Enormous Principal Reduction Loan Modification

Old Principal Balance:  $213,834.00

New Principal Balance:  $66,000.00

Percentage Savings:  69%

Old Principal & Interest Payment:  $888.62

New Principal & Interest Payment: $312.06

Shuster & Saben, LLC recently obtained a principal reduction loan modification for a Palm Bay, Florida homeowner that cut his mortgage by over 69%.  When the client came to the firm in March of 2009 he already had a loan modification offer in hand.  Before he ever hired a lawyer the loan servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC offered the homeowner an “Trial Modification” that after a successful trial modification would have reduced interest rate on the loan to 3.95% for five years.

When the homeowner met with foreclosure defense attorney, Richard Shuster for a free review of the loan modification offer he wanted to know the pros and cons of accepting the offer versus defending the foreclosure action.  Shuster advised that the offer was a band-aid the would, in the short term, make the home more affordable but in the long term would do absolutely nothing to solve the client’s huge negative equity problem.  The client owed over $215,000.00 on a home in Palm Bay worth about $80,000.00 (in 2009) that was continuing to lose value in a declining real estate market.  Further, after five years the 3.95% interest rate would end and the client would be stuck with a very high interest rate of his original mortgage that was nearly 8%.

The foreclosure lawsuit filed against the homeowner alleged that the loan on his home was owned by a securitized trust.  Shuster explained to the homeowner several of the weaknesses in the foreclosure action filed against him.  Ultimately, the homeowner decided it was better and far cheaper to fight the foreclosure than to accept a bad loan modification offer.

For over two years the firm defended the foreclosure action.  Along the way the firm obtained Court orders directing the lender to produce various documents that the lender's counsel failed or refused to turn over.  During this time the client made no mortgage payments and therefore his loan balance grew from $213k to approximately $240k.  While tightening a vice on the lender’s case with discovery court orders, attorney Shuster sent out an olive branch to the lender’s attorney and Ocwen offering to settle the case if they would cut the client’s loan balance down to $66,000.00.  Shuster ‘s settlement offer included the client’s current property appraisal form the Brevard County property appraiser.  Ocwen in turn sent back a settlement offer that mirrored most of the terms set forth in Shuster’s offer.  Unlike Ocwen’s first offer that had 3.95% interest for only five years, the new offer has a 3.92% interest rate for the life of the loan.

Both the original 2009 offer and the 2012 offer are linked at the bottom of this blog entry.  Please view both of these offers to see what a difference fighting a foreclosure can make.  During the two and half years we defended this case our client saved over $18,000 that he would have spent on rent or mortgage.  The principal reduction saved him an additional $147,834.  For ever dollar invested in foreclosure defense he saved over ten dollars in housing expenses.  For obtaining this huge principal reduction our firm qualified for a small contingent bonus that will be paid out over a year.  Our client thinks this is a great deal and one he can easily afford with a principal and interest payment of only $312.06 for the next twenty-four years. 

SEE THE LOAN MOD OFFERS HERE

2009 OFFER

2012 OFFER

Shuster & Saben is a law firm for smart homeowners who understand the difference between foreclosure defense and foreclosure delay.  We think a good outcome if a foreclosure case is one where the bank’s case is dismissed or settled under terms solve or substantially diminish the homeowners financial problems.  A good foreclosure defense lawyer in a problem solver with the ability, desire, and stamina to fight like heck for their client.  We are not the firm for everyone and there are other foreclosure defense firms who change less.  To arrange a consultation to see if your case meets our requirements and we meet yours please call offices as follows:  Melbourne  (321) 622-5040, Fort Lauderdale (954) 423-0052, Miami/Doral (305) 629-8806 or e-mail foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com.

Firm Obtains $12,695.00 Judgment against Wells Fargo

 

After winning yet another foreclosure action against Wells Fargo and their counsel, Florida Default Law Group, foreclosure defense attorney Richard Shuster has obtained a judgment for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $12,695.00.  Homeowners should understand that hiring foreclosure attorneys who actually win cases as opposed to merely trying to slow a bank’s case down makes good financial sense.  In a foreclosure case, when the bank or loan servicer loses the case the bank has to pay the homeowner’s attorney’s fees.  Money from the judgment against Wells Fargo will reimburse legal expenses previously paid by the firm’s client. 

Fighting cases to win, rather than to lose slowly requires more time and effort on the attorney’s part.  Hiring a firm that attempts to win cases might cost a little more in the beginning but in cases where the homeowner wins their case and recovers fees from the bank and in many cases settled under favorable terms the investment in a sophisticated foreclosure defense pays off for the homeowner. 

To review a redacted copy of the final judgment for attorney’s fees please click the link below.

Redacted Judgment Link

About Shuster & Saben:  Shuster and Saben, LLC knows the difference between real foreclosure defense and knee jerk stalling.  Savvy homeowners in foreclosure who want more than a cookie cutter foreclosure delay can consult with one of our attorney’s for free.  Since we regularly go to court on our client’s cases, we don’t take cases in Tampa or the Panhandle that are beyond the reach of our firms offices.  We do accept cases from Miami to Jacksonville on the east coast and in Orange, Seminole, Collier and Lee counties.  We know who the top foreclosure lawyers are in parts of the state where we do not practice and gladly make referrals.  Thanks for reading our blog.  We would love to put your case in a future post.   

Pre Foreclosure Mediation Settlement Saves Client over $100,000.00

A Shuster & Saben client’s investment of $1,600.00 in legal fees, will result in over $100,000.00 of savings from a pre-foreclosure mediation agreement negotiated by firm attorney Richard Shuster. The client came to the firm’s Melbourne, Florida office after their prior loan servicer, Chase, denied permanent loan modification of their mortgage. Chase had placed the client in a trial modification that reduced their monthly payment from over $3,000.00 to approximately $1,648.00. After the client made their monthly trial payments Chase refused to convert the loan from a HAMP trial modification to a permanent modification.

After meeting with the couple, attorney Shuster recommended submission of a qualified written request to the loan servicer to investigate whether Chase had a valid reason for denying permanent loan modification. The firm then submitted a Qualified Written Request (QWR) to Chase for a flat, one-time fee of $250.00. Chase’s response to Qualified Written Request revealed that the loan was owned by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae) and that Chase alleged that the permanent modification was denied because their file was incomplete. The clients asserted that they submitted all of the requested documents. Some consumer advocates refer to incomplete file denials as the “dog ate my homework” excuse for not making permanent modifications.

After Chase denied permanent modification the client creased making further mortgage payments. The client, a couple nearing retirement age, realized that they could not wipe out their retirement savings to save a home in which they were significantly upside down and had no equity whatsoever.

A few months later, the loan owner, FNMA, transferred servicing of the loan from Chase to Lender Business Process Services (LBPS). When the client advised Shuster & Saben of the change of servicers the firm submitted an updated HAMP application and updated financial disclosures to LBPS. Thereafter LBPS requested pre-foreclosure mediation.

Firm attorney Richard Shuster welcomed the chance to mediate the case before any foreclosure action was filed against the client. Shuster explained that LBPS was proactive and responsible by saving FNMA (the loan owner) the expense of paying a filing fees and attorneys’ fees to file a foreclosure action against the homeowner. Lenders often ask for as much as $4,000.00 to be added to homeowners’ loan balances to pay for such expenses. Since our firm did not have to defend a lawsuit, the homeowners’ legal expenses were also much smaller.

The client hired Shuster & Saben to represent them at mediation under a written agreement that called for a fee of $350.00 together with a success bonus form $500.00 to $1,500.00 depending on the nature of the loan modification obtained. ($500.00 for a small loan modification up to a $1,500 for a loan modification with both interest and principal reduction). The result obtained, a loan modification that will reduce the client’s interest rate to 2% for the next 5 years and to 5% thereafter, qualified the firm for a $1,000 success bonus. The total cost to the client was $1,600 ($250 for QRW, $350 Mediation, $1,000 success bonus). The client’s new mortgage payment of $1,561.78 is a huge savings from their original payment of over $3,000.00 and is less than their prior trial modification payments. At the mediation, attorney Shuster insisted that conversion of the new trial modification to permanent modification be guaranteed in writing and would happen automatically so long as all payments were made. Under the loan modification obtained by Shuster & Saben, the client will save over $85,000.00 during the next five years and over $100,000 over the life of the loan. Shuster’s biggest bonus was two hugs, from the couple whose home was saved by this settlement agreement.

To review the redacted mediation agreement and redacted confirmation letter from LBPS please click the links below.

Mediation Agreement

LBPS Confirmation of HAMP Modification

Foreclosure lawyers at Shuster & Saben obtain dismissal of HSBC’s Foreclosure Action.

Things did not go very well for HSBC or their counsel, Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A., when a Melbourne, Florida homeowner retained the law firm of Shuster & Saben, LLC to defend the foreclosure action filed against his Brevard County, Florida home. Within 48 hours of the firm being retained firm attorney Richard Shuster served nearly twenty pages of discovery requests, including requests for admission, requests for production and interrogatories (written questions to be answered under oath) about the factual basis of the lawsuit served against the homeowner and the securitization of the mortgage into the Ace Securities Corp Home Equity Loan Trust. When HSBC’s counsel was unable to answer the discovery within thirty days they filed a motion for extension of time but did set their motion for hearing. To prevent the motion for extension of time from sitting in limbo, our firm submitted an unopposed order grating the motion and ordering HSBC to respond to the discovery within thirty days.

Thirty days after the Court signed the order, our firm had little in the way of discovery as rather than answer the questions and provide the requested documents, HSBC’s attorneys objected to almost all of the discovery requests Shuster & Saben made on behalf of the homeowner. Firm attorney, Richard Shuster then filed a twenty-eight page Motion to Show Cause and to Compel Better Response to Request to Produce that set forth each of the discovery requests, HSBC’s objection to each request, an argument as to why the Court should overrule the objection and a check off blank for the judge or overrule or sustain each objection. After a lengthy hearing the Court overruled many of HSBC’s objections and commanded HSBC and its attorney, Ira Silverstein, to provided better responses within thirty days.

When, HSBC and its counsel failed to comply with the Court’s second order, foreclosure defense lawyer, Richard Shuster filed a Second Motion to Show Cause which detailed the bank’s violations of the Court’s last two discovery orders and requested dismissal of the entire case.

On May 3, 2011, a hearing was held at the Brevard County Courthouse. Firm attorney Richard Shuster appeared at the hearing in person and a staff attorney at bank’s law firm appeared by phone. The Court asked the bank’s attorney if HSBC was “thumbing its nose” at the Court’s orders. The Court did not give the bank a third chance to violate another Court order and dismissed the bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also granted sanctions against the bank. Now that the case against our client has been dismissed his modest legal expenses will stop. Once sanctions are recovered we will hopefully be able to reimburse our client a substantial portion for his legal expenses from the sanction award.

To review a redacted copy of the order dismissing HSBC’s case please click the link below.

Redacted Order

About Shuster & Saben: The foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben aspire to vigorously and aggressively defend every foreclosure case. We have offices in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne so that we can appear in Court in person rather than by phone when our client’s home is on the line. If your case is in a part of the state where we do not appear in person for Court we can refer you to a likeminded attorney or co-counsel with a carefully selected local counsel.

Shuster & Saben wins foreclosure case with its own motion for summary judgment.

Another Shuster & Saben foreclosure client has won their case against a securitized trust. After firm attorney, Richard Shuster, noted that the lawsuit filed by U.S. Bank N.A. as trustee for a securitized trust was not supported by any evidence that the foreclosing bank owned or held the note, he filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the homeowner and against U.S. Bank. Foreclosing banks often file motions for summary judgment against homeowners as a means to win cases without having a trial. A judge can only grant summary judgment when the moving party comes forward with competent evidence in the record and the other side fails to come forward with any record evidence to oppose the motion. Unfortunately, many foreclosure defense lawyers never file offensive motions for summary judgment against banks because they are content to merely delay the bank’s attempts to foreclose on the property.

Most of the lawyers at Shuster & Saben come from a civil litigation background. When we are not defending homeowners, we are suing insurance companies, banks, and bill collectors. We are used to taking cases trial where unless we win we don’t get paid one thin dime. When we take on a foreclosure case, we usually have four goals, (1) prevent default, (2) stop the bank for obtaining summary judgment, (3) implement an asset protection strategy for the client, and (4) win the case by dismissal, offensive summary judgment, or trial. Not every foreclosure case is a winnable case. In those cases where the bank’s case is very strong and the homeowner’s case is weak we let out clients know and give them frank objective advice about loan modification, short sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, and in very rare cases bankruptcy. Even in the tough cases we invest a large amount of time to thoroughly conduct discovery to make sure the bank has evidence to prove every element of their case. When the bank is missing proof on any issue its our job to take their case apart. In the case we won by summary judgment the bank’s lawyers failed to come forward with any record evidence that the Plaintiff, U.S. Bank owned or held the note. As a result the Court entered summary judgment and final judgment in favor of the Defendant / Homeowner. To review a redacted copy of the summary judgment order please click the link below.

Redacted Summary Judgment Order

Shuster & Saben, LLC publicly thanks Wachovia

It is not every day we stop that we stop to thank a bank. Many banks don’t like us. We shut their foreclosure cases down, and in the last six weeks our firm obtained dismissals in five separate foreclosure actions. When banks or loan servicers call or write our clients, after we tell them not to, we sue them. This week we sued Beneficial-HSBC Group and Strategic Recovery for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). We generally feel that one way to provide our clients with a superior defense is to have a good offense. Of course, we have represented plaintiff consumers against big insurance long before we started litigating against big banking.

From this standpoint, saying thank you to a bank is a little unusual for us. Before our colleagues think we went soft it must be noted that what Wachovia did for our client deserves our thanks, appreciation and praise. Last week our firm accepted, on our clients behalf, Wachovia’s loan modification proposal to reduce the client’s mortgage balance from $229,589.55 to $131,991.03. Wachovia reduced our client’s principal by over by over 40% and saved our client over $97,000.00. Wachovia did NOT have to do this. While Wachovia and their new parent company Wells Fargo did participate in HAMP, this was not a HAMP modification. It was not a modification that Wachovia was obligated to do.

While our client attempted to modify their loan for many months (before seeking our help) and ultimately a foreclosure action was filed against them, Wachovia’s offer was made within 90 days of the filing of suit. Wachovia’s offer will allow a hard working family struggling and saving to get by keep their home. This offer should allow that family to keep their home not for another month or another year, but forever. The press often writes about homeowners who are turned down for loan modification. We have seen firsthand many banks violate HAMP servings guidelines. The loan modification that works and the story of the bank that did much more than the legal minimum to help a hard working, struggling and stress out family is rarely told. Wachovia did right by this family. On this day of Thanksgiving this is one more thing for which I am thankful. To review Shuster & Saben’s acceptance letter and Wells Fargo’s loan modification offer please click the link below.

Shuster & Saben Acceptance of Wachovia Loan Modification with Principal Reduction

If you bank at an “anti-consumer” bank like Bank of America (whose standard policy is to never or almost never waive deficiencies in short sale transactions) let me encourage you to reward Wachovia by moving your account.

HOW MUCH DOES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE COST?

A review of Google searches made by Florida homeowners performing on-line research suggests that there are a significant number of homeowners trying to find out how much it costs to have an attorney defend them in foreclosure litigation. While our firm includes its price in its website ($495.00 per month on loans under $500,000) it appears that most law firms do not include their prices in their websites. To help homeowners make informed decisions about the cost of hiring a lawyer to defend themselves and their home in a foreclosure case, it is necessary to discuss the four most common pricing models among law firms that defend foreclosure cases. The four most common models are: Fixed Fee, Hourly, Monthly, and Hybrid.

FIXED FEE
ADVANTAGE: The Homeowner Pays One time.
DISADVANTAGE: Lawyer has little incentive to work on the case. Arrangement may put lawyer’s interest of obtaining reasonable hourly rate in conflict with client’s goals.
CAUTION: Look our for hidden fees.

When a lawyer represents homeowners on a fixed fee basis all the money the lawyer will ever receive is in the lawyers hands on day one. Working harder on the case or spending more time on the file will not benefit the firm’s bottom line. If the lawyer charges $2,400 for a fixed fee defense and usually changes $300.00 per hour, then you can divide the cost of the defense by the hourly rate to figure out how many hours the lawyer expects to spend on the case. Will the lawyer who is hired on a fixed fee basis take a deposition or file a motion to compel better answers to a request for production of documents, if doing so only increases the amount of work the lawyer has to do and the duration of the case? Will the lawyer hired on a fixed fee basis attend mediation and summary judgment hearings on the client’s behalf. Some lawyers who accept foreclosure cases on a fixed fee basis only intend to file an answer and discovery requests. If a fixed fee representation is being considered the homeowner should be frank with the prospective lawyer during the initial interview. The client and lawyer should be on the same page as to what is included in the fixed fee and whether the lawyer contemplates attending mediation and summary judgment hearings.


HOURLY:
ADVANTAGE: Lawyer has a financial incentive to work on the case
DISADVANTAGES: Lawyer has a financial inventive to work on the case. Fees may vary widely from month to month.

It is hard for consumers to evaluate how much time various legal tasks require. The lawyer may have incentive to perform work because it is billable rather than crucial to advancing the case. The amount of each bill may vary greatly depending amount of time spent by the lawyer.




MONTHLY:
ADVANTAGES: Fees are the same every month. Lawyer has a financial incentive to work on the case.
DISADVANTAGE: Penalizes lawyer for rapid resolution of case.

For a homeowner seeking to stay in their home for as long as possible, monthly fees will align the interest of the lawyer and the client. For a owner of a vacant investment property monthly fees with a cap on total months or a bonus for a quick resolution can modify a monthly fee arrangement to make it work for all parties. With monthly fees the fee is always the same so there are no surprises for the client. Monthly fees make foreclosure defense affordable for many consumers who lack sufficient cash for a one time up front fee, and can’t afford high hourly fees.

HYBRID:

A hybrid fee arrangement combines two or more of the above models. For instance a firm might change hourly with a monthly cap on the total fee. Some firms also include a reverse contingency where the firm receives a bonus in the event the firm is able to obtain a reduction of the loan balance or interest rate. Under a reverse contingency the firm is paid a portion of the savings the client receives as a result of the representation.

UPDATE (May 2012):  This blog post has now been read over 2,000 times!  When evaluating the cost of a specific law firm homeowners should not ignore a firm's results and choose a lawyer on price alone.  A cheap foreclosure defense lawyer who does a bad job will most likely costs more than an expensive foreclosure lawyer who does a good job.  When our firm firm wins foreclosure cases we file motions against the bank to recover attorney's fees for the benefit of our clients.  Firms that win cases and recover fees from the the bank can substantially decrease a client's legal expenses.  For more information on recovering fees from banks see our blog post The Robin Hood Law Firm. 

UPDATE 2 (July 2013):  New Post about BAIT & SWITCH pricing strategies being used by some law firms.  To read the post click here.

UPDATE 3 (January 2015):  This post has now been read over 5,000 times!  In 2014 we set a firm and Brevard County record for attorney fee recoveries from banks, and retuned tens of thousands of dollars to our clients by winning their foreclosure cases, recovering attorney's fees from the banks that lost the cases, and returning money from such recoveries to our clients.

Consumers with questions about the cost for Shuster & Saben to defend a foreclosure case in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, or Brevard County can e-mail foreclosuredefeneselaw@gmail.com.