Foreclosure Case Dismissed When Bank’s Lawyer Misses Court.

Sometimes lawyers defending homeowners win cases at trial as a result of evidence obtained in depositions. Banks also lose cases when they are unable to come forward with admissible evidence to prove each element of their case. There is a third way that banks lose cases that very few lawyers on either side ever discuss, and that is lawyer incompetence. That’s right, banks and loan servicers lose foreclosure cases every week because their cases are assigned to massive foreclosure mills where very inexperienced lawyers are assigned hundreds of cases.

On July 14, 2011, our firm obtained a dismissal of a foreclosure action because Chase Home Finance’s lawyer failed to show up for Court. The foreclosure action was filed against our client in 2009. In June of 2011 the presiding judge entered an order requiring the lawyers for the Plaintiff ( Chase Home Finance), the homeowner, and the co-Defendant, City of Palm Bay, to appear at a status conference at 1:30 p.m. on July 14, 2011. At the status conference, firm attorney Richard Shuster was present for our client, the homeowner. An attorney for the City of Palm Bay, per the Court order, was also present, but the attorney for Chase Home Finance was nowhere to be found. After Judge Jeffrey Mahl asked if there were any attorneys from the firm representing Chase, foreclosure defense attorney Richard Shuster moved for the case to be dismissed for Chase’s violation of the Court’s order. Judge Mahl then granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Our firm will now file a motion for attorney’s fees on behalf of the homeowner. Chase as the losing party will have to pay the homeowner's attorney’s fees. Our firm’s goal will be to recover money from Chase to reimburse the money previously paid to our firm by the homeowner. Since the dismissal was without prejudice it is possible that Chase will file a new lawsuit against our client. Of course for that to happen the Chase’s law firm will have to tell Chase that the case was dismissed because they forgot to show up in Court. Perhaps this case will slip through the cracks. Our firm defended this case for approximately thirteen months. If the case is re-filed the bank will have to start over from scratch.

Many homeowners think banks are all powerful. While banks have big friends in Congress and the Federal Reserve a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The bank's weak link is often the lawyer or law firm hired by the bank to prosecute a foreclosure case. Sadly most homeowners never hire a lawyer and give up their home without a fight. Other posts on the blog discuss firm victories at trial and summary judgment. In those cases there was an adjudication on the merits and the bank cannot refile. Those cases were won with hard work, meticulous discovery, and persuasive argument. This case was won because we showed up and the bank did not. This has happened in many cases before. This is just another secret that banks and their lawyers don’t want anyone to know about.

To review a redacted copy of order dismissing the case please clink the link below:

Redacted Foreclosure Dismissal

Foreclosure lawyers at Shuster & Saben obtain dismissal of HSBC’s Foreclosure Action.

Things did not go very well for HSBC or their counsel, Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A., when a Melbourne, Florida homeowner retained the law firm of Shuster & Saben, LLC to defend the foreclosure action filed against his Brevard County, Florida home. Within 48 hours of the firm being retained firm attorney Richard Shuster served nearly twenty pages of discovery requests, including requests for admission, requests for production and interrogatories (written questions to be answered under oath) about the factual basis of the lawsuit served against the homeowner and the securitization of the mortgage into the Ace Securities Corp Home Equity Loan Trust. When HSBC’s counsel was unable to answer the discovery within thirty days they filed a motion for extension of time but did set their motion for hearing. To prevent the motion for extension of time from sitting in limbo, our firm submitted an unopposed order grating the motion and ordering HSBC to respond to the discovery within thirty days.

Thirty days after the Court signed the order, our firm had little in the way of discovery as rather than answer the questions and provide the requested documents, HSBC’s attorneys objected to almost all of the discovery requests Shuster & Saben made on behalf of the homeowner. Firm attorney, Richard Shuster then filed a twenty-eight page Motion to Show Cause and to Compel Better Response to Request to Produce that set forth each of the discovery requests, HSBC’s objection to each request, an argument as to why the Court should overrule the objection and a check off blank for the judge or overrule or sustain each objection. After a lengthy hearing the Court overruled many of HSBC’s objections and commanded HSBC and its attorney, Ira Silverstein, to provided better responses within thirty days.

When, HSBC and its counsel failed to comply with the Court’s second order, foreclosure defense lawyer, Richard Shuster filed a Second Motion to Show Cause which detailed the bank’s violations of the Court’s last two discovery orders and requested dismissal of the entire case.

On May 3, 2011, a hearing was held at the Brevard County Courthouse. Firm attorney Richard Shuster appeared at the hearing in person and a staff attorney at bank’s law firm appeared by phone. The Court asked the bank’s attorney if HSBC was “thumbing its nose” at the Court’s orders. The Court did not give the bank a third chance to violate another Court order and dismissed the bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also granted sanctions against the bank. Now that the case against our client has been dismissed his modest legal expenses will stop. Once sanctions are recovered we will hopefully be able to reimburse our client a substantial portion for his legal expenses from the sanction award.

To review a redacted copy of the order dismissing HSBC’s case please click the link below.

Redacted Order

About Shuster & Saben: The foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben aspire to vigorously and aggressively defend every foreclosure case. We have offices in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne so that we can appear in Court in person rather than by phone when our client’s home is on the line. If your case is in a part of the state where we do not appear in person for Court we can refer you to a likeminded attorney or co-counsel with a carefully selected local counsel.

Shuster & Saben obtains order dismissing foreclosure for lack of prosecution. Firm will now pursue lender to obtain reimbursement of client’s legal expenses

When a Brevard County homeowner visited Shuster & Saben’s Melbourne office, the homeowner explained to firm attorney Richard Shuster, that nothing seemed to be happening in his case. During the homeowner’s Free No-obligation consultation, attorney Shuster looked up the case on the Brevard County Clerk of Court's website. The Court’s online docket showed that the bank’s law firm, Florida Default Law Group, P.L. had not touched the file in over nine months. Shuster’s advice to the client was, Do NOT hire our firm right now. Shuster counseled: “It appears the other side is asleep at the wheel. The best thing you can do right now is to do absolutely nothing, but please come back and see me in late July when it has been a year and a day since the last record activity.”

In late July the homeowner returned to the firm’s Melbourne Foreclosure defense office, and retained the firm. On July 26, 2010 the firm filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The motion asked the Court to throw out the case because the Plaintiff, Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, LLC had not had any record activity in the case in the year prior to the filing of the motion. Shortly after Shuster & Saben’s motion to dismiss the case was filed, the Plaintiff Credit Based Asset, hired new counsel and the new counsel were substituted for the Florida Default Law group. At a hearing that took place on October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff argued that there was good cause why the case should not be dismissed. The Plaintiff argued that the “good cause” why the case should not be dismissed was that the case was on “loss mitigation hold.” Shuster’s response was that the only loss mitigation undertaken during the year by the Plaintiff was to send the homeowner a generic letter about short sales and deed-in-lieu. Shuster suggest that the fact that the Plaintiff got rid of their original counsel and hired new counsel suggested that the original counsel had dropped the ball.

The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments and granted the homeowner’s motion to dismiss. The Court reserved jurisdiction to award attorneys fees against the Plaintiff/Lender. The firm has already filed a motion for attorney’s fees against the bank. Shuster & Saben’s goal is to make the Plaintiff pay for all of the legal work the firm did in the case. If this goal is accomplished the award of attorney’s from the bank will be used to reimburse our client for his legal expenses. To read a redacted copy of the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss please click the link below.

Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

About Shuster & Saben: The foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben, have offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation/Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne. We defend homeowners in foreclosure from Miami to Titusville on the east coast, Orange, Seminole, Polk, Collier, and Lee Counties. As this blog post illustrates we do NOT do cookie-cutter foreclosure defense. Shuster & Saben carefully analyses the cases filed against our clients, listens to our clients’ objectives, advises our clients as to their options and on asset protection strategy, creates a plan to achieve the clients goals and then we go to work implementing the plan.