage has been transferred from a mortgage broker to a large bank who sold the mortgage to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which in turn bundled and sold the loans on Wall Street (often to Bear Sterns) where they loans were securitized. The trustee for the pool of securitized mortgages often lacks documentation that each of the prior holders of the note and mortgage complied with all necessary formalities when transferring the note. If the bank bringing the foreclosure action needs evidence or documents from the prior owners of the note many of these companies have closed, been taken over by the government, or have merged with other banks. It is often very difficult or in some cases impossible for the banks to prove their case.

The bank’s lawyers are often overwhelmed. In Collier, Lee and Dade counties there have been times when over three thousand cases were filed in a single month. When bank lawyers have more work than they can handle they are often inclined to work on the easier cases first. For the banks’ lawyers the easiest cases are against homeowners who just give up. Unrepresented homeowners almost always loose, usually lose quickly, and may lose more then once. For many homeowners the first time they lost was when the failed to shop for the best loan. Many homeowners with good credit who could have qualified for a prime mortgage were put in higher rate interest loans with variable rates that just kept adjusting upwards after the teaser rate was over. The second time these homeowners lose is when they lose their home in foreclosure. If the bank gets a judgment for the full amount of the loan and later sells the home for less the homeowner may end up losing a third time. The bank may seek a deficiency judgment for the difference between the amount of the note and the amount the bank received for the home. Years later the bank may sell this judgment to a bill collector, who will attempt to collect from the former homeowner by garnishing their bank accounts or garnishing their wages. This third and final loss will add insult to injury and cause further damage to the homeowner’s credit.

If the bank is faced with an aggressive defense from an experienced litigator they often face a real risk of losing the case entirely or spending years in an expensive fight where they could win some of the issues and lose others. Banks are corporations that exist to make profits for their shareholders. Banks operate out of self-interest. Banks modify mortgages when making interest rate concessions with increase the likelihood that a borrow continues to pay, or in order to convince the borrower to restart making payments. When a mortgage file gets transferred from the loss mitigation department to the legal department the concessions banks will make when they are at risk of losing are much, much greater. We have had clients that begged for loan modifications and have had clients that sent the bank full mortgage payments that were post due only to see the bank return the payments and pursue foreclosure. After the bank loses a summary judgment the calls from the banks lawyers often sound something like this: “What will it take to make this go away?” These homeowners in exchange for a written agreement to “Re-establish the note” may see the amount of their loan cut by 40% and their rates lowered below 5%.

In the trenches we have found that banks are overwhelmed, unprepared, and often unable to prove their case. In their rush to close loans many banks cut corners and did not comply with all applicable rules. Many homeowners have legitimate claims against the banks that they will never discover on their own. In the trenches we are finding that with proper representation homeowners stay in their homes longer (in some cases indefinitely) and can work out settlements that are rarely if ever offered to unrepresented homeowners.

This information is a public service of Shuster & Saben, LLC. For more information about hiring Shuster & Saben to defend your foreclosure case our website www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com