Posts Tagged TRO

Attorneys at Duke Seth, PLLC (foreclosure defense law firm) forced Citi Mortgage to rescind the foreclosure and offer homeowner a loan modification.

A homeowner in Dallas County approached foreclosure defense attorney Meenu Seth at Duke Seth, PLLC, after Citi Mortgage foreclosed on her property. While reviewing her case some interesting facts surfaced. Few days before the scheduled foreclosure sale, the homeowner was advised by the loss mitigation department of Citi Mortgage via phone as well via email that they have received her loan modification packet and are reviewing her for the same. She was assured that Citi Mortgage will not proceed with the scheduled foreclosure. Homeowner also received correspondence from Citi Mortgage, after the foreclosure sale took place that she is under review for loan modification. Homeowner was beyond shock when she was served with the notice to vacate. It was a clear case of negligent misrepresentation by Citi Mortgage, due to which the homeowner could not seek legal counsel to stop the foreclosure.

Attorney Meenu Seth sued Citi Mortgage for promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation. She obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and stopped the eviction. Attorney Seth demanded Citi Mortgage to rescind the foreclosure and offer loan modification to the homeowner. After two months of rigorous negotiations, Citi Mortgage finally agreed to rescind the foreclosure and offered a loan modification to the homeowner.

Attorneys at Duke Seth, PLLC strive for such happy endings for their client

Advertisements

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Dallas Foreclosure Defense Attorney stopped another lock-out by obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order in Tarrant County against Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae

The homeowner in Tarrant County, approached Dallas/ Fort Worth foreclosure defense attorney Meenu Seth, 20 hours before the lock-out was scheduled. Attorney Meenu Seth, partner at Duke Seth, PLLC, reviewed all the mortgage related documents, drafted a lawsuit, filed it with the court and obtained the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) within the next four hours after the very first meeting with homeowner. In the lawsuit, attorney Seth challenged the authority of Wells Fargo to foreclose on homeowner and Fannie Mae’s right to possession. Ms. Seth argued that it was a wrongful foreclosure. If the foreclosure conducted by Wells Fargo is void, then Fannie Mae does not get the right of possession just by virtue of filing substitute trustee’s deed with the County Clerk. The Court, after listening to the arguments and reviewing the documents, granted the TRO. The TRO stopped Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae from evicting the homeowner from his property.

The homeowner is still in possession of his property and Ms. Seth has been approached by the attorneys for Wells Fargo and Fannie Mae to settle the case. The settlement discussions are on going.

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Texas Foreclosure Attorney stopped two foreclosures scheduled for August, 2013, by obtaining Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO)

Dallas based foreclosure defense attorney, Meenu Seth, stopped two foreclosure sales scheduled for the month of August, 2013. Ms. X contacted attorney Meenu Seth at Duke Seth, PLLC to stop the threatened foreclosure of her house situated in Collin County. Ms. X received the notice of sale from the JP Morgan Chase Bank stating that her property will be foreclosed on August 6, 2013. Ms. Seth filed a lawsuit in Collin County District Court challenging the authority of JP Morgan Chase to conduct the foreclosure as JP Morgan Chase is not the lender pursuant to the mortgage documents. Court, after carefully listening to Ms. Seth arguments granted the temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the foreclosure sale.

Mr. & Mrs. G are residents of Tarrant County. They received the notice of sale from Recontrust, servicer for Bank of America. They approached Dallas/Fort Worth based foreclosure defense attorney, Meenu Seth. Ms. Seth filed a lawsuit in Tarrant County District Court raising issues as to the right of Bank of America to foreclose on Mr. & Mrs. G’s property. Ms. Seth very artfully explained her concerns regarding the authority and title of Bank of America to foreclose. Court decided in favor of homeowner and granted the temporary restraining order (TRO) and the foreclosure was stopped.

Ms. Seth also stopped two more foreclosures in Dallas County by just making phone calls to the Lender’s attorneys and discussing other work out options. Not to mention, our clients are very thrilled, so are we.

, ,

Leave a comment

Last Minute TRO Prevents Eviction in North Texas

Dallas foreclosure defense attorney Walker M. Duke kept a North Texas homeowner in his home, at least for a little while, after obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO) that enjoined Bank of America from conducting an eviction.  The TRO immediately stopped the constable from locking out the homeowner.  According to the lawsuit filed against Bank of America, BOA wrongfully foreclosed on the homeowner even though the county property records showed a break in the chain of title.  Not surprisingly, MERS was involved in the transactions.

, ,

Leave a comment

Attorney Walker M. Duke Stops Foreclosure with TRO Against Ocwen and HSBC

It was another good day for a Texas homeowner as foreclosure defense attorney Walker M. Duke obtained a temporary restraining order stopping Ocwen and HSBC from foreclosing.  The temporary restraining order, or TRO, was obtained in connection with a lawsuit against these two entities.  In the lawsuit, attorney Duke alleges that the homeowners note and promissory note had supposedly been securitized, or sold to an asset-backed trust to become part of a series of mortgage-backed securities.  The only problem is that the representations that HSBC made to the local county clerk did not match up with the representations HSBC made to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“In my view, HSBC is lying to someone–either the SEC or the County Clerk,” Duke said.  “Either way, something doesn’t smell right.”

This particular attempted foreclosure came in the wake of reports that foreclosure filings in at least the North Texas area are down considerably.  Overall trends don’t mean much, however, when it’s your home that the bank is trying to sell.

, ,

1 Comment

Texas Attorney Walker M. Duke Obtains Injunction, Stops Collin County Foreclosure

Attorney Walker M. Duke recently obtained a temporary injunction, stopping a foreclosure on a McKinney, Texas family’s home.  The injunction will keep the family in their home throughout the life of a lawsuit against their lender, which challenges the bank’s right to foreclose and seeks to keep the family in their house long-term.

“This is a complicated case that deals with a number of Wall Street transactions.  The judge took the time to hear the arguments from both sides, thoroughly reviewed the briefing, and after thoughtful deliberation, made what I believe was the right decision.  I applaud this judge’s efforts to truly grasp the issues before him,” said Walker Duke.  The case involves a home loan that was allegedly “securitized,” a complex process by which a residential home loan is converted into a tradeable security that can be bought and sold on Wall Street–all without the homeowner’s knowledge or consent.

Walker Duke, a Dallas-based foreclosure defense lawyer, noted that the bank made representations to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission that were inconsistent with the records they filed with the Collin County Clerk.  “In my opinion, the bank is either lying to the SEC or they’re lying to the Collin County Clerk.  I’m going to hold them accountable either way,” Duke stated.

The injunction followed the granting of a temporary restraining order, or TRO, that initially halted the foreclosure.

, , ,

Leave a comment

Reuters Reports ‘Rampant’ Foreclosure Abuse Across U.S.

Robo-signing has been in the news for many, many months.  The collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and the near implosion of the entire financial system is coming up on 4 years removed.  Yet here we still sit, supposedly coming out of the Great Recession, in the midst of continued rampant foreclosure abuse, as reported by Reuters.

A recent audit of 400 foreclosures in San Francisco showed that 84 percent of them appeared to be illegal.  A separate study in North Carolina of 6,100 mortgage documents filed with the local county clerk concluded that about 4,500 of them showed signs of “signature irregularities.”  Robo-signing, as the rest of the world knows this fraudulent practice.

One reason cited by the Reuters report for the high number of wrongful foreclosures in San Francisco was that California is a non-judicial foreclosure state.  That means that there is no court oversight of foreclosures.  In nonjudicial foreclosure states, which includes my home state of Texas, all a person has to do is file a notice of foreclosure sale with the county clerk, pay a nominal filing fee (usually in the $20-30 range), mail a few letters, and PRESTO!…you can foreclose on a house.  It’s literally that simple.  Believe it or not, having actual proof that you are legally entitled to foreclose is NOT a requirement!

The ease of nonjudicial foreclosures is absolutely terrifying.  I understand the reason these laws were set up.  Lenders wanted a relatively simple, low cost way to resolve a bad debt (which is a secured debt).  When the foreclosure laws were written, this made more sense.  The most relevant portions of the current Texas foreclosure laws go back at least 30 years, when residential lending was much simpler.  You went down to your local bank, you got a loan, and then you paid them back for the next 30 years.  If you didn’t make a payment, you knew what company wasn’t getting their money back (and the bank probably knew you by name as well).

Today, however, residential mortgages are sold, packaged, and re-sold to investors through the process known as securitization.  Determining who actually owns your loan is much more complex than it used to be.  Because of this, declaring a default and foreclosing on a home is a much riskier proposition than it used to be as well.  It’s easy for a bank to get it wrong.  What are the consequences for them?  Practically none.  What are the consequences for homeowners?  Losing their home.  The deck is clearly stacked in one direction.

Well, the deck isn’t totally stacked in favor of the banks.  Part of my job is to make sure banks have consequences for getting it wrong.  I’ve stopped foreclosures and evictions dead in their tracks with a temporary restraining order/TRO and injunctions.  If you think you’re being illegally foreclosed on like the many, many cases in San Francisco and North Carolina that the Reuters report identified, you need to make sure the banks face consequences as well.

, , , ,

Leave a comment