Three Year Old Foreclosure Case Settled with Short Sale

When the recession of 2008-2010 hit, a young Florida mom’s employer closed and in a short span of time she faced financial hardships of both unemployment and divorce.  In her divorce she kept the family home in Palm Bay, Florida.  Unfortunately, the value of the property fell more than 60% when the local real estate market collapsed.  She now owed nearly $150,000 on a property worth less than $50,000 and her limited income from unemployment was insufficient to pay her mortgage.  When Space Coast Credit Union filed a foreclosure action against her in 2009, the homeowner traveled to a legal aid office in Daytona Beach where a legal aid lawyer helped her draft a do it yourself ( Pro Se ) Answer. 

The homeowner originally obtained the loan on her home from Space Coast Credit Union ( SCCU) who in turn sold the loan to the Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae or FNMA.  In 2009, SCCU filed a foreclosure action against the homeowner which she defended herself through 2009 and part of 2010.  In 2010, the homeowner found a job as a legal assistant and attempted unsuccessfully to modify her mortgage.  In 2010 after mediation was unsuccessful and Space Coast’s lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment the homeowner hired Melbourne Florida foreclosure defense attorney, Richard Shuster, to defend the foreclosure action.

Shuster & Saben defended the foreclosure action for two additional years during which time the homeowner made no mortgage payments.  During the three years that the client made no mortgage payments she was able to use the savings to provide for her family, and later after finding employment, to replenish her savings that were wiped out by unemployment and divorce. 

Shuster went on the offensive in the foreclosure action and deposed Space Coast’s corporate representative.  The firm hoped to win the case under a theory that the proper plaintiff was Fannie Mae the loan owner and not the loan Space Cost the loan servicer.  The firm used testimony from the deposition to defeat Space Coast’s motion for summary judgment. Unfortunately, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment the firm filed on behalf of the homeowner.  Since the Court denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment the case would ultimately have to be resolved by trial.


 Space Coast’s counsel advised that they were amenable to settlement by loan modification, short sale, or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.  For this client an interest only loan modification would be a band-aid that would do nothing to solve a very serious negative equity problem.  Further, her home was in need of significant repair.  For this client, short sale was a better solution than loan modification. Our client retained Kerry Ramage a local real estate superstar with Re/Max Elite of Melbourne, Florida.  Ms. Ramage successfully marketed the property.  Initially, the firm was worried that the lender would not approve what seemed to be a very low offer would net the lender less than $32,000.00.  After the lender’s motion for summary judgment was defeated and the bank failed to take the property after three years of litigation settlement was the bank’s only option.  The settlement was approved with the homeowner receiving a wavier of deficiency on her FNMA owned mortgage.  A successful foreclosure defense gave the realtor enough time to find a buyer and the client enough time to get back on her feet, replenish savings and find a better place to live.  Our client had a “triple win” by (1) saving over $30.000.00 she would have spent on mortgage payments or rent had she not defended her case, (2) avoiding liability for approximately $100,000 of negative equity, and (3) avoiding bankruptcy and the expense of a bankruptcy lawyer which would have been necessary if the bank foreclosed on her home and came after her for the difference between the value of the property and the amount of the loan.

To Review the complete short sale approval letter from Space Coast Credit Union please click the link below.

 Short Sale Approval Letter

About Shuster & Saben:  Shuster & Saben provides savvy consumers with sophisticated foreclosure defense.  At Shuster & Saben foreclosure defense is not stalling or foot dragging but a focused effort to find and exploit weaknesses in the bank’s case with a goal of winning the case or settling the case under favorable terms.  Our job is to solve problems, protect client’s assets, and give solid practical legal and financial advice.

Settled in a Flash, Shuster & Saben obtains loan modification for 85 year old client.

An eighty-five year old homeowner came to the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben caught between a rock and a hard place.  Her property insurance company dropped her because she did not replace a thirty-year-old electrical panel in her home.  When her lender learned that her property insurance was not renewed it replaced the old insurance policy with a force-placed policy costing nearly quadruple the price.  The client could not afford to pay both her mortgage and the cost of replacing her electrical panel.

The client’s sole source of income was Social Security and she did not have savings available to pay for the expensive home repair.  The client had tried on her own, for months, without success,  to obtain a loan modification from her mortgage servicer. Prior to the filing of a foreclosure action, firm attorney Richard Shuster advised her that she since she could not obtain other insurance coverage until she replaced a dangerous, outdated, electrical panel and she could not afford force-placed coverage she had no other choice but to miss a few mortgage payments and use the money that to fix her home.  The client was encouraged to speak to the lender and let them know her situation.  Hopefully the homeowner could fix her electrical box and obtain a loan modification before the loan servicer brought a foreclosure action.

Unfortunately the loan servicer filed a foreclosure action after the client missed several payments.  When the servicer filed the foreclosure action, the client did not have sufficient funds to pay the firm’s usual fees for foreclosure defense and was given a hardship discount.  After being retained the firm moved to dismiss the foreclosure action and submitted a loan modification package for the borrower.  Less than sixty days after being hired, the firm has obtained a HAMP loan modification that will lower the client’s interest rate from 6% to 2.25%  The client has fixed her electrical box.  Shuster referred the client to top insurance agent to obtain a new insurance policy to replace the force-placed insurance policy obtained by the loan servicer.  With swift proactive representation designed to solve problems, the firm has helped another client save their home.

About Shuster & Saben:  Shuster & Saben tailors its approach to each clients unique situation with a goal of solving problems and protecting our clients home and assets.  If you want more than cookie-cutter foreclosure delay, a free consultation (for homeowners in foreclosure) is a phone call away. 

Loan Aid Leaves Some Worse Off

In a May 18, 2010, article the Wall Street Journal reports how many homeowners who participated in HAMP “Obama Plan” loan modifications are worse off after the experience. The story reports that one in four participants in the program gets dropped.
Back on January 24, 2010 in the blog post titled “Is HAMP one big Scam?” this blog explained that while HAMP was conceived by the government with good intentions many banks are tricking homeowners into making additional payments under HAMP trial plans and then denying permanent modifications.

The Wall Street Journal told the story of how Mia Parry bought a home in Phoenix in 2005 for $535,000 which would sell for around $250,000. Parry first requested a modification from a unit of Citigroup Inc., the servicer of her two mortgage loans, in June 2008.

Ms. Parry's application was turned down in late 2008, but President Obama's announcement of HAMP in February 2009 rekindled her hopes. Ms. Parry decided to keep making payments on her loans because she expected to qualify for this new program.

According to the Journal Citigroup started Parry on a HAMP trial in June 2009, and she made three payments. Then Citigroup told her there had been a mistake and she would need to go through another three-month trial.

At the end of that second trial, Ms. Parry said, Citigroup told her the investor that owned her first mortgage wasn't participating in HAMP, so she couldn't get a modification under that plan. During her trial period, Citigroup charged her more than $1,300 of "late charges" and "delinquency expenses," she said.”

Clearly, Citi knew or should have known whether the “investor’ was participating in HAMP. It is just too convenient that Ms. Parry apparently does not know who the “investor” is and Citi apparently is telling her the investor apparently without naming names so that she could confirm whether the statement in accurate. An argument can be made that since Citi participates in HAMP and received billions of TARP money and emergency aid from the government to keep it afloat, Citi must participate in HAMP on those loans it services.

Any homeowner who contemplates starting a trial modification should get the first and last name of the person they communicate with and confirm their oral communications by E-mail. If a homeowner is going to make three trial payments the bank should agree that if all three payments are made on a timely basis then the modification will be made permanent. If the bank makes an oral promise to this effect the homeowner should confirm the promise by E-mail or fax. If the bank will not make this promise the homeowner should refuse to send the trial payment and obtain legal representation.

The foreclosure attorneys in the Dade, Broward, and Brevard offices of Shuster & Saben are defending many homeowners in foreclosure where lenders are servicers broke their promises of giving permanent loan modification. We have also sued banks that promised modifications, took our client's money, and broke their promises. If you have a HAMP horror story we want to hear about it. If you are a Florida homeowner that is not in a county we serve we (currently we defend foreclosures in Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, Orange, Collier and Lee Counties) we will be happy to refer you to a talented attorney in your area.

Mortgage lenders try to trick homeowners out of 401k and IRA retirement accounts

There are few instances of bank behavior that anger me more than hearing of lenders and servicers who attempt to trick homeowners into making a withdrawal or loan against their 401k or IRA as a “prerequisite” of loan modification.

If a homeowner owes more than their house is worth and has insufficient income to afford both their monthly mortgage payment and basic living expenses then taking money out of the homeowner’s IRA or 401k is a mistake.

We have heard from several of our clients that the servicer would not approve loan modification because the homeowner had money in a 401k or IRA and that the owner would have to deplete their retirement savings before the loan modification could be approved. In most cases this is bold faced lie. For an upside down homeowner to raid their retirement saving is a always a huge financial blunder.

Florida Statute 222.21(2)(a) provides that any money or other assets payable to participant or beneficiary in a qualified retirement or profit sharing plan such as an IRA or 401k is exempt from all claims from creditors of the beneficiary or participant. Florida Statutes specifically include under the protection umbrella pension plans designated for teachers, county officers and employees, state officers and employees, police officers, and firefighters. In other words even if the lender filed for foreclosure, was able to win its case, took possession of the property, sold it for a loss, obtained a deficiency judgment and attempted to collect on the deficiency the lender STILL could not get its dirty hands on homeowner’s IRA or 401k. The only way the lender can get money out of the homeowners 401k is if the homeowner is DUMB ENOUGH to give it to the lender voluntarily. Further, with proper foreclosure asset protection planning, other assets can often be protected from the homeowner's creditors.

One family that consulted with us had household income of over $150,000 when they bought an $800,000 home in 2006. While the couple put over $80,000 down today their Broward home is worth only $560,000. After the husband was laid off in 2008 the family’s income fell to less than from $150,000 to $50,000 a year. Following the husband’s layoff the couple used their 401k to pay their mortgage of over $5,000.00 per month. They thought the husband’s unemployment would be short lived. Today, nearly one year later, their retirement savings are gone. They have negative equity in their home and have nothing to show for the payments they made since the layoff. If spending $5,000 a month on rent after losing your job is foolish, spending $5,000.00 in mortgage payments when you are not building equity and will not have equity anytime soon is also a poor financial decision. Unfortunately, many homeowners make poor business decisions about their homes due to emotional attachment to the home, ego, and pride. This family paid a huge price because they attempted to handle the problem themselves.

A better solution for this homeowner would have been a short sale that would likely eliminated the negative equity that continues to burden family. In the alternative the homeowner should have sought loan modification and forbearance to delay and reduce payments while the husband sought new employment. If the bank was unwilling to agree to forbearance and/or modification then suspending mortgage payments due to the hardship would financially be a better move than depleting their retirement savings.

The only time a homeowner should use retirement savings to make mortgage payments is when the homeowner has substantial equity in the property. If your house is nearly paid off and is worth far more than you owe then taking money from retirement accounts to protect your hard earned equity makes good financial sense. An upside down homeowner lives in a house that belongs to the bank and essentially owns “less house” than a homeless person. Squandering retirement savings, that the bank could not otherwise touch, is not a worthwhile exchange for minor or temporary interest rate concessions that do nothing to address the homeowner’s negative equity problem.

When borrowers are upside down and the lender is looking at loosing 25% to 50% of the loan balance in a costly protracted litigated foreclosure the homeowner has FAR MORE leverage than they realize. We have seen loan modifications made for homeowners who had no hardship and six figure incomes but simply stopped paying their mortgage because they were upside down and wanted reasonable interest rate concessions from the bank.

If the bank asks you to deplete your 401k in order to get a loan modification it is time to fight back and get professional help. When the representative of the lender or servicer says they cannot approve you because you have assets in your 401k obtain the name and E-mail address of the person you are dealing with and confirm the conversation in writing by e-mail.

There are some homes that could be saved but an essential step in the analysis is whether it is in the homeowners best interest to save their home and at what price is the home worth saving. Detached, objective professional advice is essential part of what we at Shuster & Saben do. Florida homeowners from Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard counties can e-mail our firm at foreclosuredefenselaw@gmail.com
In the meantime hold on to your IRA, 401k, 529, and Florida Prepaid College accounts. You will need these in the future.

We are now available for consultation in Boca Raton

For Immediate Release:
Shuster & Saben, LLC, in an effort to better serve its rapidly growing list of clients in South Palm Beach, is now availbale for consultation in Boca Raton, Florida. Palm Beach County homeowners facings foreclosure can meet with an attorney of the law firm of Shuster & Saben, LLC at 595 South Federal Hwy Suite 600, Boca Raton, Florida. We are available for consultation at this location by appointment only.



Shuster & Saben, LLC is law firm of five attorneys with offices in Miami and in Plantation / Fort Lauderdale. This Fall Shuster & Saben will open a third office in Satellite Beach, Florida (Brevard County). Shuster & Saben, LLC defends homeowners in foreclosure. Lawyers in our firm have been featured in or quoted by Time Magazine, Univision, and the Daily Business Review. Shuster & Saben offers free consultation with an attorney and defends homeowners in foreclosure for $495.00 per month on loans under $500,000. Treasure Coast residents can reach us toll free at 877-511-STAY.

For More Information about Shuster & Saben, LLC, please see our website www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com

Shuster & Saben, LLC announces Short Re-Fi representation with NO ADVANCE FEES

Shuster & Saben, LLC announces Short Re-Fi homeowner representation with no upfront fees.
For Immediate Release: The law firm of Shuster & Saben, LLC announces its availability to represent homeowners with negative equity in Short Re-Fi transactions with no upfront fees. Homeowners pay nothing to get started and incur no fees or costs unless their loan balance is reduced by at least $20,000.00. Frequently Asked Questions about this program follow:

Q: What is a short re-fi?
A: A short re-fi or short payoff refinance is when current lender accepts less than the amount of the loan balance in full and final settlement of the mortgage debt and a new mortgage is issued in the name of the entity providing the source of the funds used to payoff the original mortgage.

Q: What is an example of a short re-fi?
A: The homeowner, Bob Upsidedown bought his home in 2006 for $200,000 and put nothing down at the time of purchase. Mr. Upsidedown had a $200,000 loan with Countrywide that was acquired by Bank of America (BOA). The current value of Bob’s home is $100,000. Due to the recession Bob’s income went from $4,000 a month to $3,000 per month and he was unable to continue to pay his mortgage for the past four months. After reviewing Bob’s employment history and finances Short-Re-Fi investor determines that Bob is a good credit risk. Short Re-Fi investor then contacts Bank of America and offers $75,000 to purchase the mortgage and note on Bob’s property. Bank of America, then evaluates whether it is in their financial interest to accept the offer. If Bank of America’s alternative is a lengthy, protracted foreclosure case against a homeowner represented by an attorney, it might prefer to sell the note rather then spending 12 to 30 months fighting a foreclosure case. Bank of America will also realize that if they were able to win their case and obtain the home, they would have to pay property taxes, mow the lawn, keep the lights on, maintain the property and pay real estate commissions in order to sell the property for an unknown price after unknown delays. In this context the lender may prefer to close their file quickly, receive immediate cash from the investor and take a toxic asset or non-performing loan off their books.

After purchasing the mortgage from BOA, the investor would then record a satisfaction of mortgage, on the original mortgage in exchange for the execution of a new mortgage for an amount agreed to with the homeowner before the note was purchased. Bob Upsidedown’s new mortgage would likely have a loan balance of $90,000 to $95,000 and an interest rate around 7.5%. The investor benefits because they spent $75,000 but are earning interest on $90k to $95k and will receive the full loan balance when the loan is repaid or later refinanced at a lower interest rate. The homeowner benefits because they now have equity in their house and are paying interest on a much small loan balance. Many homeowners see a 30% to 50% reduction in their monthly mortgage expense.

Q: Does Shuster & Saben, LLC provide funding for Short Re-Fi.
A: NO. Shuster & Saben, LLC is a law firm that represents the homeowner in the Short Re-Fi transaction. Our role is to collect information from the homeowner, submit pre-qualification forms to one or more short re-fi companies, and to negotiate with the short re-fi company to obtain the lowest possible loan balance and interest rate for the homeowner.

Q: My credit rating has been damaged by late payments on my mortgage can I still qualify.
A: The Short Re-Fi companies we work with are most concerned about stability of employment and income then credit rating. The short re-fi companies must be confident that the homeowner will be able to make their mortgage payment if the loan balance is reduced to an amount that is less than or equal to the current value of the home. Excellent credit is not required. Candidates with excellent employment history ( 3 years in their current job ) and below average credit will often qualify.

Q: Will the Short Re-Fi company change me an upfront fee?
A: NO. We believe that homeowners contemplating a Short Re-Fi should only incur costs if they actually receive a short re-fi that substantially lowers their loan balance. The Short Re-Fi companies we work with either do not charge upfront fees or have agreed to waive such fees for our clients.

Q: Will ownership of my home change?
A: No. The homeowner never loses ownership of their home. There will be a real estate closing similar to that in a conventional refinance transaction but the homeowner will not transfer ownership of their home.

Q: How does Shuster & Saben get paid?
A: Our firm gets paid only if the Short Re-Fi transaction is completed. Our fee is the greater of $3,000.00 and 10% of the homeowners savings. For instance if the homeowner had a $150,000 loan balance before the Short Re-Fi and a $100,000 balance after Short Re-Fi, our fee would be $5,000.00.

Q: What if I do not have sufficient cash to pay a fee of 10% of the savings?
A: If many cases a substantial portion of the legal fees can be rolled into the new mortgage. Our firm also accepts credit cards.

Q: How complex is the pre-qualification process?
A: The pre-qualification from used by one of the companies we work with is only 1 page long. After receiving the form the re-fi company will have a 15 to 30 minute phone conference with the homeowner to obtain additional information.

Q: How long does the qualification process take?
A: We expect that the re-fi company will make a determination of whether the homeowner is a good risk within two (2) to three (3) weeks.

Q: If I qualify does this mean I will get a short re-fi.
A: Perhaps. In order for a short re-fi to take place three things must happen. First the short re-fi company must approve the homeowner. Second the lender must be willing to sell the mortgage and note for less than the current value of the home, and Third, the Short Re-Fi company and the homeowner must agree to reasonable terms for the new mortgage.

Do Not Be A Loan Modification Victim

Last week I saved an Aventura homeowner from foreclosure less than week before a scheduled summary judgment hearing. Our client was almost the victim of a bad loan modification. The Court had already entered a default against the Aventura client for failing to file an answer. We were hired a week before the summary judgment, a point in time that is usually to late for us to implement our attack strategy. The Aventura client had asked the bank's lawyer for an extension of time because his loan modification company was working on a loan modification. The bank's lawyer agreed to a 20 day extension and on the 20th day our client wrote the bank's lawyer and faxed her a letter from the loan servicer confirming that his application was complete and in the hands of the lenders “negotiations team.” Our client requested an additional extension because while he completed his application the servicer's "negotiation team" had not made up their mind. The bank's lawyer never said yes or no to his request for additional extension, rather they just obtained an exparte (without hearing) clerk's default. Thankfully all of our client’s communications with the bank's lawyer were in writing or confirmed by fax or e-mail. Armed with proper documentation we were able to get the default set aside. (Lesson One... if you do not have a lawyer confirm all of your conversations with the loan servicer or bank's lawyer in writing. When I practiced law in Jacksonville in the late nineties my old boss would always say: “If it’s not in writing it did not happen.”).

We had a prospective client who was not so fortunate. She did not get her communications with the lender in writing. She relied on a loan modification company in California who told her not to worry about the papers the process server dropped off. They told her they would take care of it. The loan modification company did not take care of her case and never obtained a loan modification. It appears all the company in California did was take her money. She waited even longer to call a lawyer than the Aventura homeowner. In her case she was defaulted, summary judgment was granted and a sale date was less than 3 weeks away. Given how badly her case was messed up we thought it was very unlikely that our efforts could help her and sadly had to pass on the case.

We want to do our part to prevent other victims of bad loan modification. For this reason we are offering a FREE second opinion / Foreclosure Check Up. If you hired a loan modification company and have been served with foreclosure papers we will look-up your case online and send you via E-mail a copy of the Courts on-line docket. This will let you know if anything has been filed on your behalf. This offer is available only to homeowners who live in Dade, Collier, Lee, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Indian River or Brevard County. Disclaimer: What information is posted on-line by the county clerks office varies from county to county and some clerks offices have a 3 to 5 day delay updating their online docket. Shuster & Saben’s check-up will not include a in person review of the actual court file and Shuster & Saben does not vouch for the accuracy of the Court Clerks records. We hope that this will be of assistance to homeowners and hope that it will prevent homeowners from being victims of bad home loan modifications. Remember only a lawyer who is a member of the Florida Bar can defend you in Court and present evidence to the Court on your behalf.

This information is a public service of Shuster & Saben, LLC for more information about our firm please see our website, www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com

Upfront Loan Modification Fees in Florida are Illegal

Last week over lunch I was having a spirited debate with undefeated foreclosure defense lawyer Thomas Willis, about whether Florida’s Foreclosure Rescue statute the prohibits up front fees to “foreclosure rescue consultants” would apply to the booming loan modification industry.  It seems these days every out of work mortgage broker wants to be a loan modification consultant.  This is ironic in that if some of these mortgage brokers would not have sold crappy loans with huge transaction costs, hidden yield spread premiums, and adjusting rates the homeowner might not have a need for modification in the first place.  Leave it to a mortgage broker to make money screwing a homeowner and then ask for more money to unscrew the homeowner.  Of course in South Florida, what is sold as an unscrewing is often a repeat screwing where the loan modification company takes an upfront fee but never delivers on the promised loan modification.

 

During my lunch with Thomas Willis I pondered, if the homeowner is current on their loan then they are not in danger of foreclosure so why should the foreclosure rescue statue apply to a loan modification if there is no foreclosure issue.  Mr. Willis thought that the statute would apply to loan modification.  His thought was that loan modification is essentially a loss mitigation program to prevent bank losses.  If an wealthy investor with continuing high current income made a bad decision by over paying for a home or not obtaining a competitive mortgage the lender will not modify a profitable loan out of sympathy.  Loans are modified when banks believe that modification will prevent a default by the homeowner or when the government creates programs that financially reward lenders to modify loans for certain types of homeowners. Willis saw all loan modification as foreclosure related and argued that all loan modification companies would be prohibited from charging upfront for loan modification services.

 

The Florida Attorney General sees things the same was as Thomas Willis and by weeks end had filed suit against one loan modification company and had obtained an injunction against the other.  Before the week was up the Attorney General posted the following press release about Lincoln Lending, a loan modification company that  extensively marketed in South Florida on Spanish language television:

 

Temporary Injunction Obtained in Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Lawsuit

TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum today obtained a temporary injunction against LINCOLN LENDING Services, LLC and owner Rita Gomez, prohibiting the company from engaging in any type of consumer-debt related service or mortgage modification service and from taking payment from consumers for such services until further order of the court. The company will also be required to preserve and allow inspection of its records and refrain from liquidating its assets.

In addition to freezing the company’s assets, the order requires that the company refund any up-front payments made by consumers for foreclosure-related rescue services subsequent to October 1, 2008, the effective date of the law prohibiting up-front charges. These refunds should be completed within 90 days and will be made without the necessity of consumers filing a claim.

The Attorney General's Economic Crimes Division sued Lincoln Lending and Gomez earlier this week for allegedly charging up-front fees for loan modification services in violation of the Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Prevention Act. The Attorney General’s office has received hundreds of complaints regarding this case since the lawsuit was filed. Both parties agreed to this order.

 

Our firm has a client that went to Lincoln Lending for loan modification prior to retaining our firm to defend a foreclosure action filed against her by the lender.  According to the client, when she went to Lincoln Lending she was current on her mortgage but Lincoln told her to stop making payments on her mortgage in order for Lincoln to obtain a loan modification.  Lincoln never obtained a loan modification and as a result of our client’s failure to make her mortgage payments she ended up in foreclosure.  To Lincoln’s credit and the client made multiple complaints to Lincoln she was issued a refund.

 

My advice to homeowners is to choose carefully when it comes to loan modification.  Review the qualifications of the loan modification company and find out if your loan modification will be handled by an attorney or experienced professional of passed off to staffer with no experience or qualification.  Ask for references.  If you home is already in foreclosure speak to an attorney who is a member of the Florida Bar who is willing to go to Court to protect your home.