Struggling homeowners gain favor in key ruling

Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach Post

Home­owners in foreclosure may have a better chance of getting a true trial, instead of a quickie judgment, following a 4th District Court of Appeal decision that requires banks to prove ownership of the note at the time they file for repossession.

The ruling Wednesday in Palm Beach County was heralded by foreclosure defense attorneys who said it may even force banks to dismiss some cases and start over with new paperwork.

Tom Ice, founder of the Royal Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense firm Ice Legal, called the decision a “sea change” in the way courts are looking at foreclosure cases and the importance of assignments of mortgage.

“No longer can banks just walk in and have their attorney wave around a piece of paper saying this is the note,” Ice said. “The good news for homeowners is now they have an opportunity to prove their case and get a trial on its merits.”

The 4th DCA ruling follows a rare Florida Supreme Court decision last week to take up an already settled Greenacres foreclosure case that involved an allegedly backdated assignment of mortgage that the bank used to show ownership. The court said it wanted to rule on the case, in which the homeowner was defended by Ice’s firm, because its opinion could have an impact on the “mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout the state.”

Wednesday’s ruling was on the case of Robert McLean vs. JPMorgan Chase, and involved a 2009 Broward County foreclosure.

According to the decision, which reversed a lower court’s verdict in favor of the bank, Chase originally filed the foreclosure claiming the note – basically the IOU from the borrower – was “lost, stolen or destroyed.”

Read more here

Share

After long lull, foreclosure filings ramp up

Kimberly Miller, Palm Beach Post

New foreclosures were filed against more than 11,000 Florida homeowners in November, a 7 percent jump over the same month in 2010 and the first year-over-year increase in 20 months.

The surge in new cases supports predictions that banks would be ramping up their foreclosure action as they continue to recover from last year’s robo-signing scandal. It also matches Palm Beach County clerk of court data that measured a 51 percent annual increase in new filings in November.

But it bucks a national trend that shows a 3 percent drop in new foreclosures last month from October and a 14 percent drop from November 2010, according to a report released today by RealtyTrac.

“I think what you’re seeing in Florida is that you’re coming out of this slump in foreclosures,” said Daren Blomquist, a spokesman for the Irvine, Calif.-based company. “Seven percent is not a huge increase, but the last time we saw a year-over-year increase was March 2010.”

RealtyTrac’s Palm Beach County numbers were inaccurate for November because the firm didn’t collect data for the entire month.

But Sharon Bock, Palm Beach County’s clerk and comptroller, said last week that November filings were up 51 percent from 2010, with 1,204 new cases filed. Bock reported an 8.2 percent decrease in new filings from October to November.

RealtyTrac co-founder James Saccacio said that while new foreclosures fell nationwide in November, the number of auctions reached a nine-month high as initial filings, which had increased in previous months, moved to sale.

Nationally, 96,540 homes were scheduled for foreclosure auction in November, 5,925 in Florida.

“Despite a seasonal slowdown similar to what we’ve seen in each of the past four years, November’s numbers suggest a new set of incoming foreclosure waves, many of which may roll into the market as bank repossessions or short sales sometime early next year,” Scaccacio said.

Read more here

Share

BofA Continues To Harass Elderly Michigan Couple Living Florida

Mark Puente, Saint Petersburg Times

For the Bullingtons, dealing with Bank of America is like something out ofGroundhog Day — without the happy ending.

You may recall earlier scenes from their story: James Bullington, 78, is dying, which led to financial problems for the New Port Richey couple. His wife, Sharon, sought to ease the financial pain by getting Bank of America to modify the terms of their mortgage. The bank agreed. Then it foreclosed after Sharon Bullington, 70, made a mortgage payment too early.

After stories appeared in August and September in the St. Petersburg Times, Bank of America apologized, restructured the loan and paid their legal fees. The Bullingtons have paid their payments since.

But Bank of America is still after them.

Almost weekly, notices arrive. Phone calls too. The nation’s second-largest bank wants them to modify their mortgage, the same one they’ve already modified. Each notice lists a different amount for what is owed.

With a terminally ill husband, Sharon Bullington has had a bellyful of Bank of America.

“It’s hurtful and upsetting and disgusting,” she said, quivering on the telephone. “It’s just terribly upsetting. We signed the modification.”

Now, the couple has filed suit demanding the bank stop the harassment and stop contacting her.

Bank of America did not respond to numerous requests for comment.

The couple’s attorneys accused the bank of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The statute allows for damages of just $1,000 and attorney fees.

Read more here

 

To See Previous Stories Click Here And Here

Share

Why Paragraph 22 Of Your Mortgage Matters

Steve Dibert, MFI-Miami

This is an interesting decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Florida.  In this case, the homeowner, Bryson argued that BB&T had violated the terms of the mortgage contract by not providing a notice to cure as required by paragraph 22 of the mortgage.

At a hearing held on the summary judgment motion, Bryson argued that BB&T had not refuted the affirmative defenses related to paragraph 22 of the mortgage and that the two default notice letters were not authenticated and could not be considered for summary judgment purposes. BB&T responded that the letters were”self-authenticating” because they were created by the bank. The court granted summary judgment to BB&T.  The 2nd DCA disagreed and reversed and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court.

Bryson-v-BBT 2nd FL DCA Ruling

Share