Predatory Loan Issues

foreclosure defense help in New YorkBAC Home Loans Servicing had brought a foreclosure lawsuit against Ramsay. BAC had moved for summary judgment claiming there were no issues of fact and therefore they should be entitled to summary judgment without the need for a trial. They also sought to strike Ramsay’s Answer and have a referee appointed to compute the sums due and owing BAC under the terms of the mortgage.

Ramsay contended BAC’s summary judgment application should be denied. Ramsay claimed there was predatory lending and discriminatory practices involved in making the mortgage by the original lender, Madison Home Equities.

Justice Bernard Graham found BAC did not establish a prima facie case allowing them to obtain summary judgment in their foreclosure proceeding. Judge Graham had questions concerning the relationship between Madison Home Equities and BAC. A question arose as to whether their business relationship would support the allegations made by Ramsay concerning predatory loan practices. In addition the court found Ramsay had offered plausible, reasonable evidence BAC’s decision to deny the mortgage modification was based on incorrect calculations by them. Judge Graham found denial of the mortgage modification may have been unreasonable and Ramsay may have been entitled to said mortgage modification.

Conclusion

The judge carefully reviewed the facts of this case and rendered an important decision supporting homeowner’s rights in this foreclosure case.helping homeowners stay in their homes

Bank Has No Standing, Summary Judgment Denied

foreclosure defense for Long IslandersHSBC Bank, USA, brought a foreclosure case against Thomas in Kings County Supreme Court. Thomas submitted an Answer in the foreclosure legal action with affirmative defenses. The affirmative defenses stated HSBC was not the owner of the note and the mortgage at the time the lawsuit was initiated. Therefore, they lacked standing to bring the lawsuit.

Thomas had taken out several mortgages. HSBC, in its summary judgment motion, claimed it had standing as it was assigned Thomas’s mortgage pursuant to an assignment by MERS. It also claimed it was in possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. They claimed since Thomas had not made his payments on the notes which were secured by the mortgage on the property, they had the right to initiate the lawsuit and they should be granted summary judgment. (Summary judgment grants the moving party an order for the relief requested in the complaint without the need for a trial).

Notes Not Assigned

Ms. Thomas, in her opposition to the summary judgment motion, claimed the notes were not assigned. She claimed the notes were not negotiated since there was an allonge (which is an amendment to a note) which did not comply with the Uniform Commercial Code section 3-202(2). This section of the Uniform Commercial Code requires an allonge be firmly attached to the note.

Supreme Court Justice Wayne Saitta agreed with Ms. Thomas’s argument. He found the assignment of the mortgage was insufficient as it only assigned the mortgage and did not include the notes and underlying debt. The judge found HSBC did not establish the note was negotiated prior to the commencement of this action. The negotiation of the note required physical delivery of the note. Judge Saitta ruled HSBC did not have standing to bring the lawsuit and summary judgment motion striking Thomas’s answer and affirmative defenses was denied.

Conclusion

If you are sued, it is important to have a detailed review of all of the facts and circumstances in the case with an experienced foreclosure defense lawyer. There are many defenses available in foreclosure lawsuits. There are numerous statutes, state and federal laws which protect consumers and mortgage holders.assistance for homeowners facing bankruptcy

Improper Service of a Summons and Complaint

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:

http://youtu.be/5HCFfWKSuLk

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney.  He and his associates have been helping homeowners fight foreclosure lawsuits for more than 45 years.  He can reached at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802, 1-800-344-6431, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Bank Sanctioned for Foreclosure Activity

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:

http://youtu.be/aWFhexR5IEo

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer representing homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He regularly sues banks to set aside mortgages and help keep his clients in their homes.  He and his associates can be reached at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Foreclosure Proceeding Dismissed Due To Lack of Standing

To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:

http://youtu.be/_fWe-dJiark

Elliot S. Schlissel is an attorney who has extensive experience in representing homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area for the past 45 years.  He and his associates are available for consultation by contacting the Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo at 516-561-6645, or 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Foreclosure Defense Information

real estate and mortgage modification attorneysEconomic Injury in Foreclosure Lawsuits

I have personally spoken to hundreds of homeowners with regard to issues and injustices they have been subject to related to mortgages, mortgage modifications, and foreclosure lawsuits against their homes. However, there is a concept most homeowners do not seem to understand. There is a principle of law which states when you bring a lawsuit you must allege monetary damages. To prove monetary damages you must show there has been an economic injury to you and a certain amount of money is required to redress your grievance for this economic injury (damages). Unfortunately in most foreclosure cases it is extremely difficult for the homeowner to allege economic damages in a countersuit against a financial institution.

Destroying Title To One’s Home

In the counter lawsuits brought by our law firm, we allege there has been economic injury to the homeowner because the financial institution, upon initiating a foreclosure proceeding, filed what is called a lis pendens. A lis pendens is a notice to the world a foreclosure lawsuit has been initiated. The filing of a lis pendens has a negative impact on the title to one’s home. It provides notice to all people interested in any transaction concerning the home that it is involved in a foreclosure lawsuit. Destroying the title to one’s home can be the basis for countersuing the bank for monetary damages.

Fraud

In cases where the bank has engaged in fraudulent activities, has violated truth in lending laws and/or has been involved in predatory lending, there is potential for economic injury the homeowner can recover. Unfortunately the cases do not currently allow a homeowner to set aside a mortgage based on any of those aforementioned theories of recovery. The courts have not granted homeowner’s applications in the past to set aside mortgages and remove the liens from the homeowner’s homes. This is still an avenue which is being pursued by our law office and other law firms defending beleaguered homeowners in foreclosure defense lawsuits brought by financial institutions.assisting homeowners on Long Island

Judge Eliminates All Past and Future Interest in a Foreclosure Lawsuit Due To Bank’s Bad Faith

foreclosure defense on Long IslandLaSalle Bank had brought a foreclosure legal action in the Supreme Court in Suffolk County. In its pleadings the bank claimed they were both the owner and holder of the note which was secured by a mortgage. The defendant in the case did not deny he had defaulted in making 4 mortgage payments. His default was directly related to the fact he was in jail. However, he brought an application to the court requesting all interest on the foreclosed home be eliminated. He claimed LaSalle Bank had unreasonably delayed the legal proceedings in the foreclosure action. They had requested numerous duplicative document demands.

Numerous Duplicative Document Production Requests

The case was heard before Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner sitting in the Supreme Court in Suffolk County. Justice Spinner found there were numerous duplicative document production demands. The homeowner had appeared 24 separate times for mandatory settlement conferences. Judge Spinner found LaSalle Bank had not complied with HAMP guidelines. In addition, he found they failed to negotiate with the homeowner in good faith. Justice Spinner found due to LaSalle’s bad faith and the bad faith of their servicing agents, all present, past and future interest on the mortgage in this foreclosure lawsuit was to be eliminated.

Conclusion

Banks need to cooperate to make the HAMP work or they will be punished by judges.helping homeowners stay in their homes

Bank’s Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith

To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:

http://youtu.be/vdPBvNifXM4

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer.  He can be reached at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Bank Delays Tolls Interest in Foreclosure Lawsuit

mortgage modification attorneysA homeowner by the name of Lucic brought an application before Supreme Court Justice Peter Moulton who sits in New York County. The motion in the foreclosure case was to stop the mortgage payments from accruing in the foreclosure lawsuit that had been brought against him concerning his condominium apartment. Justice Moulton took the position the 6.5% interest rate on the mortgage held by Bank of America was a bit high taking into consideration the current interest rate payments.

HAMP Application

Bank of America opposed the motion. They claimed they had reviewed the HAMP application submitted by Lucic and they denied it pursuant to the Freddie Mac HAMP guidelines. Justice Peter Moulton found the argument submitted by Mr. Lucic, that Bank of America violated New York Civil Practice Law section 3408. The bank had failed to timely and properly process his mortgage application for a loan modification. They also continually made demands for the same documents which had previously been submitted to the financial institution. The court took the position Bank of America had engaged in a “two year run around”. The court took into consideration Lucic had diligently and faithfully provided Bank of America with the information they requested on many occasions. The court therefore took action and tolled (stopped) interest from accruing on this foreclosure from April 1, 2010 through April 30, 2012.

Conclusion

Each and every week homeowners come into my office and they tell me the same thing. They submitted a mortgage modification application and the bank they were dealing with continually asked they resubmit the same information over and over again. Sometimes these submissions took place over a period of years. The reason why the mortgage modification process doesn’t work is the banks have refused to properly fund this program. By under staffing the program, and not setting up internal guidelines, they have frustrated individuals who apply for mortgage modifications. For the large majority of home owners seeking help, HAMP instead of helping them, frustrates them.helping homeowners stay in their homes

Proper Time to Rescind a Contract

Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:

http://youtu.be/zUgSCQYjSG4

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney.  He can be reached at 516-561-6645, 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.

Foreclosure Defense in Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Baldwin, Malverne, Freeport, Oceanside, Long Beach, Elmont, Lakeview, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Merrick and Bellmore, New York

We represent individuals throughout the New York Metropolitan area with divorce and child custody, personal injury, car accident, wrongful death, estate administration, nursing home and medicaid issues

The information you obtain at this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your particular legal issue. This is attorney advertising.

This is attorney advertising. This website is designed for general information purposes only. The information presented on this website shall not be construed to be legal advice. If you have a legal problem you should consult with an attorney.

Copyright © 2018 By The Law Offices of Schlissel DeCorpo. All Rights Reserved.