New York foreclosure attorney

Foreclosure and Reverse Mortgages

June 11, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

The purpose of a reverse mortgage is to allow seniors who have homes with substantial equity to pull the equity out of their home and still be able to reside in the home for the rest of their lifetime without making mortgage payments. The difference between a reverse mortgage and a traditional conventional mortgage is the individual taking out the loan under a reverse mortgage does not have to make monthly mortgage payments. The lender only gets paid when the mortgagor dies, or in the event of the sale of the home prior to the mortgagor’s death.

No Personal Obligation to Pay a Reverse Mortgage

There is no personal obligation on the mortgagor to make payments with a reverse mortgage like there is in a traditional mortgage. The only method the financial institution has to collect under a reverse mortgage is from the sale of the home. The lender is therefore exposed to not being capable of having its loan repaid should the market conditions reduce the value of the home or the home be in poor condition. However, the lender can obtain insurance from HUD to protect it from the risk of the home not being worth the amount of the loan plus interest.

Underwriting Reverse Mortgages

The loans are underwritten by financial institutions based on a number of factors. The older the mortgagor is, the more money can be obtained in the mortgage. This takes into consideration the fact that the older the mortgagor is, the smaller his or her life expectancy will be. The shorter life expectancy allows the loan to become due and payable earlier in time.

In the event there are co-mortgagors on the loan, the loan is not called due until the second of the two mortgagors dies.

Problems with Reverse Mortgages

In recent years, when homes were owned by husbands and wives and one of the spouses was older than the other, the banks would convince the younger spouse to deed his or her share of the property to the older spouse. This action was taken so the underwriter would allow a larger amount of money to be borrowed in the mortgage based on the shorter life expectancy of the older spouse. The younger spouses were assured in the event the older spouse dies, they would be allowed to continue to reside in the house. Unfortunately, that is not what happened! When the older spouse, the mortgagor, died the surviving spouse was notified by the financial institutions the reverse mortgage was due and payable because the surviving spouse was not a party to the mortgage loan. Since the surviving spouse was also a senior, and had limited cash flow in most situations, he or she was unable to make the mortgage payments and therefore the house would end up in foreclosure.

HUD has recently dealt with this issue.

New HUD Policy

With regard to all reverse mortgages that are given by financial institutions after August 4, 2014, the new rule requires the non-borrowing spouse who had been married to the borrowing spouse (mortgagor), at the time of the closing, will be afforded protection by this rule and the financial institutions will not be permitted to bring foreclosure lawsuits against the surviving spouse or request payment of the mortgage upon the death of the spouse who was on the mortgage. The financial institution will not be entitled to bring a foreclosure proceeding until the surviving spouse also dies. It should be noted this rule only applies to parties who were actually married at the time the mortgage was taken out. In the event a reverse mortgage is taken out and then the mortgagor marries, that surviving spouse would not be included under this new rule and would need to either pay off the mortgage or have the house subject to being foreclosed upon.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Uncategorized Tagged With: foreclosure defense attorneys, mortgage modification, New York foreclosure attorney, reverse mortgage

Rabbi Unable to Stop Foreclosure on Synagogue

May 9, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Valley National Bank brought a foreclosure lawsuit with regard to a synagogue in Brooklyn. In 2008, the synagogue borrowed $500,000 from State Bank of Long Island. This bank thereafter merged with Valley National Bank. The congregation of the synagogue alleged that the synagogue had two functions. It was a place of prayer and it was the principal residence of the rabbi and his family. They claim “this dual property function had existed since 1970 when the present rabbi’s grandfather established a congregation at its present location.

In such Hasidic Sects, the Shtiebel is the rabbi’s home and his presence is the essence of the Shtiebel.” The congregation alleged in their papers when the mortgage was taken out, the bank was made aware Rabbi Teitelbaum’s residence was located on the site of the synagogue.

A Residential Foreclosure?

The congregation argued that the foreclosure was therefore a residential foreclosure. It should therefore have been in a residential foreclosure part and not in a commercial foreclosure courtroom. As a residential foreclosure, Rabbi Teitelbaum was entitled to notice pursuant to New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Laws concerning the residential foreclosure.

Bank Argues Rabbi Teitelbaum Has No Standing

The foreclosing bank’s position was that Rabbi Teitelbaum was not a necessary party to the foreclosure lawsuit. They claimed it was a commercial loan and he was not a signatory on the loan. The bank’s attorneys stated in their papers, “instead of presenting a modified defense to [Valley National Bank’s] claims, borrower obfuscates by mischaracterizing the facts in attempts to divert attention from its acknowledged commercial loan default by repeatedly alleging that the rabbi and his family actually reside in the synagogue that is the mortgaged commercial premises.”

Judge Holds Property is Not Residential

The judge on the case rendered a decision that the property at issue was a religious structure and not residential property. The judge went further on to hold Rabbi Teitelbaum was not an indispensable party to the lawsuit. Judge Carolyn Demarest rejected the argument submitted by Teitelbaum. She held that even though he lived on the premises, he was not a signatory to the loans, promissory note, or the mortgage. He therefore was not an indispensable party to the lawsuit.

When Judge Demarest was presented with a similar case where the Appellate Division, Second Department made a different ruling, she stated, “in this action, defendant does not establish that Teitelbaum has a lease to the property and even it Teitelbaum does have a lease he may not be dispossessed by a purchaser at a foreclosure sale absent further proceedings.” With this, she was referring to the fact in the event the bank took title to the property they would still have to bring an eviction proceeding to get Rabbi Teitelbaum, his wife and eight children, off the property.

Conclusion

This is a very close call made by Judge Demarest. I would suggest Rabbi Teitelbaum appeal this decision to the Appellate Division of the Second Department. He may be able to persuade them that he should be named as a party because he was a tenant, even without a lease. Month to month tenants are still tenants and they should be named in all foreclosure lawsuits as interested parties.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney representing individuals and families in residential or commercial foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area. Elliot and his staff of dedicated lawyers have an excellent success rate in keeping families in their homes and stopping foreclosure lawsuits in their tracks.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, defective mortgages, foreclosure, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure attorney

Uniondale Marriott Hotel on Long Island in Foreclosure

May 1, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

One of Long Island’s largest hotels has had a foreclosure lawsuit initiated against it. The Long Island Marriott Hotel and Conference Center located in Uniondale, New York is in foreclosure. The hotel is owned by the New York Islanders’ owner, Charles Wang.

The financial institution that loaned the New York Islanders and Charles Wang $103,000,000 in 2007 has brought a foreclosure proceeding in the Supreme Court in Nassau County located in Mineola, New York.

It is estimated the amount owed on the mortgage loan on the Marriott Hotel is more than $125,000,000. The hotel had been valued in the year 2010 at approximately $150,000,000. In a recent appraisal, it was valued at $63.4 million.

Mr. Wang had initially purchased the hotel in 2005 from Marriott. He took this action as part of his Lighthouse plan to revitalize the area around the Nassau County Coliseum. In 2007, Scott Rechler of RXR Realty purchased the hotel. He was a partner of Wang with regard to the project. The Lighthouse Project which was proposed to revitalize the area around the hotel never came to fruition. Eventually, Wang bought the hotel back from Scott Rechler.

Wang had proposed to Nassau County they fund the renovation of the Coliseum. However, when this was submitted through a referendum, the voters in Nassau County voted it down. In 2012, the New York Islanders announced they were moving to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn and they would be permanently leaving Nassau County.

In 2013, Nassau County Executive Mangano entered into an agreement with Bruce Ratner, whom he had selected to renovate the Coliseum.

Conclusion

It is a sad state of events when the largest hotel in Nassau County is in foreclosure.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney. He represents individuals in foreclosure lawsuits and mortgage modification applications throughout the Metropolitan New York area. He has been helping homeowners stay in their homes and fight foreclosure lawsuits for more than 45 years.

Filed Under: Foreclosure Tagged With: foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense lawyers, foreclosure proceedings, Mortgage Modifications attorney, New York foreclosure attorney

Homeowner Seeks to Rescind Mortgage Loan in Foreclosure Proceeding

April 24, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Bank of New York Mellon (hereinafter referred to as “BNYM”), had brought an application for summary judgment against the Kahn defendants in a foreclosure legal action. BNYM sought to have the Kahn’s Answer and Counterclaims dismissed. The Kahn’s cross-moved for partial summary judgment. They claimed, in their counterclaim, there was a violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Mortgage Loan Assigned

The Kahns, after initially purchasing their home, refinanced their mortgage with Countrywide Home Loans. Countrywide Home Loans assigned the mortgage to BNYM. BNYM had initiated the proceeding to foreclose on the Kahns’ home. The Kahns had submitted an Amended Answer. In their Amended Answer they sought to assert a rescission claim. This rescission counterclaim alleged a violation of the Truth in Lending Law by Countrywide Home Loans. They claimed that Countrywide had understated the finance charges by more than $35 in the required Mortgage Financial Disclosure Statement. They claim this was a material misrepresentation in the mortgage disclosure statement. BNYM argued the rescission claim was not presented in a timely manner. They claimed the Amended Answer was served more than three years after the time of closing and therefore in violation of the statute of limitations with regard to the legal theory of rescission.

Relation Back Doctrine Doesn’t Toll the Statute of Limitations

Judge Anil Singh ruled the relation back doctrine alleged by the Kahns did not apply in deciding whether a claim to rescind a transaction was timely made. Judge Singh also noted when rescinding a transaction the timing of the rescission notice is based on when the creditor receives the notice. In this case, Judge Singh held the notice to rescind the matter was received more than three years after the transaction took place and therefore was beyond the statute of limitations for rescinding the transaction. Therefore Judge Singh held the Kahns could not assert the right to rescind this transaction in their counterclaim in the pending foreclosure proceeding. Summary judgment by BNYM was granted and the Kahns partial summary judgment was denied.

Conclusion

The Kahns in this case created a very innovative defense to the foreclosure proceeding. Their defense basically stated there had been a violation of the Truth in Lending Law, albeit a very small violation, involving $35 by Countrywide Home Loans at the time of the refinance. Therefore because of this violation they were rescinding the entire transaction. The court in this case held there was a three year statute of limitations with regard to rescinding a transaction of this type. Therefore the Kahns had to provide Countrywide Home Loans notice with the rescission within three years from the date of the closing. In this case, the Kahns provided Countrywide Home Loans notice of the rescission as part of a counterclaim alleged more than three years after the date of closing. Judge Singh held the Kahn’s argument that their counterclaim, submitted in the foreclosure lawsuit, should be considered to be related back to the time of the closing.

I like the argument. If I was the judge, I would have upheld it!

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure defense attorneys, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure attorney

Bank Fails to Prove it Has Standing on Date Foreclosure Action Started

April 17, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Justice David Schmidt, sitting in the Supreme Court Foreclosure Part in Kings County recently had a case before him concerning a foreclosure on a home where the defendant submitted a lack of standing defense. The foreclosure action was brought by US Bank as the trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust (hereinafter referred to as “MSMLT”). During the course of this proceeding, the attorneys for MSMLT brought a summary judgment motion against the defendants. (A summary judgment motion is a motion that alleges there are no questions of fact concerning the issues in the case and therefore the moving party should be entitled to judgment without the necessity of having the case go to trial).

The defendants submitted seven affirmative defenses in their answer. One of those affirmative defenses alleged the bank lacked the standing to bring this foreclosure lawsuit.

Lack of Standing

MSMLT argued that the defendants defaulted on the note due to the failure to make timely mortgage payments. The defendants had not made mortgage payments for a period of two years before MSMLT had started the lawsuit to foreclose on the their home. MSMLT alleged in their pleadings they were the holder of the note and mortgage which had been endorsed in blank and delivered to them before the lawsuit was initiated.

Justice David Schmidt denied the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. He took the position the attorneys for MSMLT had failed to offer evidence of their standing to bring the foreclosure proceeding against the defendants. They failed to prove they had the note at the time of the commencement of the action. Judge Schmidt found there were triable issues of fact regarding delivery of the note from the original lender and endorser, Hemisphere National Bank, to MSMLT. The court further stated in its decision MSMLT made conclusory statements it had “continuous possession” of the note. These conclusory statements were not sufficient to establish standing in the eyes of the judge. The judge ruled plaintiff’s allegations that equated the possession of the note with the Uniform Commercial Code’s requisite delivery requirements was not convincing and therefore he denied the motion.

Conclusion

In each and every foreclosure lawsuit, the attorneys for the homeowners should allege a lack of standing defense. Our office has had numerous cases where banks have been unable to successfully foreclose on our client’s property due to their failure to prove they had standing to initiate the foreclosure lawsuit.

Elliot S. Schlissel is one of the leading foreclosure lawyers in the Metropolitan New York area having helped scores of his clients to stay in their homes and fight foreclosure lawsuits.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective foreclosure lawsuits, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, New York foreclosure attorney, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Mortgage Lenders: Are There Differences Between Them?

April 14, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

The first thing most prospective homeowners think about with regard to a mortgage is, what will be the interest rate? Obviously, the lower the interest rate, the less the mortgage will cost the consumer. However, there are other important issues to think about when applying for a mortgage.

What Type of Institution is Best For You to Deal With

Large national banks in some areas of the country dominate the mortgage marketplace. Examples of these types of banks are, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. Large financial institutions set their own guidelines with regard to underwriting requirements for mortgage loans. Most large financial institutions do not pay commissions to third party mortgage brokers. This brings the cost of obtaining a mortgage from a large financial institution down. These banks will, if you take a mortgage out from them, provide you with incentives such as paying you higher rates of interest on savings and checking accounts. If you deal directly with a large banking institution, you should try to develop a rapport with the individual at the bank handling your transaction. This will be helpful to you should there develop problems in the underwriting process.

Online Financial Institutions

The internet provides its own marketplace for financial institutions to advertise regarding mortgage loans. Online financial institutions are better suited to refinancing mortgage loans than initiating mortgage loans on the purchase of a home. Sometimes problems arise when dealing with online lenders because they are not located in the community and may not be familiar with the problems in the local real estate market. There is a benefit from dealing with a financial institution on a face to face basis.

Do You Need a Mortgage Broker?

Mortgage brokers are not technically working for a financial institution. They are middlemen who usually work on a commission basis. They may have contacts with a number of lending institutions. They can be helpful to you with regard to properly filling out the necessary forms required in a mortgage application. They also may be in a position to shop around for the best deal you qualify for. In special situations where you have a problem related to your property or your property is of a unique nature they may be able to find a financial institution to specifically fit your needs. They can also run interference for you with the financial institution and eliminate some of the busy work you may need to do with a direct lender. You should take into consideration however, since they are a middleman, and they will be working for commission, they may bring up the cost of the acquisition of your mortgage.

Conclusion

The purchase of a single family home is usually the largest transaction an individual or family will be involved in. Care should be taken when applying for a mortgage to see that the type of institution and deal you are offered is the most appropriate one for your particular circumstances.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure defense lawyer. Elliot has published several hundred articles with regard to foreclosures, mortgage modifications, and other real estate issues. Elliot and his staff of attorneys represent homeowners having financial difficulties and who face foreclosure lawsuits in the Metropolitan New York area. Elliot and his attorneys have developed an expertise in dealing with financial institutions, helping their clients obtain mortgage modifications, and stopping financial institutions from successfully foreclosing on their homes when they fall behind on their mortgage payments. He offers free consultations to prospective clients.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: foreclosure, foreclosure attorney, mortgage modification, New York foreclosure attorney, real estate

Knowledge Of False Information In Financial Documents Used In a Mortgage Transaction Bars Recovery

April 4, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

Judge Joseph Bianco, sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, recently had a case involving various improprieties concerning the acquisition of a mortgage. Plaintiffs, in this case, had obtained a mortgage on their home from Countrywide Mortgage Company (hereinafter referred to as “Countrywide”) in the year 2004.

After experiencing financial difficulties involving large credit card debt and anticipating a potential bankruptcy and/or foreclosure proceeding, they obtained a second mortgage on their home in the year 2008. Both the first mortgage and the second mortgage were combined in a “Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA)”. The plaintiffs presented arguments that the 2008 transaction was fraudulent. They claimed Countrywide placed false financial information into their mortgage application in 2008. They also claim Countrywide concealed the 2004 mortgage was “split” from its underlying note as a result of the assigning of the mortgage to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.

Judge Bianco after considering the arguments rendered a split decision. He rendered a decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud because they had actual knowledge false financial information was contained in the 2008 mortgage loan documents. In spite of the fact they knew the information was false, they executed these documents. He went on further to say although the plaintiffs allege the 2004 mortgage note was invalid, their “splitting” theory was not in compliance with New York State’s “principal-incident rule”. A mortgage is unenforceable if it is detached from its note. However, the note is enforceable even if it is not maintained with the mortgage.

Quiet Title Claim Allowed to Continue

Although Judge Bianco dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud to set aside the 2004 and 2008 transactions, he did allow the lawsuit to continue under the theory the plaintiffs’ may be entitled to quiet title on this matter. Quiet title means having the mortgage rendered invalid against the property and the removal of the lien from the property.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure attorney representing families who seek to fight foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: Bankruptcy mortgage modification, defective foreclosure lawsuits, defective mortgages, financial crisis, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure crisis, New York foreclosure attorney

New Mortgage Rules’ Negative Impact on the Housing Industry

April 3, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

foreclosure defense attorney There are new rules which affect financial institutions involved in the mortgage business in the United States. Lenders have to be able to verify the individuals they loan money to can repay their home mortgages. This is pursuant to the new rules designed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Dodd- Frank Law that regulates Wall Street.

New Consumer Protection Laws

Under the new consumer protection laws, banks have to take into consideration a variety of factors when making mortgage loans. Included in these factors are the income of the borrower, the financial health of the borrower, the borrower’s credit history, and his or her other debts. The purpose of the reform law is to prevent the meltdown in the home mortgage industry that took place between 2000 and 2009 which caused millions of Americans to have their homes sold in foreclosure sales. The new statutes seek to prevent lenders from engaging in loaning funds for home mortgages to individuals who simply cannot afford to pay back the loans.

Other Aspects of The New Consumer Protection Laws

The law deals with a homeowner’s ability to pay their mortgage has created a lot of concern for financial institutions. Mortgage lenders are concerned if the homeowners fail to make their mortgage payments and their homes are foreclosed on by banks they will claim in the foreclosure actions the financial institutions had known or should have known that they couldn’t afford to make the mortgage payments under these loans.

New Regulations Affect Low Income Prospective Homeowners

Experts in the mortgage industry are claiming the new regulations will make it very difficult for low income prospective homeowners to qualify for mortgage loans. They claim the new regulations will give the banks less flexibility in working with low income mortgagors. The regulations also regulate mortgage servicing companies.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer representing homeowners facing foreclosure lawsuits throughout the Metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: defective mortgages, foreclosure attorney, foreclosure crisis, New York foreclosure attorney, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale Vacated The Case To Be Brought Back to the Foreclosure Settlement Part

April 1, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

foreclosure defense lawyer JP Morgan Chase had initiated a foreclosure legal action and had been granted summary judgment. In addition, a referee was appointed to compute with regard to the sale. The property never was sold at auction. JP Morgan Chase thereafter brought a proceeding before Justice Francesca Connolly in Westchester Supreme Court requesting the Order of Reference and Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale be vacated. They took this action because they claim they were unable to comply with Administrative Order 431-11. Justice Connolly granted JP Morgan Chase’s unopposed application. The Order of Reference and Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale were vacated. Thereafter, Chase brought a motion for summary judgment again and for another Order of Reference. The court decided the defendants were entitled to have the matter sent back to the foreclosure settlement conference part.

Since the property involved was residential which was occupied by the owners of the property, and the action was started before September 1, 2008, and a final judgment had not been entered, it was appropriate that the defendants had a statutory right to request the matter be sent back to the foreclosure conference part to try to settle the matter with the bank.

Elliot Schlissel is a foreclosure lawyer with more than 45 years of legal experience, who has successfully represented homeowners throughout the Metropolitan New York area in foreclosure lawsuits.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure defense, foreclosure defense attorneys, foreclosure proceedings, New York foreclosure attorney, New York foreclosure defense lawyers

Foreclosure Proceeding Dismissed: Bank Had No Standing

March 28, 2014 by Elliot S. Schlissel

A foreclosure lawsuit was brought by Deutsche Bank in Kings County, New York, Supreme Court. The Judge in the Part was Larry Martin. During the course of the proceeding, Deutsche Bank brought a motion for summary judgment and the defendant, Johnson, cross moved for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint. Summary judgment motions basically state there are no issues of fact that need to be litigated. With regard to a summary judgment motion, a party has to establish that there are no facts in controversy concerning the position that party takes. Here, each side was seeking a win based on the idea the other party was completely wrong. Deutsche Bank argued, in their application to the court, Johnson had not made payments under the note. Johnson, in his motion, challenged the debt. He also claimed that Deutsche Bank was not the owner of the note. Johnson had requested the original note, the mortgage and a mortgage modification that she had allegedly entered into, be produced. Johnson claimed that Deutsche Bank had failed to properly assign these mortgages.

No Evidence of a Written Assignment of the Mortgage

Judge Larry Martin, in his decision, held evidence was not produced of a written assignment of the note from Deutsche Bank to OCWEN. Judge Martin held Deutsche Bank had to prove the note was physically delivered to it before November 3, 2011, the day the action was commenced. The attorneys for Deutsche Bank said that they had the original note and mortgage. However, the law firm did not provide documentation as to the time they came into possession of the note and mortgage.

Judge Martin, in his decision, held the only evidence Deutsche Bank submitted with regard to their standing to bring this lawsuit was inconclusive. The fact that they had failed to submit a written assignment of the note or documentation to establish the physical delivery of the note caused their claim to fail. Johnson’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: foreclosure attorney, foreclosure defense attorneys, mortgage assignment, mortgage modification, New York foreclosure attorney

Foreclosure and Reverse Mortgages

Rabbi Unable to Stop Foreclosure on Synagogue

Uniondale Marriott Hotel on Long Island in Foreclosure

Homeowner Seeks to Rescind Mortgage Loan in Foreclosure Proceeding

Bank Fails to Prove it Has Standing on Date Foreclosure Action Started

Mortgage Lenders: Are There Differences Between Them?

Knowledge Of False Information In Financial Documents Used In a Mortgage Transaction Bars Recovery

New Mortgage Rules’ Negative Impact on the Housing Industry

Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale Vacated The Case To Be Brought Back to the Foreclosure Settlement Part

Foreclosure Proceeding Dismissed: Bank Had No Standing

Contact Us

Categories

LINKS

OUR WEBSITES

Latest Blogs

Foreclosure Strategies

Foreclosure And Your Credit Score

CONTACT INFO

View Our General Web Site

View Our Child Protective Website

View Our Fathers Rights Web Site

View Our Wills & Trusts Website

View Our Bankruptcy Web Site