To watch today’s video blog, please click on the link below:
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.
The Impact of Foreclosures on the Rental Market
October 8, 2014 by
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer. He can be reached by telephone at 516-561-6645, or 718-350-2802 or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Ignorance of The Law Is Not a Valid Defense in Foreclosure
October 5, 2014 by
Please click on the link below to view today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense attorney. He can be reached by telephone at 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Deficiency Judgements After Foreclosure
October 3, 2014 by
To watch today’s blog video regarding deficiency judgements, please click on the link below:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer. He can be reached by telephone at 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802, or by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Squatters and Foreclosed Homes
October 2, 2014 by
Please click on the link below to watch today’s video blog:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney. He can be reached at 516-561-6645 or 718-350-2802. He can also be reached by email to schlissel.law@att.net.
Appellate Court Addresses Bad Faith by Financial Institution in Foreclosure Proceeding
September 24, 2014 by
The Appellate Division of the Second Department is an Appeals Court in New York. This court recently rendered a decision with regard to the issue of a bank negotiating in good faith at foreclosure court conferences. In the matter of U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Sarmiento the court upheld a decision by a Supreme Court judge which prevented the collection of interest or fees which had been accumulating on a loan since December 2009. The court in its decision stated “the issue of whether a party failed to negotiate in good faith within the meaning of CPLR 3408(f) should be determined by considering what the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the party’s conduct did not constitute a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution.”
Mortgage on Home in Brooklyn
U.S. Bank held a mortgage of approximately $600,000 on a home in Brooklyn owned by Jose Sarmiento. In May 2008, Mr. Sarmiento lost his job. He was in touch with the mortgage servicing company, America’s Servicing Company, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo. He was told he did not meet their qualifications with regard to a mortgage modification. They claimed he didn’t make enough money. He thereafter defaulted on making the payments under his loan. However he found a tenant who was willing to pay rent and asked for another opportunity to submit a mortgage modification application. The servicing company refused his request. The court found Civil Practice Law and Rules section 3408 (f) states “both the plaintiff and defendant shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution including the loan modification, if possible.” The court’s decision indicated between September 2009 and January 2011 there were 18 separate court conferences. The referee in charge of these conferences found the servicing organization mishandled various aspects of the negotiations. Documents were misplaced and denials were made on erroneous grounds. That mortgage modification actually wasn’t appropriate for Mr. Sarmiento.
Bank Prevented Settlement of the Case
The court found the bank prevented the reasonable settlement of this case. The attorney for Sarmiento indicated this court’s decision gives homeowners “a sword against lenders and they can use it immediately.” He further stated the bank was prevented from collecting over $300,000 in interest in this case. A spokesman for Wells Fargo stated their company “works hard to help our customers avoid foreclosure and communications during the modification process.”
Foreclosure Court Conference
Our office handles numerous foreclosure court conferences each and every week. We often find the banks hire per diem lawyers who know nothing about the case and have no authority to negotiate with the homeowner’s attorney at these conferences. The failure of banks to send attorneys who have authority to deal with important issues at these foreclosure court conferences is a violation of the good faith requirements of the statute which created these foreclosure court conferences. In essence it makes the foreclosure court conferences a waste of time!
Lack of Standing Must Be Plead As An Affirmative Defense
September 22, 2014 by
Please view today’s blog article regarding pleading defenses in a foreclosure action by clicking on the following link:
Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer. He can be reached at 1-800-344-6431 or by email at schlissel.law@att.net.
Supreme Court Refuses to Appoint Temporary Administrator
September 18, 2014 by
Wells Fargo Bank had brought a foreclosure proceeding in August 2013 against Grotzer. Grotzer died on January 22, 2013. He was the sole owner of the property and the only person who signed the note and mortgage. Wells Fargo brought an application in the Supreme Court requesting the appointment of a temporary estate administrator. They took this action to avoid going to the Surrogate’s Court to appoint an administrator of the decedent’s estate. Their action was for the sole purpose of continuing their lawsuit for foreclosure of the mortgage.
Justice James Pagones sitting in the Supreme Court of Dutchess County denied their request. The judge took the position that Wells Fargo should commence a proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court under Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act section 1001 with regard to this case. The shortcut Wells Fargo’s attorneys sought to take was inappropriate. Even though this might delay the foreclosure case somewhat Wells Fargo still had to follow the appropriate legal procedures to maintain their foreclosure lawsuit.
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.
How To Spot Bank Fraud – Part II
September 12, 2014 by
The Notarization of the Assignment Document
The assignment document needs to be notarized. The first thing you should check is if the date of the notarization is the same date as the date the person with the power of attorney, or the alleged officer of the financial institution executed the assignment. The second item you should look for is whether the notarization is from a notary in the same state as the individual who executed the assignment on the date of its execution. The notarization should have taken place on the same day and at the same location as the signature of the person making the assignment for the financial institution.
Is The Bank Still in Business?
During the past ten years, numerous mortgage companies, financial institutions and banks have gone bankrupt, have been dissolved, have merged and/or have been acquired by other financial institutions. If the bank or financial institution no longer exists, how could an employee of an institution that no longer exists execute an assignment? In these cases there is usually some sort of fraud which took place.
If the financial institution indicates there was a document attached to the note or affixed to the note, check to see if there are staple marks. If no staple marks exist on the document it is either not the original document or there was nothing actually attached to the document. If the financial institution is claiming the note is lost, check to see there has been an affidavit submitted explaining in detail the circumstances and events related to the loss of the original note. Be careful to make sure the person signing the affidavit actually was in a position to have personal knowledge about the loss of the note.
Elliot Schlissel is foreclosure defense lawyer. He has helped scores of New Yorkers fight foreclosure lawsuits and stay in their homes.
Understanding How Bank Lawyers Operate in Foreclosure Cases
August 29, 2014 by
The law firms which represent financial institutions in foreclosure legal actions sometimes process thousands of foreclosure cases per year. These law firms are designed to operate efficiently to obtain a maximum profit level on the foreclosure cases they handle. They are most profitable and most successful with regard to their foreclosure litigation when they don’t run into a foreclosure defense lawyer who has a detailed understanding of the legal process involved in foreclosures, the defenses which can be plead and the problems financial institutions have in prosecuting foreclosure lawsuits. It is most profitable for the bank lawyers processing foreclosures when they can move forward with their lawsuit without significant opposition from the homeowners and their counsel.
When my office raises twenty or more affirmative defenses and countersues financial institutions involved in foreclosure lawsuits, it creates numerous problems for the financial institutions and their attorneys. To start with, the bank lawyers go from aggressive moving party to defending their clients’ practices, producing documents and explaining to the court whether all aspects of the mortgage transaction were legal, ethical and appropriate. In numerous cases in which our law firm is involved, we take the banks and their attorneys to task. Sometimes these cases get put aside for years by the bank’s attorneys. In some of the cases the banks simply move to dismiss their own lawsuit.
Mortgage Modifications
By submitting an aggressive, well thought out series of affirmative defenses and counterclaims, the banks are put back on their heals. One of the ways they deal with these cases is by entering into negotiations for mortgage modifications. Sometimes the pressure of an aggressively litigated foreclosure defense results in the bank offering very favorable mortgage modifications as a means of ending the lawsuit.
Conclusion
If you are sued in a foreclosure, hire an experienced, dedicated foreclosure attorney to protect your rights and prevent the financial institution from taking advantage of you.
