[CLC-Discussion] Case referral

[Brian Solomon]

I cannot continue on a case in Osceola County and am looking for a firm to assume representation.

The Client inherited his mother's home which had a remaining mortgage less that $15,000.  He began making payments and then the servicing company changed and my client failed to make a payment.  Because of the amount of equity, after 45-60 days the loan was defaulted.  My client contacted the servicing company and was told that he could bring the loan current by paying  them to catch up the payments.  Here are some of the facts:


  1.  On or before January 14, 2012, Client contacted SERVICER regarding the past due amount on the loan and requesting a verification of the debt.  A SERVICER representative informed Client that $613.04 was due in order to cure the default.   This amount corresponds to the “past due” amount contained in the January 17, 2012 statement that Client had yet to receive.
  2.  By check dated January 14, 2012, Client remitted by U.S. Mail check # 433 in the amount of $613.04.  SERVICER received the check on or about January 23, 2012.
  3.  By letter dated February 7, 2012, SERVICER returned the check in the amount of $613.04 because it was insufficient to cure the default, however, SERVICER did not inform Client how much additional money was needed.
  4.  Defendant received the returned check on February 7, 2012. That same evening at 7:38 pm, Client contacted SERVICER and inquired what amount was required to cure the default. Client was informed that $1,209.80 was needed. That very same day, Client remitted check #440 in the amount $1,209.80. Although the check was remitted on February 9, 2012, the check indicates that the check was not processed until February 27, 2012.
  5.  According to the statement date of January 17, 2012, the total amount due at that time was $1,209.80, the exact amount remitted by Client.
  6.  Based on information and belief, SERVICER failed to process the check until after the next statement dropped which resulted in a total amount due in excess of check # 440.
  7.  By letter dated February 7, 2012, SERVICER returned check # 440 in the amount of $1,209.80 because it was insufficient to cure the default, however, SERVICER did not inform Client how much additional money was needed.
  8.  Client, believing that he had cured the default by tendering check # 440, tendered to SERVICER on March 8, 2012, check # 447 for the regular monthly mortgage payment in the amount of $159.75.
  9.  Despite Client’s good faith efforts in making the monthly mortgage payment, SERVICER returned check # 447 by letter dated March 30, 2012.
The servicer has a history of this activity.

2005:  Texas jury awarded plaintiff, on almost the same facts, $10 million in actual damages and $1.5 million in mental anguish and economic damages.

2013 Servicer settles with California Attorney General  and the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for "pushing borrowers into foreclosure through illegal actions, such as failing to promptly and accurately credit mortgage payments."

Please contact me if anyone is interested in discussing this case or know of someone who might be interested.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/clc-discussion/attachments/20171017/5b7a072c/attachment.html>