After CitiMortage tried for over two years to foreclosure on our clients Melbourne, Florida home, they gave up and while his foreclosure case was still pending, his first mortgage was sold to an offshore trust created in 2010 to acquire distressed mortgages for pennies on the dollar. Citibank never told our client who bought his mortgage but when Citi stopped servicing the loan they complied with RESPA ( the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) and told our client that servicing of his loan would be transferred to Vericrest Financial. We sent Vericrest a Qualified Written Request (QWR) to find out who acquired out client’s fist mortgage. Our letter that contained the QWR also demanded that the Vericrest cease and desist any communication with the our client as he has been represented by our firm for nearly two years.
Vericrest ignored our correspondence and continued to call our client in violation of the FCCPA (Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act) and FDCAP (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). We did NOT ignore Vericrest’s unlawful conduct. A mere ten days after they called our client we sued Vericrest Financial and their unknown client, the current owner of the first mortgage in Brevard County Court.
To review a redacted copy of the lawsuit filed against Vericrest please click the link below.
Redacted Vericrest Lawsuit
At Shuster & Saben we refer to lawsuit where our foreclosure client is a plaintiff and the loan servicer and lender are defendants as offensive cases. In other offensive cases we have recovered monetary damages for our clients or used the offensive case as a bargaining chip to obtain a substantial principal reduction loan modification. When a consumer wins a Fair Debt case the loan servicer (or bill collector) has to pay the consumer’s attorneys fees. In these offensive cases, our firm receives no attorney’s fees unless we win the case and the fee is paid for by the lender or loan servicer.
About the foreclosure attorneys at Shuster & Saben, LLC: Some lawyers think doing a good job in a foreclosure case means losing slow rather than quickly. Not us. Shuster & Saben, searches every case for clues in hopes of finding evidence to defeat the bank. We take depositions. We litigate foreclosure cases to win. When lenders break the law we do not hesitate to file a separate lawsuit against the bank or loan servicer on behalf of our client. We think a good foreclosure defense lawyer doesn’t drag his or her feet but rather uses them to kick the behinds of banks, loan servivers, and foreclosure mill attorneys.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Shuster & Saben, LLC obtains judgment against Chase Home Finance.
A Florida court has entered Final Judgment against Chase Home Finance in a foreclosure case won by the foreclosure lawyers at Shuster & Saben, LLC. The judgment commands Chase to pay the homeowner and his attorneys $9,950.00 for attorney's fees and costs. Previously, Shuster & Saben obtained a dismissal of the case as a sanction against Chase after Chase failed to comply with two Court orders concerning answering interrogatories (written questions answered under oath) and providing written discovery.
Under Florida law in most cases where the homeowner wins their foreclosure case the bank must reimburse the homeowner for their legal expenses. The amount of the judgment obtained substantially exceeds the amount of money paid by the homeowner to Shuster & Saben because the judgment includes reimbursement of $1,750.00 for an expert witness to testify at the attorney fee hearing ( a cost paid for by the firm not the client ) and for work performed by the firm that was not changed to the client.
From this judgment Shuster & Saben firm will reimburse our client’s legal expenses. When this case began, all our client wanted was a waiver of deficiency on an upside-down rental property. At the onset of the case our firm offered to settle the case by Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure or agreed judgment of foreclosure with waiver of deficiency. Chase as the servicer of a FNMA loan did not accept the settlement offer. Now, a year later, Chase does not have the property and has spent thousands of dollars paying both their lawyers and for all of the time our firm spent defending the case.
To review a redacted copy of the judgment obtained against Chase please click the link below.
Redacted Final Judgment Against Chase
About Shuster & Saben: When the foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben win foreclosure cases we aggressively seek to recover attorneys fees from the bank minimize or eliminate or client’s legal expenses.
Under Florida law in most cases where the homeowner wins their foreclosure case the bank must reimburse the homeowner for their legal expenses. The amount of the judgment obtained substantially exceeds the amount of money paid by the homeowner to Shuster & Saben because the judgment includes reimbursement of $1,750.00 for an expert witness to testify at the attorney fee hearing ( a cost paid for by the firm not the client ) and for work performed by the firm that was not changed to the client.
From this judgment Shuster & Saben firm will reimburse our client’s legal expenses. When this case began, all our client wanted was a waiver of deficiency on an upside-down rental property. At the onset of the case our firm offered to settle the case by Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure or agreed judgment of foreclosure with waiver of deficiency. Chase as the servicer of a FNMA loan did not accept the settlement offer. Now, a year later, Chase does not have the property and has spent thousands of dollars paying both their lawyers and for all of the time our firm spent defending the case.
To review a redacted copy of the judgment obtained against Chase please click the link below.
Redacted Final Judgment Against Chase
About Shuster & Saben: When the foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben win foreclosure cases we aggressively seek to recover attorneys fees from the bank minimize or eliminate or client’s legal expenses.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Shuster & Saben obtains Principal Reduction Loan Modification from $229,048 to $123,644.
A Shuster & Saben foreclosure client is the big winner in a war of attrition with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The client, a painter, was trapped in a bad subprime loan at an outrageous interest rate of 8.65% and owed slightly over $229,000 after missing over two years of mortgage payments. When the recession hit, panting jobs came to a stand still and our client could no longer afford his home. The client’s home according to Zillow was worth approximately $138,000. The client defended the foreclosure action himself (pro-se) for over six months but when a summary judgment action was filed by the lender he knew he was in over his head and needed legal counsel. The client turned to a family friend and community business leader who referred him to Shuster & Saben.
In the first 48 hours after Shuster & Saben was hired the firm served over twenty pages of discovery requests on the bank’s lawyers including requests to produce, interrogatories, and requests for admission. This was followed by a qualified written request to Ocwen. One month later, when the hearing on the lender’s motion for summary judgment came before the Court, the bank’s lawyers had not answered the discovery requests. The Court agreed with Shuster & Saben’s argument that the bank could not go forward with the hearing because discovery had not been completed. The firm continued to litigate discovery issues for the next nine months.
In September of 2010, Ocwen sent its first settlement proposal in which it offered to reduce our client’s interest rate from a horrible rate of 8.65% to a merely poor rate of 5.375%. Firm partner, Richard Shuster wrote back to Ocwen to tell them that their offer was pathetic, and that they needed to come up with a real offer that reduced our client’s loan balance if they wanted to settle the case. (To Read our firm's response to Ocwen's Initial Offer click here)
Ocwen’s second settlement proposal was much better and offered to reduce the loan balance from $229,048 to $123,644 which equates to $103,404 of principal reduction. By accepting this deal our client would reduce his loan balance by over 45%. Since our client’s home is worth more than $123,000 once the offer was accepted our client would have equity in his house. The deal would also reduce our client’s interest rate from 8.65% to 4.83%. When the client met with firm attorney Richard Shuster, the advice given was straight to the point, accept the offer and do whatever it takes to come up with the $1,256.00 payment required for acceptance.
Our client took our advice. His new principal and interest payment (after the initial month) will be a very affordable $723.36. Our client will exit foreclosure in a much stronger financial position then he was in when the lender filed suit against him. Thankfully along the way his income in the construction, renovation and building trades has improved (but has yet to return to pre-recession levels). Without counsel our client would have lost his case at the summary judgment hearing in April of 2010. With this settlement we believe he will keep his permanently.
To Review the actual settlement offer please click the link below:
Redacted Loan Modification Offer from Ocwen
About Shuster & Saben:
The foreclosure defense attorneys at Shuster & Saben will tell you that most loan modifications (even ours) do NOT have principal reductions. A bad loan modification is not any better than a bad mortgage. Many times (including in this case) the lender's first offer is not their best offer. Not every home can be saved and some homes are so far upside down that they should not be saved. If you are in foreclosure, our professional, frank, and objective advice can be received in a free, no obligation initial consultation. Our firm's offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation, and Melbourne defend homeowners in foreclosure from Miami to Titusville on the east coast, in Collier and Lee County on the west coast, and in Orange and Seminole County.
In the first 48 hours after Shuster & Saben was hired the firm served over twenty pages of discovery requests on the bank’s lawyers including requests to produce, interrogatories, and requests for admission. This was followed by a qualified written request to Ocwen. One month later, when the hearing on the lender’s motion for summary judgment came before the Court, the bank’s lawyers had not answered the discovery requests. The Court agreed with Shuster & Saben’s argument that the bank could not go forward with the hearing because discovery had not been completed. The firm continued to litigate discovery issues for the next nine months.
In September of 2010, Ocwen sent its first settlement proposal in which it offered to reduce our client’s interest rate from a horrible rate of 8.65% to a merely poor rate of 5.375%. Firm partner, Richard Shuster wrote back to Ocwen to tell them that their offer was pathetic, and that they needed to come up with a real offer that reduced our client’s loan balance if they wanted to settle the case. (To Read our firm's response to Ocwen's Initial Offer click here)
Ocwen’s second settlement proposal was much better and offered to reduce the loan balance from $229,048 to $123,644 which equates to $103,404 of principal reduction. By accepting this deal our client would reduce his loan balance by over 45%. Since our client’s home is worth more than $123,000 once the offer was accepted our client would have equity in his house. The deal would also reduce our client’s interest rate from 8.65% to 4.83%. When the client met with firm attorney Richard Shuster, the advice given was straight to the point, accept the offer and do whatever it takes to come up with the $1,256.00 payment required for acceptance.
Our client took our advice. His new principal and interest payment (after the initial month) will be a very affordable $723.36. Our client will exit foreclosure in a much stronger financial position then he was in when the lender filed suit against him. Thankfully along the way his income in the construction, renovation and building trades has improved (but has yet to return to pre-recession levels). Without counsel our client would have lost his case at the summary judgment hearing in April of 2010. With this settlement we believe he will keep his permanently.
To Review the actual settlement offer please click the link below:
Redacted Loan Modification Offer from Ocwen
About Shuster & Saben:
The foreclosure defense attorneys at Shuster & Saben will tell you that most loan modifications (even ours) do NOT have principal reductions. A bad loan modification is not any better than a bad mortgage. Many times (including in this case) the lender's first offer is not their best offer. Not every home can be saved and some homes are so far upside down that they should not be saved. If you are in foreclosure, our professional, frank, and objective advice can be received in a free, no obligation initial consultation. Our firm's offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation, and Melbourne defend homeowners in foreclosure from Miami to Titusville on the east coast, in Collier and Lee County on the west coast, and in Orange and Seminole County.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Shuster & Saben Sues Strategic Recovery and Vantium Capital
Shuster & Saben, LLC, filed suit in Brevard County against Strategic Recovery Group, a division of Texas based Vantium Capital. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Brevard County homeowner who the firm is defending in a foreclosure action. Prior to retaining the Shuster & Saben, the client filed a Chapter 7 (liquidation bankruptcy) and obtained a discharge of his personal obligation on Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) on his home. At the time our client filed bankruptcy, the HELOC Mortgage was held by Wilshire Bank. According of documents received by the firm, despite the fact that our clients debt was discharged in bankruptcy and the fact that our clients home is worth $50,000 less than the loan balance on his first mortgage, Wilshire sold the loan to Bank of America, who retained Strategic Recovery to attempt to collect on the debt.
The client initially retained the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben to defend a first mortgage filed against his home by CitiMortage. The client brought us a letter he received from Strategic Recovery because he was concerned as why Strategic was seeking to collect a discharged debt. Our firm commenced an investigation to confirm that the original creditor was notified of the bankruptcy and sent Strategic Recovery a Qualified Written Request (QWR) pursuant to RESPA, ( Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ) and request for verification of the debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
When we did not receive written confirmation for Strategic Recovery that they were abandoning collection activity suit was filed in Brevard County Court against Vantium Capital, the parent company of Strategic Recovery. The firm continues to defend the foreclosure action filed by first mortgage holder, Citimortage, a separate case that is now over two years old.
To view a redacted copy of the law suit filed against Strategic Recovery please click the link below.
Strategic Recovery Lawsuit
About Shuster & Saben:
Shuster & Saben is a civil litigation firm of seven attorneys that defends foreclosures from four offices located in Miami, Doral, Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, and Melbourne, Florida. We believe the best defense is a good offense. If a lender, loan servicer or bill collector violates the law in their attempt of collect on a debt allegedly owned by our client we will not hesitate to sue the offender and use such suit for leverage to achieve our clients desired resolution. We believe there is a difference between foreclosure delay and foreclosure defense. Click here to find our why we are different or e-mail foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com with your Florida foreclosure questions.
The client initially retained the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben to defend a first mortgage filed against his home by CitiMortage. The client brought us a letter he received from Strategic Recovery because he was concerned as why Strategic was seeking to collect a discharged debt. Our firm commenced an investigation to confirm that the original creditor was notified of the bankruptcy and sent Strategic Recovery a Qualified Written Request (QWR) pursuant to RESPA, ( Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ) and request for verification of the debt pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
When we did not receive written confirmation for Strategic Recovery that they were abandoning collection activity suit was filed in Brevard County Court against Vantium Capital, the parent company of Strategic Recovery. The firm continues to defend the foreclosure action filed by first mortgage holder, Citimortage, a separate case that is now over two years old.
To view a redacted copy of the law suit filed against Strategic Recovery please click the link below.
Strategic Recovery Lawsuit
About Shuster & Saben:
Shuster & Saben is a civil litigation firm of seven attorneys that defends foreclosures from four offices located in Miami, Doral, Fort Lauderdale / Plantation, and Melbourne, Florida. We believe the best defense is a good offense. If a lender, loan servicer or bill collector violates the law in their attempt of collect on a debt allegedly owned by our client we will not hesitate to sue the offender and use such suit for leverage to achieve our clients desired resolution. We believe there is a difference between foreclosure delay and foreclosure defense. Click here to find our why we are different or e-mail foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com with your Florida foreclosure questions.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Shuster & Saben saves another property by obtaining order voiding foreclosure sale, quashing service of process, vacating default and summary judgment.
When a resident of Colorado consulted with firm attorney Richard Shuster, to save his Florida investment triplex, the internet docket showed that the property had already been sold at foreclosure action. Every other lawyer who looked at the case told the property owner that it was to late. The court docket reflected that a process server had served the property owner in Colorado, and that shortly thereafter Deutsche Bank Trust Company through their lawyers, Shapiro & Fishman, had moved for and obtained a default against him. After obtaining the default, Shapiro & Fishman moved for summary judgment, conducted a hearing at which the unrepresented homeowner failed to appear, and obtained a summary judgment and a sale date.
On the date of the foreclosure sale, no bidder bid the amount of the foreclosure judgment and Deutsche Bank was the winning bidder. Six days after the foreclosure auction, the homeowner contacted the firm. Other lawyers had already advised the homeowner that his case was already lost and their was nothing more to be done.
When firm attorney Richard Shuster checked the on-line docket, he noticed that Bank’s lawyers did not serve the homeowner within the 120 days required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). Shuster advised the homeowner, that the service of process upon him more than 120 days after suit was field violated the rules but given that the property had already sold at auction it might be to late to do anything. Shuster advised the client: “We won’t take your case unless we are 95% certain that we will be able to void the sale and vacate the default based upon the service of process issue. Please give me one day to do the legal research to find out it if there is anything we can do. If your case is hopeless we will tell you and the research will be free.
The research confirmed Shuster’s hunch that it was not too late. Since the Plaintiff bank bought the house and it was less than 10 days from the date of the auction, the firm could file an objection to title being issued to the bank. The property owner hired the firm as soon as he was advised of the results of the research. The next day Shuster & Saben filed an objection to issuance of title. Thereafter the firm filed a Motion to Quash Service As Untimely, Vacate Default, Vacate Summary Judgment, Cancel/Void Sale and to Dismiss the case.
On October 19, 2010, a hearing was held on the motion before Circuit Judge Charles Holcomb. Shaprio & Fishman, the bank’s lawyers appeared at the hearing by phone but firm attorney Shuster was present in person with all of the legal research and case law to present to the Court. The Court rejected the banks arguments, quashed service, vacated the previously entered default and summary judgment order, and voided the sale. Deutche bank must now start over from scratch and serve the homeowner property. In the interim the firm has commenced its efforts to resolve the case by loan modification.
To review a copy of the actual court order please click the link immediately below.
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion To Quash Service As Untimely, Vacate Default, Vacate Summary Judgment and Cancel/Void Sale.
On the date of the foreclosure sale, no bidder bid the amount of the foreclosure judgment and Deutsche Bank was the winning bidder. Six days after the foreclosure auction, the homeowner contacted the firm. Other lawyers had already advised the homeowner that his case was already lost and their was nothing more to be done.
When firm attorney Richard Shuster checked the on-line docket, he noticed that Bank’s lawyers did not serve the homeowner within the 120 days required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). Shuster advised the homeowner, that the service of process upon him more than 120 days after suit was field violated the rules but given that the property had already sold at auction it might be to late to do anything. Shuster advised the client: “We won’t take your case unless we are 95% certain that we will be able to void the sale and vacate the default based upon the service of process issue. Please give me one day to do the legal research to find out it if there is anything we can do. If your case is hopeless we will tell you and the research will be free.
The research confirmed Shuster’s hunch that it was not too late. Since the Plaintiff bank bought the house and it was less than 10 days from the date of the auction, the firm could file an objection to title being issued to the bank. The property owner hired the firm as soon as he was advised of the results of the research. The next day Shuster & Saben filed an objection to issuance of title. Thereafter the firm filed a Motion to Quash Service As Untimely, Vacate Default, Vacate Summary Judgment, Cancel/Void Sale and to Dismiss the case.
On October 19, 2010, a hearing was held on the motion before Circuit Judge Charles Holcomb. Shaprio & Fishman, the bank’s lawyers appeared at the hearing by phone but firm attorney Shuster was present in person with all of the legal research and case law to present to the Court. The Court rejected the banks arguments, quashed service, vacated the previously entered default and summary judgment order, and voided the sale. Deutche bank must now start over from scratch and serve the homeowner property. In the interim the firm has commenced its efforts to resolve the case by loan modification.
To review a copy of the actual court order please click the link immediately below.
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion To Quash Service As Untimely, Vacate Default, Vacate Summary Judgment and Cancel/Void Sale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
