Foreclosure Defense Florida

What The Hell do These Banks Want/The Arrogance of Power.

I currently represent hundreds of homeowners who are fighting every bank you’ve heard of (and some you’ve never heard of) in foreclosure.   Virtually all of my clients have the ability (and the desire) to pay close to the full amount of the mortgage they signed up to pay.   Virtually all of my clients got into financial difficulty for reasons that were outside their control like job loss, divorce or illness.

Some are on fixed income and got pinched when an adjustable rate mortgage shot through the roof.   Some of my clients did not have the capacity to understand the nature of the loan they were getting into and many clients were outright mislead about the terms of the mortgage they were sold.

Whatever the case when I’m fighting for a client, the first thing I’ve got to figure out is what that client wants then determine whether they have any hope of achieving that goal.   Many want to stay in their home.   Although they’ve got income problems, they want to pay a mortgage and do their part.   Some have recognized they cannot maintain the home or they just want to sell it and get on with their lives.

The most frustrating thing about defending homeowners in foreclosure is the solution that works for the homeowner (i.e. a modified mortgage or a short sale/deed in lieu) is often times the best possible outcome for the lender.   There was a time when a lender could foreclose then sell the property and cover the debt.

In this market, I don’t think it’s possible for a lender to conclude a foreclosure and not lose more in the foreclosure than they could get from working with the lender.

With this in mind,

I cannot understand why lenders refuse to accept the payments my clients are trying to send….they may be partial payments and even if the lender accepts them, they can still proceed with the foreclosure, absent a formal agreement to the contrary.

I cannot understand why lenders ignore persistent, diligent, obsessive efforts from realtors who offer these banks short sale contracts that net the lender a significant amount of the debt owed…if the lender takes it back, they’re going to net far less in a sale.

I cannot understand why lenders will not enter into formal or extended modifications that at least provide them payments every month.

I cannot understand why the attorney of record for the the lender has no authority or leverage with his client to advocate for a settlement.

I cannot understand why lenders cannot keep track of paperwork or communications they receive from their customers.

I cannot understand why a guy who lost his job here in the US has to beg for a solution to keep his home from an operator in a far away, foreign land.

I cannot understand why the lenders who received bajillions of taxpayer dollars can use that money to dump lavish bonuses on their staff.

I cannot understand why the assets of big lenders like Indymac and Countrywide were sold so cheaply with my money and now the purchasers of these assets are making massive profits. (One West/BofA)

The Countrywide/Indymac situation really fires me up.   Countywide engaged in gross and abusive fraud and was essentially shut down as a result. The assets were purchased for cents on the dollar using taxpayer money, but try getting a reasonable deal out of BofA. (Try getting any deal out of BofA)   Same situation with Indymac….bad conduct on their part, bailed out with my money.   Now the millionaire owners of the Indymac assets are making bajillions of dollars in profits…(Try getting a deal out of Indymac)

I cannot understand any of this, but I’m hard into litigation on all these cases….and with several cases against Indymac in particular…I’m going to figure it out.


  • Robin_Hood says:


    I think that you are on the right track with your litigation against this nonsense…

    In my layman’s opinion everything the lender does from inception of the loan (application) to trustee’s sale is designed to trigger a default.

    The default allows the lender to collect on the CDS insurance & such… sometimes up to 30x the loan value…

    This could be the main reason almost all of the banks refuse to mitigate their losses with homeowners.

    What bothers me the most, is once the bank is “made whole” (profit hugely) by the lenders title insurance, CDS, taxpayer bailout etc. they will still do their best to take the home from the homeowner… sort of an “icing on the cake” for them…

    Our country’s judicial system is more broken than the legislature…

    Its becoming sort of like Mexico, were the interpretation of the law is subject to change depending on the interpreter… just look at all of the inconsistencies and senseless rulings by the lower court judges…

    Thank god most of them are overturned on appeals, but the average homeowner should not have to go all the way to the appeals court, to get remedies.

    I personally think that you and your firm are on the right track going after the foreclosure mills… these are the “principal enablers” and once they are made accountable for their actions (especially in the non-judicial states like my beloved Nevada), I hope to turn the tide and help the countless families with keeping their roofs over the their heads.

    On the 16th of March I had an opportunity to address the Nevada Supreme Court on the subject of the updating the mediation rules and I brought up the subject of the accuracy at the foreclosure mills…

    At least 3 or 4 of the justices seemed to be very interested in my presentation and I got a permission to send them a written brief on the subject…

    I know that you have more than your hands full with the great work that you are doing in Florida.

    Here in Nevada there are no attorneys that will honestly represent a homeowner in anything other than loan modification and/or mediation…

    Nevada is doomed!!!

    If you can ever make a bit of time, I’d love to discuss the effectiveness of the mediation programs, my opinions on how to improve on them and few other issues that may help some of our fellow countrymen in getting thru this crisis.

    My email is:

    Keep up great work buddy, our country so desperately needs more attorneys like you!

  • George says:

    The reason is the credit default swaps they purchased for multiples of the loan amount. If they modify or accept a short sale it is not a default. The loans themselves were designed to fail and it only takes a certain number to declare the entire pool in default. The profits on these default swaps dwarf any losses in reselling the property.

  • Mike says:


    I know of two reasons:

    1st – the first thing these banks did when the mortgage business went south is fire everyone in their organization that knew anything about mortgage banking. When foreclosures started coming in, most hired $10 an hour workers to answer phones.

    2nd – No mortgage that has been securitized can or will be modified in any way that reduces the amount of principal and interest to be received. The financing indentures do not allow for such modification.


  • John R. says:

    I can figure out why they don’t want to refinance… the Purchase and Servicing Agreement forbids it. They have to remove the loan from the trust (unless the PSA has alredy called for that and then it’s back to the “Depositor”. But while it’s in the Trust, not one PSA I’ve seen allows any modifications of the underlying notes. None I’ve seen allow removal, UNLESS there’s a default on the note either. And do the math, right now they’re holding an “asset” with let’s say it’s at $100,000. If they pull it out, they either have to replace it with another (some PSA’s call for that) or lower the value of the “TRUST” by a like amount. So if they take it out, it costs them. And they can’t put it back in cause the PSA won’t let them, the Trust is essentially CLOSED to new depositings.
    So they’re holding a 100 grand asset, that they’ve sold off to the shareholders at something like $40 to each $1 held. Reverse the math and the stock value plummets, and they’re all shown to the world as the Ponzi sceamers they really are.

    Of course I could be wrong.

Leave a Reply