Fat File Lawyers vs. Thin File Lawyers

Pictured Above:  Actual Shuster & Saben Case file from case where firm defeated 

U.S. Bank and their counsel Doug Zahm, P.A. 

In April a foreclosure case our firm had been defending for well over two years was scheduled for summary judgment hearing in Brevard County, Florida.  Generally if a bank files a motion for summary judgment and “wins” the hearing on their motion, the case is for all practical purposes is over and all that is left is for the Court to administratively set a sale date, sell the property, transfer title to winning bidder at the foreclosure auction, and issue a writ of possession to remove the home’s former owner.

Summary judgment hearings are either “special set” meaning a hearing usually fifteen minutes in length is scheduled for a specific time before a specific judge or set on a “cattle-call” mass docket where thirty to one hundred cases have summary judgment hearings set for the same time and the court goes through all of the cases set in an hour or two.  Our case was set on a cattle call docket with ninety seven cases.  When I arrived at 9:00 for the haring, I learned our case was number eighty-eight  on the judge’s list of cases set for the morning.  Thankfully, I bought something to read.  It was going to be a long morning.  While re-reading the case law I would present to the Court when our case was called, I watched the hearings of other lawyers and unrepresented homeowners.  In most of the cases nobody showed up for the homeowner.  In every case where there was no homeowner present and no lawyer present for the homeowner, the bank’s motion for summary judgment was granted and a sale date was set. 

When the first contested case where the homeowner actually had a lawyer present was called,  I looked up from what I was reading to see a confident colleague walk to the lectern with a file as thick as a telephone book. The homeowner's attorney explained “ Judge we have rescheduled the bank representative’s deposition three times at their request but the deposition has not happened yet.  The case is not ripe for summary judgment because discovery is not compete. “    After a brief rebuttal from the bank’s lawyer the Court denied the bank’s motion.

Three Year Old Foreclosure Case Settled with Short Sale

When the recession of 2008-2010 hit, a young Florida mom’s employer closed and in a short span of time she faced financial hardships of both unemployment and divorce.  In her divorce she kept the family home in Palm Bay, Florida.  Unfortunately, the value of the property fell more than 60% when the local real estate market collapsed.  She now owed nearly $150,000 on a property worth less than $50,000 and her limited income from unemployment was insufficient to pay her mortgage.  When Space Coast Credit Union filed a foreclosure action against her in 2009, the homeowner traveled to a legal aid office in Daytona Beach where a legal aid lawyer helped her draft a do it yourself ( Pro Se ) Answer. 

The homeowner originally obtained the loan on her home from Space Coast Credit Union ( SCCU) who in turn sold the loan to the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae or FNMA.  In 2009, SCCU filed a foreclosure action against the homeowner which she defended herself through 2009 and part of 2010.  In 2010, the homeowner found a job as a legal assistant and attempted unsuccessfully to modify her mortgage.  In 2010 after mediation was unsuccessful and Space Coast’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment the homeowner hired Melbourne Florida foreclosure defense attorney, Richard Shuster, to defend the foreclosure action.

Shuster & Saben defended the foreclosure action for two additional years during which time the homeowner made no mortgage payments.  During the three years that the client made no mortgage payments she was able to use the savings to provide for her family, and later after finding employment, to replenish her savings that were wiped out by unemployment and divorce. 

Shuster went on the offensive in the foreclosure action and deposed Space Coast’s corporate representative.  The firm hoped to win the case under a theory that the proper plaintiff was Fannie Mae the loan owner and not the loan Space Cost the loan servicer.  The firm used testimony from the deposition to defeat Space Coast’s motion for summary judgment. Unfortunately, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment the firm filed on behalf of the homeowner.  Since the Court denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment the case would ultimately have to be resolved by trial.

Loan Modification Settlement with Residential Credit Solutions

Shuster & Saben, LLC has reached a  Loan Modification Settlement with Residential Credit Solutions.

Old Payment:  $1,240.00
New payment: $961.17

Another Shuster & Saben client will keep their home thanks to a loan modification reached with RCS, Residential Credit Solutions.  After being turned down for a HAMP loan modification and after a year of litigation, RCS offered our client a non-HAMP loan modification reducing his interest rate from 8.8% interest to 4.625%.  Our client who is over 65 years of age and is retired will save over $275.00 of interest a month.   The firm successfully defended the RCS foreclosure action for approximately thirteen months before the loan modification was offered.  Our client’s investment in foreclosure defense will save him over $50,000.00 over the duration of his loan.

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.   

Settled in a Flash, Shuster & Saben obtains loan modification for 85 year old client.

An eighty-five year old homeowner came to the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben caught between a rock and a hard place.  Her property insurance company dropped her because she did not replace a thirty-year-old electrical panel in her home.  When her lender learned that her property insurance was not renewed it replaced the old insurance policy with a force-placed policy costing nearly quadruple the price.  The client could not afford to pay both her mortgage and the cost of replacing her electrical panel.

The client’s sole source of income was Social Security and she did not have savings available to pay for the expensive home repair.  The client had tried on her own, for months, without success,  to obtain a loan modification from her mortgage servicer. Prior to the filing of a foreclosure action, firm attorney Richard Shuster advised her that she since she could not obtain other insurance coverage until she replaced a dangerous, outdated, electrical panel and she could not afford force-placed coverage she had no other choice but to miss a few mortgage payments and use the money that to fix her home.  The client was encouraged to speak to the lender and let them know her situation.  Hopefully the homeowner could fix her electrical box and obtain a loan modification before the loan servicer brought a foreclosure action.

Unfortunately the loan servicer filed a foreclosure action after the client missed several payments.  When the servicer filed the foreclosure action, the client did not have sufficient funds to pay the firm’s usual fees for foreclosure defense and was given a hardship discount.  After being retained the firm moved to dismiss the foreclosure action and submitted a loan modification package for the borrower.  Less than sixty days after being hired, the firm has obtained a HAMP loan modification that will lower the client’s interest rate from 6% to 2.25%  The client has fixed her electrical box.  Shuster referred the client to top insurance agent to obtain a new insurance policy to replace the force-placed insurance policy obtained by the loan servicer.  With swift proactive representation designed to solve problems, the firm has helped another client save their home.

About Shuster & Saben:  Shuster & Saben tailors its approach to each clients unique situation with a goal of solving problems and protecting our clients home and assets.  If you want more than cookie-cutter foreclosure delay, a free consultation (for homeowners in foreclosure) is a phone call away. 

Shuster & Saben reaches confidential settlement in Foreclosure Trespass case.

Nearly four years ago a Melbourne, Florida resident in foreclosure left town for the weekend.  Although her home was in foreclosure she continued to live there and run her home based business from the property.  When she arrived home after the weekend away, the lock on her front door had been changed.  A field service agent sent by her loan servicer had broke in the back door, changed the lock on her front door, and left his business card.  When she found her front door locked she went around to the back of the house where she found her broken in back door left wide open.  When she went inside she found that many of her possessions were gone.

The homeowner called the police and a police report was filed.  The police did not arrest anyone and told her that because she was in foreclosure this was a “civil” matter.  Our client did not know if the field service agent took her belongings or merely enabled some other person to take her stuff by leaving the back door unlocked.

The home owner took pictures of her home after the break-in to show that the property was in good repair and could not have been mistaken for an abandoned property.  She asked several different lawyers in the Space Coast to take her case.  Every attorney she spoke to told her the same thing:  that her damages (about $6,000.00 of lost property) were to small and she had no proof that the field service agent left the back door open or took her property.   One lawyer told her “Perhaps the field service agent broke into the property, changed the locks, and locked all the doors and then a thief broke in and left the back door open.”

Shuster & Saben Defeats Nationstar Mortgage in Vero Beach Foreclosure Case and Recovers Attorney’s Fees.

 

Things did not look good for a Vero Beach resident when he drove to Melbourne to hire Shuster & Saben to defend his home.  Before Shuster & Saben was hired Nationstar had already obtained summary judgment against the homeowner.  All that was left in the case was for the Indian River Circuit Court to conduct a foreclosure sale which was scheduled to take a place about a month after the firm was hired.  When Shuster & Saben was first hired Nationstar was so confident in their position that they rejected a request made by attorney Shuster for a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure settlement.

After the firm was hired, Shuster & Saben moved to set the summary judgment aside based on promises made to the homeowner that his loan would be modified.  Before the hearing on the motion to cancel sale and vacate summary judgment took place, Nationstar’s original counsel Ben-Ezra Katz, P.A., withdrew the affidavit that had previously been filed in support of Nationstar’s motion for summary judgment.  Shortly thereafter Nationstar, Fannie Mae and numerous other lenders discharged the Ben-Ezra firmunder suspicious circumstances. 

Firm attorney Richard Shuster argued that if the affidavit used in support of summary judgment was withdrawn and was possibly fraudulent the Court should vacate the summary judgment previously entered against our client.  The Court agreed, canceled the foreclosure sale and vacated the summary judgment against our client.