The owner of oceanfront mansion in Lee County has selected Shuster & Saben, LLC to defend the foreclosure action filed against his family’s home. The property owner evaluated foreclosure defense lawyers both locally and across the state before choosing firm attorney Richard Shuster to implement a comprehensive asset protection and foreclosure defense plan. The owner’s search for the right attorney began with reviewing the websites of several law firms. Once he narrowed his focus to a few lawyers he found those attorneys’ bar numbers at the Florida Bar’s website, www.flabar.org. He then looked up the cases handled by each lawyer in Lee County with the Lee County Clerk of Court though a search of the lawyers’ bar number. The homeowner then reviewed the results obtained in the cases and the pleadings filed by each lawyer.
Two things that impressed the homeowner were that the requests for admissions, interrogatories (written questions) and request for production filed by Shuster varied form case to case and were clearly custom prepared based on the facts of the case rather than cookie-cutter form pleadings. The homeowner was also impressed by the fact that he could not find a single file where a Lee county client had lost their home to foreclosure sale. After performing extensive research online, reviewing files through the Lee County clerk, and interviewing Shuster by phone the homeowner made a will researched decision to hire the firm.
Shuster & Saben appreciates that a well informed homeowner is our best client. The firm is proud to represent multiple attorneys, C.P.A.s, physicians, and police officers in foreclosure cases.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Shuster & Saben Collects Fee Judgment against Chase Home Finance
The foreclosure lawyers at Shuster & Saben have obtained payment for a $9,750.00 judgment against Chase Home Finance. The judgment was obtained in a case where the firm obtained dismissal of a foreclosure action filed by Law Offices of Marshall Watson, P.A. The firm, pursuant to our written retainer with our client, will now issue a check to our client to reimburse him for most of the legal fees he previously paid to our firm.
When considering among the many law firms that defend foreclosures homeowners should consider the firm’s track record with respect to beating banks and obtaining attorney’s fees. When a homeowner wins their foreclosure case the bank has to pay the homeowner’s attorney’s fees. The Court will determine the amount of the attorney’s fees and may award less than the total fees charged or sought by the homeowner’s attorney. Shuster & Saben’s written fee agreement fully explains the firm’s attorney fee reimbursement policy when the firm recovers attorney's fees from banks and loan servicers. For many homeowners hiring the best possible foreclosure defense attorney may cost a little more in the beginning but will be a better value over the long haul if the attorney wins the case and obtains a fee judgment against the bank or settles the case with a substantial reduction of interest and principal (loan balance).
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Shuster & Saben defeats Bank of America at Trial
Firm attorney, Richard Shuster, defeated Bank of America, in a Miami-Dade foreclosure trial. The evidence presented at trial included the deposition testimony of the person who executed the assignment of mortgage and the live testimony of the borrower / Defendant. For our client’s protection the firm did not blog about this victory until the time for Bank of America to appeal expired. Under the legal principle of res judicata Bank of America should be unable to file a new lawsuit against our client. The firm will soon commence action to quite title for our client. It appears that our client's mortgage, that was more than $175,000.00, has been eliminated.
To Review a redacted copy of the final judgment please click the link below:
Redacted Final Judgment
Shuster & Saben is a litigation firm. Lawyers at Shuster & Saben have tried cases to verdict in personal injury, insurance, felony criminal, and foreclosure. Firm attorney Thomas Willis was on Stetson Law School’s national championship trial team. Micheal Fischetti is a former Broward County public defender. A firm’s trial experience is one of the factors a homeowner should evaluate when considering a foreclosure attorney. To find out more about our firm, its lawyers, and why we are different please visit our firm’s website at www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com.
To Review a redacted copy of the final judgment please click the link below:
Redacted Final Judgment
Shuster & Saben is a litigation firm. Lawyers at Shuster & Saben have tried cases to verdict in personal injury, insurance, felony criminal, and foreclosure. Firm attorney Thomas Willis was on Stetson Law School’s national championship trial team. Micheal Fischetti is a former Broward County public defender. A firm’s trial experience is one of the factors a homeowner should evaluate when considering a foreclosure attorney. To find out more about our firm, its lawyers, and why we are different please visit our firm’s website at www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Shuster & Saben Sues Loan Servicer Vericrest Financial on behalf of Foreclosure Client
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
