Five Year Foreclosure Case Settled with Permanent Loan Modification

In 2010, a Palm Bay homeowner in the building and construction trade hired Shuster & Saben, to defend the foreclosure J.P. Morgan Chase filed against his home.  At the time, things did not look good for our client.  After new construction came to a stand still, his small business was nearly wiped out and his income was cut by more than half.  He owed more than double the value of home and had no way of catching up the year of payments he missed before the foreclosure was filed.  Further, since J.P. Morgan, the original lender, was servicing the loan for Freddie Mac, the loan servicer was prohibited by U.S. Treasury regulations from reducing the principal balance.

We defended the case through the rest of 2010, and all of 2011, 2012, and in 2013 we defeated JP Morgan’s motion for summary judgment.  While we defended the case, we also submitted several loan modification packages to JP Morgan Chase but each time our client was turned down.  Our client was turned down for insufficient income, too many missed payments, and with each successive package there was a new reason why our client did not qualify.  In 2014, Freddie Mac transferred servicing of the loan from JP Morgan Chase to Seterus.  By 2014, Freddie Mac had also expanded the number of different loan modification options available on Freddie Mac loans and decreased the number of requirements and the amount of paperwork required to qualify for a new type of loan modification known as a Streamlined HAMP. 

When Seterus, the new servicer requested that we submit a new loss mitigation package in 2015, our client was quite a bit skeptical.  Our client asked, “Why should I submit another package? I have already been turned down at least four times.”   I responded that “the worst thing Seterus could do was say no.  Perhaps after five years without receiving one mortgage payment Freddie Mac and Seterus will be ready to make a deal rather than come duke it out at trial in Brevard County, Florida. "

Our client collected the documents we requested and I went over the submission carefully to make sure it was complete and that the client's expense ratios were in line with program guidelines.  By 2015 our client’s income was moderately higher than it was 2010 which also improved his chance at getting a loan modification.  After submission of the package our client was approved for a trial modification.  Once we mailed in the first trial payment, we called the lender’s counsel who agreed to continue the trial that was already set in this case.  In October of 2015, after making four trial payments, our client was approved for a permanent loan modification.  The permanent loan modification will cut our client's principal and interest payment nearly in half.  Our client's new principal and interest payment is $943.23, and his new interest rate is 4%.  While our client still owes a little more than his home is worth,  his total monthly payment with taxes and insurance included is $1,547.77, which is far less than the cost of renting a similar 3,000 square-foot premium newer home in Palm Bay.   To review the redactedfinal loan modification agreement click here. 

About Shuster & Saben:  For most foreclosure clients if the firm does not win their case outright we settle the file with a loan modification.  Bank lawyers who know our work and track record understand why we get so many great loan modifications.  We study how loan modifications are underwritten including Fannie Mae's most recent and often changing servicing guidelines.  We help clients avoid mistakes which can ruin a loan modification and follow-up with banks and their lawyers until the loss mitigation package is complete.   Bank lawyers know that if there is no loan modification our firm will not hesitate to take a case to trial and they know we will walk away from "crappy" loan modification offers.  Bank representatives know that without a loan modification they will have to fly (or drive) in for both a deposition and eventually a trial.  

Twisting Bank of America’s Arm to Modify Client’s Mortgage

Bank of America turned down our Satellite Beach client for loan modification at least thee times between 2010 and 2014.  The client was turned down when he first applied for loan modification before a foreclosure action was filed against him.  We obtained dismissal of the first foreclosure lawsuit filed against the client by Bank of America and collected a substantial amount of attorney’s fees from Bank of America following the dismissal of the first case.  From the attorney fee recovery we were able to refund to the client a substantial portion of the attorney’s fees he previously paid our firm.

In 2012 Bank of America (BofA) filed a second foreclosure case against our client and he once again retained our firm to defend the case.   We helped the client submit a second loan modification package and again the request for modification was denied.  In 2014 we received a letter from Bank of America indicating that our client might be eligible for loan modification of the mortgage on his family’s Space Coast home.  Once again the client gathered and I reviewed and personally submitted a complete loss mitigation packing include a Uniform Borrower Assistance Form (Form 710), pay-stubs, bank statements, profit and loss statements for the client’s self-employment income, tax returns, utility bills and other documents requested by Bank of America.  The client was once again turned down.  The client had now been turned down for just about every reason imaginable including an incomplete package (from before he retained counsel), to little income, to much income and to many missed payments.

The client’s second case was eventually set for trial.  I prepared his case for trial hoping to beat Bank of America a second time but the on the date of trial there were over 40 cases before the client’s on the docket and the case did not get reached.  In June of 2014, I won a trial against Bank of America for another Brevard County foreclosure client.  In that case the Court found that Bank of America’s notice of default did not comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

In August of 2014, I took the deposition of Bank of America’s corporate representative at our Satellite Beach office.  After the deposition I showed the corporate representative the final judgment from the case we won against BofA in June and showed the representative that in both this case and the case we won in June BofA used nearly identical language on the notice of default.