The Robin Hood Law Firm

One of the coolest things we get to do as a foreclosure defense lawyers is write checks to clients.  Most clients hire our firm under an arrangement in which they pay us a flat fee each month for the first hour we work on the case and any additional hours are worked on a pure contingency basis.  Under such an arrangement if we want to get paid for the rest of our time we need to win the case and recover attorney’s fees from the bank.  When we get foreclosure cases dismissed or win cases on summary judgment or at trial, we go after the banks and servicers to get paid for the rest of our time and to obtain reimbursement for our clients for the attorney's fees they previously paid. 

Redacted check issued to client after firm obtained dismissal of Wells Fargo's foreclosure case and obtained a judgment against the bank for attorney's fees.

If you scroll though our blog you will find quite a few attorney fee judgments that order banks and loan servicers to pay attorney’s fees to our firm.   One of our clients asked why we put fee judgments and fee checks up on our blog.  The reason is to let homeowners know that that some of the time homeowners win and that when they go shopping for a lawyer what law firm they choose makes a difference.  Some lawyers who represent homeowners confuse foreclosure delay with foreclosure defense.  To us foreclosure defense means fighting foreclosure cases with a goal of winning a significant portion of our cases and finding solutions through settlement, loan modification, short sale or deed in lieu for the rest of the cases when possible.  Our sophisticated clients want more than knee-jerk, cookie-cutter, stall tactics.  We evaluate our clients' cases with an big picture view that considers asset protection and tax consequences. 

When we win cases and recover fees from the bank our fee judgments are usually sufficient to return to the client a substantial portion for the fees the client previously paid.  This past week, I got to write a check for $2,651.00 to a foreclosure defense client of our Melbourne office.  We obtained a dismissal without prejudice of the client’s case after Wells Fargo’s lawyers failed to timely comply with a Court order.  For the past five months there has been no pending foreclosure case against our client ( the bank has not re-filed), our client has made no mortgage payments, and he has had no legal expenses.  Now the client has received a check to reimburse him for more than half of his prior legal expenses.

To see a redacted copy of the check to our client full size in a separate window click the link below:
Redacted Check 

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.

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 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.