Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense Florida

Foreclosure OUTRAGE- My Client RECEIVED NO NOTICE THAT A TRIAL WAS HELD AND HER HOME ORDERED TO BE SOLD!

There’s a real problem in this state with courts relying upon the foreclosure mills to set out notices of foreclosure trial.

HOW MANY CITIZENS WILL LOSE THEIR HOME TO FORECLOSURE WITH NO NOTICE AT ALL OR WITH IMPROPER NOTICE?

DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT, VACATE FINAL JUDGMENT AND CANCEL FORECLOSURE SALE

                        COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through the undersigned counsel and files Verified Motion, signed under penalty of perjury, (Defendant verifying the facts as asserted, not the law argued) and as grounds therefore states as follows:

  1. The Defendant is retired, on fixed income and this is her primary residence.
  2. The Defendant received absolutely no notice whatsoever that any hearing related to this foreclosure was to be held on 5/14/13.
  3. The Defendant only learned that the Final Judgment of Foreclosure, dated 5/14/13 had been entered when she received it in the mail on 5/9/13.
  4. The mail received by Defendant is irregular on its face because the mailing address on mailings from both Plaintiff’s counsel and the Clerk of Court are incorrect.   Defendant’s correct mailing address is 13621 not 13261 as indicated on the mailings. (Exhibit B)
  5. Defendant speculates that although the addresses are incorrect, she received the mail because her mail carrier recognized the numbers were transposed and delivered her mail to her correct address.
  6. Critically, Defendant asserts that she received no mail whatsoever related to this foreclosure case until April 2013.
  7. The next mail she received was the Final Judgment identified above.
  8. Counsel for Plaintiff has graciously agreed that it would be appropriate for a hearing on this matter to be held.

 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

On or about the time Defendant was served with the instant foreclosure action, Defendant was in regular and frequent communication with the party she recognized to be her mortgage servicer, Chase Home Finance.

  1. Defendant has never had any consumer relationship related to her mortgage with Citibank and believed that Chase Home Finance was the only party that had any authority over her home mortgage.
  2. On or about the time Defendant was served, Chase Home Finance specifically advised her that she could reinstate her mortgage and resolve the dispute in this suit by providing payments directly to Chase.
  3. Thereafter Defendant sent to Chase Home Finance a cashier’s check totaling $3,068.75 to Chase Home Finance. Defendant subsequently sent 3 additional cashier’s checks to Chase Home Finance, at their specific direction and with the express promise that doing so would resolve the instant dispute. (Exhibit C)
  4. Such communication and payments should serve as the Defendant’s response to this instant lawsuit and should preclude entry of default against Defendant.
  5. Immediately after making those payments Defendant received various account histories from Chase Home Finance and was disturbed to learn that the payments she had provided, and as evidenced by the attached exhibits, had not in fact been credited to her account.
  6. Defendant repeatedly and regularly contacted Chase Home Finance demanding that an updated accounting be provided to show her payments, but Chase could not account for the payments she made.
  7. Thereafter, on or about 2010, Defendant retained the services of the in an effort to obtain a proper accounting of the funds previously provided and to obtain assistance with a full and final resolution of this lawsuit.
  8. Beginning in 2010 and as of the date of this Motion, Defendant believed that her regular work with and her compliance with all their directives fulfilled her obligations to resolve this legal dispute.
  9. Between June 2010 and until 2012 Defendant, several times a month, provided detailed records, financial information and in fact all information that was requested of her by Chase
  10. On or about 2012, Defendant was advised by   that the servicing of this loan had transferred to Ocwen Loan Servicing.   Thereafter, Defendant provided all information, in a regular and timely fashion, that was requested of her by Ocwen.
  11. Defendant reasonably believed that by providing all this information, she was fulfilling her obligations and was not in danger of losing her home.