Shuster & Saben defeats Florida Default & Wells Fargo

Poor Florida Default Law Group,  once against they have lost yet another case to Shuster & Saben, LLC.   This foreclosure case began when Wells Fargo decided to hire Tampa foreclosure mill Florida Default Law Group to prosecute a foreclosure case in Brevard County.  Florida Default assigned the file to a young lawyer handling a very large caseload.  The homeowner hired the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben, where firm partner Richard Shuster immediately went on the offensive against Wells Fargo. 

Shuster, an experienced civil litigator practicing three times as many years as his opponent, moved to dismiss the case because the complaint was not properly verified.

The motion to dismiss  set forth that the person who “verified” the complaint had an illegible signature and the verification page did not state whether the unknown person signing the verification even worked for Wells Fargo.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss but granted leave for the Florida Default Law Group to fix the problem by filing an amended complaint within twenty days.  Florida Default and/or Wells Fargo then dropped the ball by letting nearly two months go by before they got around to complying with the Court’s order. Apparently they thought a Court order directly them to do something within 20 days meant 20 days or whenever they got around to doing it.

When Shuster received Wells Fargo’s amended verified complaint he immediately moved to strike the complaint and for the entire case to be dismissed.  Following a January 23, 2012, hearing the Court granted the firm’s motion to strike the amended complaint and dismissed the case.  Perhaps this order will teach Florida Default that Court orders need to be complied with and that when a judge orders you to do something you move it to the top of your to-do pile. 

After the case was dismissed Shuster filed a timely motion for attorney’s fees and will now prosecute an attorney fee claim against Wells Fargo.  The firm looks forward to obtaining fees from Wells Fargo and using such fees to reimburse our client’s legal expenses.

To review or download the entire order with our client's name redacted click the link below.

REDACTED ORDER

About Shuster & Saben:  If you are being sued for foreclosure chances are quite high that your bank or your bank’s law firm has lost a case to our firm.  Perhaps your bank or their lawyer will be angry that you hired Shuster & Saben.  We think they want you to bring a knife to a gunfight.  If you would rather bring an assault rife give us a call or e-mail foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com. 

Shuster & Saben obtains $46,878 fee judgment against U.S. Bank

J.R. Ewing of TV drama Dallas was fond of saying “revenge is a dish best served cold.” In January of 2012, our firm obtained a judgment for attorney’s fees and costs against US Bank for in excess of $46,000.00. Our client’s revenge was served cold, approximately six months after a judge dismissed US Bank’s foreclosure case. In a foreclosure case when the bank loses the bank has to pay the prevailing homeowner’s attorney’s fees and costs. In this case, firm attorney Richard Shuster, spent 101 hours defending the case, and the Court, found that 95 of the hours were reasonable. The Court ordered U.S. Bank to pay the firm 95 hours at $450.00 per hour ($42.500.00) together with $3,562.50 of expert witness fees, $500.00 of interest, and $65.00 of costs.

This was the largest attorney fee judgment against a bank or loan servicer the firm has ever obtained and is one of the largest fee awards awarded in Brevard County in a foreclosure case. In this case U.S. Bank went to the mat. At mediation the lender offered our client a token interest rate reduction of less than 1% that would have cut the clients mortgage by less than $50.00 a month. Our client, a county employee, had lost most of his overtime compensation in the wake of government cutbacks that were widespread in the Space Coast, after the housing bubble burst causing property tax revenues to fall off a cliff. Our client owed nearly double what his home was worth. At mediation, we tried to convince U.S. Bank that their case was not a slam dunk but the attorney for U.S. Bank was a “coverage” attorney brought in just for mediation because he had an office in Melbourne. The banks coverage attorney saw the file for the first time the day of mediation. For more than two hours, attorney Shuster pointed out to bank several of the serious obstacles they would face if they proceeded and some of the wholes in their case. US Bank was cocky and complacent. Their position was that they would win and that the homeowner’s choice was to either take the banks crappy offer or lose their house. Our client made another choice. He choose to stay the course and fight.

Shuster & Saben Defeats Wells Fargo & Florida Default Law Group

One of the greatest thrills for a foreclosure defense attorney is to call their client from the courthouse parking lot and tell them the judge has thrown out the bank's case and that the bank’s lawsuit is now over. Firm attorney Richard Shuster, got such a thrill after his first Court appearance of the new year on Thursday, January 5, 2012.

Shuster was in Court in Brevard County, Florida on a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of a Space Coast foreclosure client. Unlike attorney Shuster, who appeared in person at the hearing, the attorney for Wells Fargo, an associate of the Florida Default Law Group, appeared at the hearing by phone. The issue addressed at the hearing was whether Wells Fargo’s foreclosure complaint was properly verified as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.110(b). Our position was that verification must be part of the complaint and cannot be made on a separate piece of paper. Wells Fargo argued that their separate verification pleading satisfied the requirements of the rule. Mr. Shuster was one of the first lawyers in Florida to “make new law” on this issue in the case PNC v. Peckham which appeared in the Florida Law Weekly Supplement in January of 2011. The Court agreed with our arguments and entered an order granting the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

This lawsuit against our client is now over. The firm has already served a motion for attorney’s fees against Wells Fargo and will look forward to recovering attorney’s fees from Wells Fargo to reimburse legal expenses incurred by our client.

The client was overjoyed to know that there is no longer a case pending against him, that next month he will have no legal expenses, and that our efforts will now turn to recovering money from the bank to pay his legal expenses. To review the actual order in Adobe Acrobat / PDF format click the link below:

Redacted Order of Dismissal

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben, LLC is not like other foreclosure defense firms. We do not file motions to dismiss as a stall tactic. We file motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment to win foreclosure cases. We believe that a good foreclosure defense attorney builds and arms torpedoes and puts them in the water with the goal of sinking the lender’s case. Going on offense takes more work. Winning foreclosure cases requires going to Court, usually several times. This costs us more to do in terms of time, energy and resources and what we change reflects this. We are certainly NOT the cheapest foreclosure firm to hire but we strive to deliver superior results at a price that is clear, fair, predictable and an excellent value. To speak with an attorney to see if the foreclosure cases against you have a weakness or vulnerability that we can exploit please E-mail foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com.

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 wins another foreclosure case against Bank of America

Shuster & Saben won another foreclosure case against Bank of America subsidiary BAC Home Loans. This victory in Brevard County, follows a trial victory for the firm, in another case against Bank of America pending in Miami-Dade. The firm’s victorious foreclosure client was a family living in Palm Bay. At the onset of the case, the firm diligently assisted the client in submitting a complete loan modification request under HAMP. When the firm’s efforts to reach a reasonable settlement were not countered with a single loan modification offer, firm lawyer Richard Shuster knew it was time to go on the attack. The firm served requests for admission on Bank of America that asked the bank to admit that the bank did not own the note and mortgage on our clients home and did not hold the note.

When Bank of America failed to reply to the requests for admission within thirty days the requests were deemed admitted by operation of law. The firm then filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the homeowners. The firm expected that the bank’s lawyers would files responses to the requests for admission prior to the summary judgment hearing but the bank's lawyers never filed responses to the requests for admission. At the hearing on the Defendant / Homeowner's motion for summary judgment, the bank, for the first time made an oral motion for relief from admissions. The motion was untimely and was denied by the Court. The Court then granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and adjudicated that Bank of America did not own or hold the loan. Since this was an adjudication on the merits Bank of America will NOT be able to re-file the case. The firm will now seek prevailing party attorney’s fees on behalf of its client to be paid by Bank of America and will commence an action to quiet title to the client's property.

Lawyers and scheduling staff at Shuster & Saben are often told by judges and Court scheduling assistants that very few foreclosure defense lawyers go on the attack and file offensive motions for summary judgment. Often foreclosure defense lawyers are content to simply file a motion to dismiss. Unfortunately, when a motion to dismiss is granted, it is usually either with leave to amend or with leave to re-file a new lawsuit. When a homeowner wins a motion for summary judgment on a pertinent issue, the losing bank will not be able to prosecute a new lawsuit under the principals of res judicata. Shuster & Saben has won other cases with this aggressive strategy and encourages other foreclosure defense lawyers to give this technique a try.

To view a redacted copy of the entire order please click the link below:
REDACTED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

About Shuster & Saben: Shuster & Saben, LLC is firm of eight civil litigators, practicing foreclosure defense, insurance litigation, and consumer protection law, from four Florida offices in Miami, Doral, Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne. The firm passionately defends foreclosure cases pending in counties within two hours drive of the firm’s 4 offices. The firm can be reached by E-mail at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com

Shuster & Saben Celebrates Two Great Years In Firm's Melbourne Office

While Shuster & Saben, LLC was founded in Miami in 2004, the firm opened its third office in Melbourne in October of 2009. The Melbourne office is run by firm co-founder, Richard Shuster who is a resident of Satellite Beach. Since opening firm’s Space Coast office the firm has only lost one foreclosure summary judgment hearing in Brevard County. While there are many law firms that have never obtained a loan modification with a principal reduction, in the last twelve months the Melbourne office had two loan modifications with principal reductions averaging $100,000 (each) for residents of Palm Bay and Indian Habour Beach. For each of these clients, their settlements meant the difference between keeping and losing their homes.

As the firm’s reputation became more well known, the firm was called in to defend a three million dollar foreclosure case in Lee County, that was resolved by short sale with a complete release for the firm’s client. The settlement did not require any out-of-pocket payments by the client to the Plaintiff / Bank or to any second mortgage holder.

Shuster & Saben has never been a firm content to just fight on defense. During the last year, the firm’s Melbourne office sued Bank of America, Chase, CitiMortgage, Fannie Mae, Nationstar, Litton, Ocwen, Strategic Recovery Group, Vantium Capital, Vericrest, and Wells Fargo for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and Truth in Lending Act (TILA). During the first ten months of 2011, Shuster & Saben sued more banks in Brevard's County Court than any firm in Florida. The firm also went on the offensive by filing motions for summary judgment against banks in foreclosure cases, and used such techniques to win foreclosure cases by summary judgment.

To our Melbourne clients, staff, and the lawyers in the community who referred us their friends and neighbors, we give thanks for opportunity to fight for our neighbors homes and thanks for a great second year.

(Note: clicking any of the colored or grey text links above will take readers to a prior blog post about the case in question).

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.