DANNLAW

Why it Makes Sense to Hire a Real Lawyer to Defend Your Foreclosure

dannlaw — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:00:50 +0000

Lets face it, being a homeowner in foreclosure is an awful experience.

Homeowners served with a Notice of Default or a Foreclosure Complaint often feel ashamed or embarrassed. Many are frustrated and even angry that their good faith efforts to work with Banks, Investors and Loan Servicers to avoid this very event have literally fallen on deaf ears.

After spending months dealing with a loan servicer who puts their own interests ahead of both you the homeowner and the owner of your loan, a foreclosure defendant’s mailbox ( and voice mail) now fills with offers of “help”, many from people who have very little ability to help the situation but who are quick to offer false promises of hope.

The Ohio Attorney General announced another lawsuit against a Stark County Mortgage Modification Scam. I brought the first enforcement action against such criminals back in 2008 and the problem continues to plague Ohio Homeowners. We just filed a class action case against such a company in Sizemore v. The Modification Group.

There is legitimate help for people who want to modify their mortgages and access modification help and government programs in Ohio. Save the Dream Ohio is a program I am very proud to have helped create. It has helped thousands of Ohioans access assistance at no cost.

Sometimes, however, legal leverage is necessary to drive self interested Mortgage Servicers and investors to the table. In a large majority of loans originated between 2001 an 2008 there are significant problems in the history of loans on the lender’s side.

In a surprising number of cases the mortgage servicing industry has responded by literally forging documents for presentation to courts to attempt to fix fatal problems in the sale and assignment of the mortgages of homeowners who are in foreclosure. See 60 Minutes report on robosigning.

Many lawyers who solicit homeowners in foreclosure are no better than the phony modification mills. Some try to push homeowners into cookie cutter bankruptcies leaving legitimate defenses that a surprising number of homeowners have on the table. Other lawyers do nothing more than try to run out the clock on the foreclosure process without aggressively attacking the real legal issues that could result in a flat out dismissal of a foreclosure complaint or put pressure on a lender to enter into a meaningful modification, including on involving a reduction of principal.

That is why it is critical for homeowners who have been sued for foreclosure to interview and hire lawyers who are willing and able to put the cutting edge issues regarding the proper ownership of mortgages, robosigning fraud and standing directly in in front of the court.

Beware of easy and cheap solutions.

Look for lawyers who have successfully litigated motions to dismiss and who are willing to do the painstaking work of forcing a lender seeking foreclosure to prove every single element of their case.

The discovery process will allow a lawyer for a homeowner to dig deep into the ownership of your note and the business practices of those seeking to foreclose, often yielding defenses to foreclosure ( or even claims against the lender, servicer or their foreclosure mill lawyer) that cannot be identified in any other way.

Careful scrutiny of authority of people signing affidavits, assignments and endorsements can break the chain or ownership of notes and result in dismissal of foreclosures.

High quality legal work is available to homeowners in foreclosure for no more than the cost of a reasonable monthly mortgage payment. Not only will good lawyers keep you in your home for longer, aggressive legal tactics push lenders to the negotiating table or force dismissal of foreclosure lawsuits all together.

For more information contact Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA or 216-373-0539

Talking to Mandelman Matters on Fighting Banks on Foreclosure

dannlaw — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:34:34 +0000

I had the privilege to be interviewed for Mandelman Matters relating to “the foreclosure crisis and specifically about what’s happened in Hawaii since the legislature passed SB 651, the toughest foreclosure law in the country… and since Fannie Mae announced that they would not participate in the state’s non-judicial foreclosure process as a result of the new mandatory mediation component.”

Read the full blog and listen to the podcast.

Great Video Banksters v. Dead Beat Homeowners

dannlaw — Mon, 09 May 2011 01:18:53 +0000

GREAT VIDEO

Hawaii to Pass Foreclosure Protection Bill. Lets Try to do the same thing in Ohio

dannlaw — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:58:39 +0000

Mandleman Matters reports that Hawaii is on the verge of enacting. It seems so simple. the bill requires that loan servicers, requires the servicer, at least 14 days prior to foreclosure, to present among other things, “a copy of the promissory note… including any endorsements, allonges, amendments, or riders to the note evidencing the mortgage debt.”

Such a requirement will once again force lenders to respect the rule of law in the way they expect their customers to respect the rule of law. Take a look at Hawaii’s Senate Bill 651 here.

For More information about Foreclosure Defense www.dannlaw.com

ProPublica To Carefully Scrutinize the Internal Reviews of Foreclosure Servicers

dannlaw — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:37:17 +0000

ProPublica, the non-profit investigative journalism organization has promised to keep a close eye on the very weak OCC orders requiring loan servicing companies to self examine. More to come…

Investigations Continue of Foreclosure Law Firms

dannlaw — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 20:43:44 +0000

While many of the largest banks in the United States have entered in to a consent decree to review millions of foreclosures to determine whether or not they had proper standing to sue, Law Firms who filed those lawsuits continue to file cases where they know or should have known that their clients didn’t have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in Ohio.

In New York, the Attorney General has issued subpoenas and launched an investigation of such a law firm. There is no indication that Ohio’s Attorney General has similar plans.

In Ohio on behalf of some of our clients we are actively investigating potential claims that the following law firms filed cases when they knew or should have known that their client didn’t have the right to sue. Those firms are:

Laurito & Laurito

Shapiro Van Ness, Phillips and Barragate

Reisenfeld & Associates

Manley Deas Kochalski

Law Office of John Clunk

Reimer Arnovitz et al.

Felty & Lembright

Law Office of Steven Miles

Keith Weiner and Associates

Carlisle McNally et al.

We are anxious to hear about foreclosure cases that have been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by a court for lack of standing by any of these law firms.

Marc Dann

Law Offices of Marc Dann Co. LPA

Ohio Supreme Court To Address Standing in Foreclosure Cases

dannlaw — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:48:14 +0000

From Dick Davet:

About U.S. Bank v. Duvall

The Ohio Supreme Court announced two separate decisions relating to Duvall on Wednesday, April 6, 2011. In respect of the U.S. Bank notice of appeal and filing seeking a discretionary review, the Court dismissed the appeal in Case No. 2011-0171. Interestingly, FOUR Supreme Court Justices dissented from the dismissal!

See:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-1618.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2011&number=0171&myPage=searchbycasenumber%2Easp
But also on Wednesday, the Supreme Court DID certify the conflict previously identified by the Court of Appeals on the U.S. Bank motion in Case No. 2011-0218:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-1618.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2011&number=0218&myPage=searchbycasenumber%2Easp
The net effect of these two decisions is that the Ohio Supreme Court is going to hear and determine this certified question in respect of the U.S. Bank v. Duvall decision:

“To have standing as a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the note and the mortgage when the complaint was filed?”
See: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/187169.pdf

For More Information on Foreclosure Defense Contact:

Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA

216-373-0539

www.dannlaw.com

New York Attorney General Takes On New York Foreclosure Mill

dannlaw — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:43:13 +0000

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has issued subpoenas to The Baum Law Firm according to today’s New York Times

The Baum firm is engaged in the very same conduct as Ohio Foreclosure Mill Lerner Sampson and Rothfuss. Here is how the New York Times Describes the new probe:

“Scrutiny of the Baum firm has increased in recent months after significant errors surfaced nationwide in legal paperwork used by banks to seize delinquent borrowers’ homes. For example, documents detailing how much borrowers owe have been signed by bank representatives who say they have not verified the information. Other problems involve the questionable notarization of documents, or paperwork indicating that the foreclosure process was begun without providing proof that the entities involved had the legal right to foreclose.”

Sound Familiar?

For More Information about Foreclosure Defense

Contact: Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA.

www.dannlaw.com

216-373-0539

DOCX Commits Serial Document Fraud Thousands of Foreclosures May be Invalid

dannlaw — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:18:24 +0000

Sixty Minutes reports on the latest fraud by Banks, Investors, Servicers and their agents. Alleged bank Vice President Linda Green turns out to be dozens of different people. Robosigners, making $10.00 per hour pretended to be bank officers. One Robosigner says that he signed 4000 documents a day.

Law Offices of Marc Dann Co. LPA

Defects In Assignments of Mortgages and Endorsement Of Notes to Securitized Trusts May Prevent Foreclosure Actions

dannlaw — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:00:28 +0000

An Alabama Judge has ruled that defects in the transfer of a borrower’s note to a securitized trust robs that trust of the standing to sue for foreclosure. Housing Wire reports that failure of a trust comprised of mortgage loans to comply with its own pooling and servicing agreement robs that trust of standing to foreclose. From the order:

“The court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association) did not comply with the terms of its own pooling and servicing agreement and further did not comply with New York law in attempting to obtain assignment of plaintiff Horace’s note and mortgage,” the judge’s order, signed March 25 and filed with the court Wednesday, said. “Horace is a third-party beneficiary of the pooling and servicing agreement … without such … plaintiff Horace and other mortgagors similarly situated would never have been able to obtain financing.”

We have seen dozens of cases here in Ohio where the terms of the pooling and servicing agreements could not possibly have been met.

Yet another reason to consult an attorney immediately if a foreclosure complaint is filed against you.

For more information:

Contact:

Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA

Or call 216-373-0539