Bank of New York Ordered to pay Sanctions

Shuster & Saben obtains sanctions against Bank of New York & Litton

Every lawyer who defends foreclosures quickly learns that lawyers for the bank often stonewall discovery requests from homeowners' counsel. First the banks ask for more time, then they often object to answering questions and producing documents. As experienced civil litigators, the lawyers at Shuster & Saben, meet such tactics with motions to compel and when orders to compel are not complied with the firm files motions for sanctions and for motions to show cause.



After Bank of New York failed to comply with a Court Order directing that interrogatories ( written questions under oath) be answered, Florida foreclosure attorney Richard Shuster, filed a Motion for Sanctions and Rule to Show Cuase against Bank of New York. The motion was granted and Brevard County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Mahl ordered Bank of New York to pay sanctions of $600.00 and to furnish verified answers to the interrogatories within seven days. The firm ultimately received a check from Litton, the loan servicer, for the sanctions. Litton, who is not a party to the litigation, appears to be running this case behind the scenes for Bank of New York Mellon, the trustee of a securitized trust that alleges to own the mortgage on our client’s home.


In defending foreclosure cases, homeowner's counsel must be persistent in order to obtain every scrap of evidence that might help save a client’s home. Homeowners or lawyers with questions about motions to compel discovery can E-mail their questions to foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com.

To review a redacted copy of the Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Show Cause please click the link below.

Order Granting Motion for Sanctions

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben a team of experienced civil litigators, give each file and client individual attention. We will go to Court as many times as necessary to leave no stone unturned in our efforts to defend our clients' homes. Our lawyers have won foreclosure cases both at trial and on summary judgment and are passionate about defending foreclosures. We are selective about the clients and cases we take on. To arrange a free interview with the firm to see if your case is one where we can help, please call any of our three offices in Miami, Fort Lauderdale or Melbourne or E-mail 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.

Shuster & Saben Obtains Wavier of Deficiency for Orlando Real Estate Investors

Shuster & Saben has successfully saved resolved an Orange County foreclosure case filed against our Orlando clients. In the case our clients owed more than $100,000 more than their investment condominium was worth. Both of our clients signed the note, were professionally employed, and faced the real possibility of the lender obtaining a deficiency judgment and seeking to garnish the husband or wife’s wages. If our firm had not successfully resolved the case our clients faced the real possibility of having to file bankruptcy.

The first time the case was set for summary judgment at the Orange County courthouse firm attorney Richard Shsuter, traveled from our Melbourne office and successfully thwarted the lender’s attempt to obtain summary judgment. On the day before the deposition of the bank’s representative a settlement was reached wherein the lender agreed to waive all claims for deficiency judgment. A copy of the stipulation to waive the deficiency can be viewed by viewed by clicking the link below. A deficiency judgment is a judgment for the difference between the amount owned on the mortgage note and the amount the lender obtains for the property.

To view a copy of the stipulation for wavier of deficiency please click the link below:

Stipulation for Waiver of Deficiency

Shuster & Saben offers a comprehensive approach to foreclosure defense that integrates asset protection guidance with aggressive foreclosure defense by experienced litigation attorneys. Where appropriate we refer our clients to other professionals such as C.P.A.s to mitigate tax consequences of shorts sales and deed in lieu of foreclosure transactions. For high net worth individuals we also work with financial planners and to place client funds into assets that are protected from the claims of potential creditors. From the firm’s four offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation and Melbourne we defend homeowners in foreclosure in Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Martin, St, Lucie, Indian River, Brevard and Orange Counties. For more information about our firm please visit us at www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com