Homeowner Gets Free House after IndyMac Bank Fails to Mediate in Good Faith

Daily Business Review, writer Vesselin Mitev reports that Suffolk County, N.Y. Judge Jeffrey A. Spinner, has judicially canceled the mortgage on homeowner Dana Yano-Horski’s home. The action was taken to sanction the lender’s “Unconscionable, vexations and opprobrious conduct” in its attempt to foreclose on the property.

Under applicable state law IndyMac was required to mediate with the homeowner before competing a foreclosure action. Judge Spinner was quoted as finding it “deeply troubling” that IndyMac spurned what would have been a “win-win” solution for all parties. Instead of negotiating the bank engaged in “harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive” treatment of the homeowner.

After the homeowners attempts to obtain mediation Judge Spinner ordered a bank representative to attend a mediation conference in September. At the mediation IndyMac loss mitigation manager Karen Dickinson “made it abundantly clear that that no form of mediation, resolution or settlement would be acceptable” to the bank.

The bank asserted that the borrower had previously defaulted on a forbearance agreement. The Court found that IndyMac never sent out the forbearance agreement. Judge Spinner noted “Defendant, through plaintiff’s duplicity found herself in the unique and uncomfortable position of being placed in default of the ‘agreement’ even before she had received it.”

Judge Spinner did more than just dismiss the lawsuit. If the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice IndyMac could have re-filed the lawsuit and repeated in wrongful conduct. Judge Skinner concluded that the original principal of $292,500 “should be canceled, voided, and set aside.” The Judges order bars any attempt to collect on the note.

The Foreclosure Lawyers at Shuster & Saben applauds Justice Jeffrey Skinner’s courage. In Florida several counties including Dade County, Palm Beach County, Indian River County, and Brevard County have implemented mandatory mediation when the subject property is the homeowner’s primary residence. In a significant number of cases, particularly when homeowners are unrepresented some lenders attempt to avoid mediation or fail to mediate in good faith. In both Dade County and Indian River County our firm has moved for sanctions against lenders who fail to mediate in good faith.

What the bank's lawyer does not want you to know.

What the bank's lawyer does not want you to know:

As insurance and foreclosure litigators who are in Court just about every day to keep the roof over our clients heads and prevent our clients homes from being sold out from under them, I wanted to share the view from the front lines from our battles with the banks in courtrooms in Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Naples, Orlando, and across the great state of Florida. The banks and lawyers they hire would like the homeowners to believe that bank’s case is easy. Many of our clients have asked:

Q: If I borrowed money and I have not made all of the payments … what is there for you to do?

A: We make the bank prove its case. We search for legal violations by the mortgage broker, original lender, appraiser, loan servicer, and law firm representing the bank. We make the party bringing the lawsuit (which is often a trustee for various institutions who purchased securities representing claims on a pool of securitized mortgages) prove that they actually own the mortgage and note, have legal standing to file lawsuit, and have the evidence to prove the loan was properly transferred between each of the entities that owned the mortgage at various times. We assert all affirmative defenses and counterclaims that we know of and conduct discovery to support any claims our client may have against the bank or any other entity involved in the lending process.

In short there is plenty of things for a lawyer to do when defending a homeowner in foreclosure. Some homeowners decide to file a simple answer denying the allegations in the lenders complaint. Filing a simple answer will avoid a default but foreclosure defense litigation is much, much more then filing an answer. Sadly some “foreclosure defense” lawyers do little more filing a simple answer with lawyers bar number on it.

Twenty years ago it was very easy for the banks lawyers. Twenty years ago all the banks lawyer had to do was fill out forms. In days of old a homeowner had to put 20% down to purchase a home. If a home owner put 20% on a $200,000 house they would have to put $40,000.00 of their own money down at the time of the sale. Over the next few years the house might appreciate to $215,000 and the homeowner might pay off $5,000 to $10,000 of the debt. As such three to four years after buying the home the homeowner would have $60,000 to $65,000.00 in equity. Let us consider what would happen if this homeowner lost their job or was hospitalized and missed four mortgage payments. If the bank brought a foreclosure action, the homeowner with substantial equity would do one of the following:

(1) Borrow money from a family member, credit cards, or a loan shark to pay the four missed payments, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees & costs, and obtain a dismissal by bringing the account current.

(2) Sell the house at a significant profit (around $215,000) and use the sales proceeds to payoff the full loan balance.

(3) Refinance the house, and payoff the original mortgage with the loan proceeds.

Whether the homeowner brought the account current, sold the house, or refinanced the bank got paid in full. After the bank and the bank’s lawyer received their principal, interest, late fees, attorney’s fees and costs, the case was dismissed. The bank’s lawyer only needed to fill out the forms and every homeowner with equity would capitulate and pay whatever the bank says was due.

Since the law firms representing the banks mostly just filled out forms at many of these firms paralegals were hired to fill out most of the forms. The lawyers at many of these firms did not have to litigate very often and thus while they were very good at filling out forms many of them rarely got a chance to develop litigation skills in evidence and civil procedure.

Today most homeowners facing foreclosure never hire a lawyer. CNN did a story about what happens to Ft. Myers homeowners who go to court without a lawyer. Here is a link to a video segment about this on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/23/rocket.docket.foreclosures/#cnnSTCVideo


In Ft Myers (Lee County) there is a judge who will hear 300 unrepresented foreclosure cases in an afternoon. The hearings last as little as 45 seconds. In these cases, since the homeowner has not filed the proper written legal defenses, the judge would merely ask:

Q: Are you current on the mortgage?
A: NO …and
Q: Are you living in the house
A: Yes

The judge would then grant summary judgment for the bank and ordering a sale in sixty days. For a homeowner going to Court without a lawyer is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Most unrepresented homeowners get slaughtered.

When the bank’s lawyers have to battle real litigators the battle is very, very different. Many times the bank has lost the original note that is usually a prerequisite to foreclose. In other cases the mortgage has been transferred from a mortgage broker to a large bank who sold the mortgage to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which in turn bundled and sold the loans on Wall Street (often to Bear Sterns) where they loans were securitized. The trustee for the pool of securitized mortgages often lacks documentation that each of the prior holders of the note and mortgage complied with all necessary formalities when transferring the note. If the bank bringing the foreclosure action needs evidence or documents from the prior owners of the note many of these companies have closed, been taken over by the government, or have merged with other banks. It is often very difficult or in some cases impossible for the banks to prove their case.

The bank’s lawyers are often overwhelmed. In Collier, Lee and Dade counties there have been times when over three thousand cases were filed in a single month. When bank lawyers have more work than they can handle they are often inclined to work on the easier cases first. For the banks’ lawyers the easiest cases are against homeowners who just give up. Unrepresented homeowners almost always loose, usually lose quickly, and may lose more then once. For many homeowners the first time they lost was when the failed to shop for the best loan. Many homeowners with good credit who could have qualified for a prime mortgage were put in higher rate interest loans with variable rates that just kept adjusting upwards after the teaser rate was over. The second time these homeowners lose is when they lose their home in foreclosure. If the bank gets a judgment for the full amount of the loan and later sells the home for less the homeowner may end up losing a third time. The bank may seek a deficiency judgment for the difference between the amount of the note and the amount the bank received for the home. Years later the bank may sell this judgment to a bill collector, who will attempt to collect from the former homeowner by garnishing their bank accounts or garnishing their wages. This third and final loss will add insult to injury and cause further damage to the homeowner’s credit.

If the bank is faced with an aggressive defense from an experienced litigator they often face a real risk of losing the case entirely or spending years in an expensive fight where they could win some of the issues and lose others. Banks are corporations that exist to make profits for their shareholders. Banks operate out of self-interest. Banks modify mortgages when making interest rate concessions with increase the likelihood that a borrow continues to pay, or in order to convince the borrower to restart making payments. When a mortgage file gets transferred from the loss mitigation department to the legal department the concessions banks will make when they are at risk of losing are much, much greater. We have had clients that begged for loan modifications and have had clients that sent the bank full mortgage payments that were post due only to see the bank return the payments and pursue foreclosure. After the bank loses a summary judgment the calls from the banks lawyers often sound something like this: “What will it take to make this go away?” These homeowners in exchange for a written agreement to “Re-establish the note” may see the amount of their loan cut by 40% and their rates lowered below 5%.

In the trenches we have found that banks are overwhelmed, unprepared, and often unable to prove their case. In their rush to close loans many banks cut corners and did not comply with all applicable rules. Many homeowners have legitimate claims against the banks that they will never discover on their own. In the trenches we are finding that with proper representation homeowners stay in their homes longer (in some cases indefinitely) and can work out settlements that are rarely if ever offered to unrepresented homeowners.

This information is a public service of Shuster & Saben, LLC. For more information about hiring Shuster & Saben to defend your foreclosure case our website www.attorneyforeclosuredefense.com

If the bank lost the note, will I get my house for free?

Welcome to the first installment of the Florida Foreclosure Defense Blog.   This Blog is brought to you by the law firm of Shuster & Saben, LLC, a firm with offices in Miami, Florida and Plantation, Florida that defends or is available to defend Florida homeowners in Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, and Orange counties.  In the weeks ahead we will discuss the foreclosure crisis, what is happening in defended foreclosure cases, common questions about the foreclosure process, the origins of this crisis and potential solutions to the problem.  The opinions expressed herein are purely those of the blog authors and are not meant as legal advice. Homeowners who have been served with a foreclosure should consult and attorney and if they are indigent, unemployed, or qualify for legal aid, are likely to be able to obtain legal assistance for free or at nominal cost.

For our first topic I address the question often presented by potential clients:  If the Bank Lost the Note will I get my house for free?

Homeowners who have received their homes for free have reached the status of Urban Myth on the Internet.  Does it happen in the real world?  It does, but it does not occur that often.  In Florida Statute 71.011 provides for the Reestablishment of papers, records, and files in limited circumstances.  The statue in pertinent part provides as follows:

71.011 Reestablishment of papers, records, and files.--All papers, written or printed, of any kind whatsoever, and the records and files of any official, court or public office, may be reestablished in the manner hereinafter provided.

(1)  WHO MAY REESTABLISH.--Any person interested in the paper, file or record to be reestablished may reestablish it.

(2)  VENUE.--If reestablishment is sought of a record or file, venue is in the county where the record or file existed before its loss or destruction. If it is a private paper, venue is in the county where any person affected thereby lives or if such persons are nonresidents of the state, then in any county in which the person seeking the reestablishment desires.

(3)  REMEDY CONCURRENT.--Nothing herein shall prevent the reestablishment of lost papers, records and files at common law or in equity in the usual manner.

(4)  EFFECT.--

(a)  Any paper, record or file reestablished has the effect of the original. A private paper has such effect immediately on recording the judgment reestablishing it, but a reestablished record does not have that effect until recorded and a reestablished paper or file of any official, court or public officer does not have that effect until a certified copy is filed with the official or in the court or public office where the original belonged. A certified copy of any reestablished paper, the original of which is required or authorized by law to be recorded, may be recorded.

(b)  When any deed forming a link in a chain of title to land in this state has been placed on the proper record without having been acknowledged or proven for record and has thereafter been lost or destroyed, certified copies of the record of the deed as so recorded may be received as evidence to reestablish the deed if the deed has been so recorded for 20 years.

(5)  COMPLAINT.--A person desiring to establish any paper, record or file, except when otherwise provided, shall file a complaint in chancery setting forth that the paper, record or file has been lost or destroyed and is not in the custody or control of the petitioner, the time and manner of loss or destruction, that a copy attached is a substantial copy of that lost or destroyed, that the persons named in the complaint are the only persons known to plaintiff who are interested for or against such reestablishment. 

Our law firm has found that in over 50% of the foreclosure cases we are defending the lender has included a count to "reestablish" a "lost" note.  I think this statute was designed to protect the bank that 50 promissory notes in their vault on Monday, gets hit by a category 4 Hurricane on Tuesday, and takes diligent action to reestablish the notes as soon as the hurricane has past.  From time to time banks make mistakes and this statute could prevent a forfeiture from a clerical error.  In the foreclosure cases we are seeing it is a stretch to say the banks lost the note.  It appears readily apparent that the mortgage brokers who were selling their loans before the ink was dry on the closing real estate closing documents, and the banks forgot the meaning of the word "underwriting" were in such a hurry to write loans, bundle the loans  and sell the loans, that nobody was bothering to take physical possession of the note.  When the loan changes hands three of four times and the fourth holder of the loan says they lost the note, how can they lose something that they never had.  Many times the lender who brought the foreclosure action has no idea which bank lost the note.  

In the real world if the foreclosure complaint has a count to reestablish the note, the bank will have a much more difficult time in the foreclosure cases.  When a bank realizes that it does not have the evidence it needs to prevail and that obtaining such evidence may take years the bank is often amenable to settlement under terms very favorable to the homeowner.  While every case is different when faced with the possibility of losing banks offered homeowners settlements that cut the loan balance in half and reduce the interest rate to 4%.  

While some judges rulings, like the one below (Not our firms case) have set the bar to reestablish a note quite low others have held the banks feet to the fire.  An example of a case where the bank was allowed to reestablish the note follows:

 GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP L. FRYBERGH; LAKEVIEW VILLAGE II, INC., a dissolved Florida corporation; SUMNER E. ROBINSON, Trustee of the Duncan Florida National Trust Dated 11 July, 1989, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York corporation; WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA, Successor by Merger to Southern Sanitation Service; and CAUSEWAY LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Defendants. 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Civil Division. Case No. 93-25033-06. March 2, 1994. Geoffrey D. Cohen, Judge. Robert W. Lee, Smith & Hiatt, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Glendale Federal Bank. Robert A. Arabian, Tamarac, for Frybergh and Lakeview.

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS TO COUNT I (LOST NOTE) AND

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF

THIS ACTION came before the Court on motion of the Plaintiff for the entry of a Partial Summary Final Judgment As to Count I (Lost Note) and Second Affirmative Defense, and after consideration thereof and the Court being duly advised in the premises and otherwise,

IT IS ADJUDGED THAT:

1. Plaintiff has established that it owns and holds a promissory note and mortgage, copies of which were attached to Plaintiff's Complaint in this action. The original note has been lost and is not in the custody or control of Glendale. The note has not been paid or otherwise satisfied, assigned or transferred. In Florida, the right to reestablish lost instruments is recognized both by common law and by statute. The destruction or unintentional loss of an instrument does not change the rights or obligations of the parties to the instrument. Florida Real Property Practice III §8.3 (2d ed. 1976). Upon establishing that the instrument has been destroyed, lost or stolen, an interested party is entitled to a judgment reestablishing the instrument. Fla. Stat. §71.011. Accordingly, the note is hereby re-established and the copy of the lost note attached hereto shall stand in place and in stead of the original promissory note. If the original note is ever located, Plaintiff shall immediately deliver it to the Court for cancellation.

2. In Defendant's Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant alleges that Glendale neglected to give Defendants written notice of default and an opportunity to cure before accelerating the note and mortgage. Glendale has, however, established that proper notice was given to Defendants as set forth in the affidavits previously filed with this Court. Evidence of a routine practice of an organization is admissible to prove the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice. Florida East Coast Properties v. Coastal Construction Products, Inc., 553 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The rule is that, when something is mailed by a business, it is presumed that the ordinary course of business was followed in mailing it, and that the mail was received by the addressee. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Eckert, 472 So. 2d 807, 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Brown v. Giffen Industries, Inc., 281 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1973). Glendale's affidavits establish that the ordinary course of business was followed in sending its notice of default and acceleration. Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff as to Defendants' Second Affirmative Defense.

Returning to the initial client question of If the bank lost the note will I get the house for free?  When this question is asked in a first meeting the best answer we can give is MAYBE.  Our firm is a firm of litigators and we fight foreclosures with the goal of getting the case dismissed.   On day one we will not know what cards are in the banks hand.  During the period the case is pending the lost note could be found.  What we do know is that the homeowners position will be stronger if the bank has the added burden of reestablishing the note.  If the bank or the banks lawyers make a mistake, which happens quite frequently we will attempt of capitalize on the mistake.  Many foreclosure cases settle and thus even if the homeowner does not get their house for free a resolution that keeps the homeowner in their home and drastically reduces their loan balance and interest rate is outcome worth working for.