Shuster & Saben Recovers $8,717.50 from Bank of America.

A previous blog post described how Shuster & Saben, LLC sued Bank of America for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, ( FCCPA) on behalf of a Brevard County foreclosure defense client. The firm filed a separate lawsuit against Bank of America rather than filing a counterclaim in the underlying foreclosure case. After Bank of America failed to show up for Court the firm obtained a default and a default final judgment for $2,000.00 of damages for our client. When Bank of America failed to show up for the fee hearing the firm obtained an award of attorney’s fees, costs, expert witness fees and interest of over $6,700.00. When Bank of America failed to pay the judgments within ten days, firm attorney Richard Shuster, wrote Bank of America’s in-house legal department and threatened to levy on the judgment and seize bank assets in Melbourne, Florida if the judgment was not paid by November 23, 2011. Earlier this week, as the firm prepared to levy on the judgment, a check arrived by Federal Express at the firm’s Melbourne office. Our client will now receive $2,000.00 in damages plus interest for Bank of America contacting the client after a notice of attorney representation was sent to the bank. All of the attorney’s fees and costs for the litigation have been paid by Bank of America. While Bank of America’s foreclosure action against our client continues, our client’s case against Bank of America was won in under six months.

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben accepts referrals from other law firms whose clients have been directly contacts by lenders and loan servicers after such companies were put on notice that the consumer is represented by counsel. We also co-counsel with firms that have not previously sued banks and loan servicers. Shuster & Saben has a zero tolerance policy for lenders, loan servicers, and bill collectors who harass firm clients with letters or calls. Consumers with questions about the FCCPA or who want calls from bill collectors to stop can contact the firm by E-mail at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com.

Shuster & Saben Defaults Bank of America

Banks win most of their cases by default, the legal equivalent of a forfeit in sports. For a bank to win a case by default the homeowner must bury their head in the sand and fail to respond to the lawsuit filed by the bank. When Shuster & Saben, LLC sued Bank of America subsidiary BAC Home Loan Servicing, the shoe was on the other foot, when Bank of America failed to show up for a mandatory pretrial hearing. At the hearing the Court entered a default against Bank of America. A few days later after submission of an affidavit as to damages the Court entered a default final judgment against the bank. The law suit filed on behalf of a foreclosure defense client sought damages for violation of RESPA ( Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ) and FCCPA (Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ). Bank of America as the losing party in the litigation will also have to pay all of the homeowner’s legal fees, in addition to the amount of the judgment for damages. Since the bank will have to pay our client’s attorney’s fees the entire judgment amount will go to the client.

To review a redacted copy of the default final judgment please click the link below:
Redacted Default Final Judgment

UPDATE: NEW POST - We Collected on the Judgment

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben believes the ultimate result of many foreclosure cases can be improved by going on offense and bringing a separate lawsuit for any bank violations of consumer protection laws. Shuster & Saben accepts referrals from other law firms whose foreclosure clients’ rights have been violated where the referring firm does not wish to handle the file alone or would prefer to refer the case to a firm with greater experience suing banks and loan servicers.

Foreclosure Defense Litigators at Shuster & Saben, LLC file suit against CitiMortgage for violations of RESPA, TILA, and FCCPA.

After a Palm Bay family retained Shuster & Saben to defend a foreclosure action filed by CitiMortgage, the firm sent CitiMortgage a Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ). The letter also requested that CitiMortage verify the debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and case communications with the family.

The clients told our us that before they hired counsel, CitiMortgage would not give them the time of day when the clients called CitiMortgage concerning the clients request for permanent loan modification under HAMP. Our clients explained that when Citi refused to provide a permanent loan modification the clients attempt to find out the reason for the denial or obtain reconsideration was a futile struggle of long hold times, voicemail, dropped or disconnected calls, and unfulfilled promises that we will get back to you. Ultimately, CitiMortgage made no permanent interest rate modifications before filing a foreclosure action against our clients.

When our clients decided to fight back by hiring counsel rather then laying down and surrendering their home an unexpected thing occurred; CitiMortgage started calling our client. In one of Citi’s early calls the client advised, why are you calling me, you sued us to try and take our home and we retained counsel, please call our lawyer. When the clients advised us of the calls from Citi, we instructed them that such calls were illegal, that they should keep a log of the calls, and that if the calls continued we would sue CitiMortgage.

The calls did not stop. To add insult to injury, our firm did not receive a response from CitiMortgage to the Qualified Written Request. We believe that Citi violated RESPA when it refused to provide us with an accounting of the amount they claimed to be due and violated the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) when they refused to tell us who owned the note.

At Shuster & Saben we are litigators who say what we do and do what we say. Firm attorney Richard Shuster met with clients to obtain their permission to sue CitiMortgage and obtain their cell phone call logs to prove CitiMortgage called the clients AFTER CitiMortgage was put on notice that the clients were represented by counsel. The firm then filed suit against CitiMortgage for violation of RESPA, TILA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ). We hope that we can use this lawsuit as a bargaining chip to resolve the foreclosure action filed against our clients with a substantial reduction of the loan balance (principal) and interest rate along with damages for our clients and payment of our clients’ attorney’s fees. To view a redacted copy of the lawsuit against CitiMorgage please click the link below.

Redacted FCCPA lawsuit against CitiMortgage

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben is a litigation firm that represents consumers and against big insurance and big banks. We send a Qualified Written Request on behalf of every client we defend in a foreclosure. If the client has a second mortgage we send a QWR to the second mortgage holder or servicer too. When a client hires us to defend a foreclosure their phone should stop ringing and their case should be one less problem they have to deal with. If the bank or their lawyers don't follow the all applicable rules and laws, we will not hesitate to bring separate lawsuits to obtain justice for our clients. If you have retained counsel to defend a foreclosure case and you are still being called about your mortgage you should keep a log of the date, and time that you were called, the name of the caller, their Id number or extension, and if you have Caller I.D. the phone number from which you were called. Homeowners with questions about the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA) or RESPA can E-mail us at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com.

Shuster & Saben, LLC sues Provident Funding over Fair Debt Collections, RESPA, and TILA violations.

After a Cocoa, Florida homeowner hired our firm to defend the foreclosure filed against his home, we told him that the calls and letters he was receiving from the loan servicer, Provident Funding, L.P., would stop. To make certain the harassment of our client ceased we sent a written request pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act (FCCPA) to Provident asking them to cease all communications with our client. Our letter to Provident Funding also contained a request for disclosure of the owner of the note and mortgage. Provident Funding is the loan servicer on our client's mortgage. A loan servicer is business that collects mortgage payments on loans that it does not own. Provident, on behalf of its client had brought a foreclosure action against our client, the homeowner.

In Provident Funding’s lawsuit Provident failed to identify their client, the phantom owner of the note. Our letter to Provident included a Qualified Written Request (QWR) under RESPA (the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and recent amendments to TILA (Trust in Lending Act) for the identity of the owner of the note. To view a copy of our letter click the link below.

Letter to Provident

On September 2, 2010, our client called and advised that Provident Funding had placed a note on his door step stating the note was “in connection with an attempt to collect a debt.” The note was not in an envelope and was left in a conspicuous place in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To add insult to injury, not only had Provident illegally communicated with our client after receiving notice not to, Provident also failed to divulge the identity of the owner of the note and mortgage. We told our client that our retaliation against Provident would be swift and severe. Less than 48 hours after receiving a faxed copy of the note Provident left on our client’s door step we filed suit on behalf of the client against Provident Funding. Provident is now a Defendant in a lawsuit seeking damages for violations or the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, RESPA, and TILA. These statutes each provide for recovery of our client’s actual damages together with up to $1,000 of statutory damages (per statute violated). Our client’s law suit against Provident is a separate matter before a different judge than Provident’s foreclosure lawsuit against our client. While our firm continues to vigorously defend the foreclosure action we will seek to recover appropriate damages for our client in the FCCPA/RESPA case. Under FCCPA and RESPA if a loan servicer violates the statute the servicer must pay the consumer’s attorneys fees. As such 100% of the damages we recover will go to our client. To view a redacted copy of the lawsuit filed against Provident Funding please click the link below.

Lawsuit against Provident

About Shuster & Saben, LLC. The foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben defend foreclosures from Miami to Melbourne on the east coast, and in Orange, Collier, and Lee Counties. The firm has six attorneys and offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation, and Melbourne. Lawyers from the firm are available for consultation in Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Bonita Springs, and Orlando. At Shuster & Saben, experienced litigators vigorously defend every case and integrate asset protection, counter claims, and offensive lawsuits, to seek justice for distressed homeowners.