Article from The Legal Intelligencer by Michael Shaffer – June 2013 :
Blogs
Options After Act 91 Notice
July 3, 2013 By
There are generally three options for a homeowner after the bank sends its pre-foreclosure notices:
1. Cure The Default – Within 30 days from the date of the ACT 91 Notice, the borrower may cure the default by bringing the mortgage current. The borrower must pay the total amount past due plus late fees. There also may be associated attorney or legal fees.
A. If the default is cured before the lender refers the account to their attorney, the borrower will not incur any legal fees.
B. If the default is cured after the lender has referred the account to his attorney but prior to commencement of legal proceedings, the homeowner will be responsible for legal fees up to and not in excess of $50.00.
C. If the default is cured after the lender’s attorney has begun legal proceedings, the homeowner will be responsible for ALL legal fees (even those in excess of $50.00).
2. Meet With A Consumer Credit Counselor – Within 30 days from the date of the ACT 91 notice, the borrower may meet with a consumer credit counselor located in the county where the mortgaged property is located.
Borrower has 30 days from the date of this meeting to file a HEMAP application. The consumer credit counselor will supply the application and assist the borrower in completing it. They are the only agency approved for submission of the application.
HEMAP may take up to 60 days to make a decision. During this time, no foreclosure proceedings may be brought against the borrower.
3. Homeowner Takes No Action – If the homeowner takes no action within 30 days from the date of the Act 91 Notice, the lender will exercise her right to accelerate the mortgage debt. The entire outstanding balance becomes due immediately and the borrower loses the right to pay the mortgage in monthly installments. The lender refers the account to her foreclosure attorney who begins the legal process of foreclosing on the mortgaged property. A lawsuit can then be filed in the county where the property is located. An answer must be filed with the court within thirty days or else the bank may secure a default judgment against the homeowner.
Foreclosure Notes
June 29, 2013 By
In Pennsylvania, a lender is required to send certain notices to the homeowner before it files a foreclosure lawsuit. These notices are often sent by a bank, its servicer or the bank’s law firm. It is wise to open mail regardless of whether you recognize the sender’s name due to the time-sensitive nature of the notices.
Pennsylvania law requires that these notices meet strict legal specifications and our legal team can examine each notice to determine whether the lender is complying with Pennsylvania law. The notices are:
ACT 6 Notice (Intent to Foreclose)
This is the Official Notice of Intent to Foreclose sent to the homeowner from the lender prior to initiation of any foreclosure proceedings. It is not sent until the homeowner is at least 60 days behind on his mortgage payments. The lender must send this notice to the homeowner by first class mail to his last known address and, if different, to the property secured by the mortgage. It officially notifies the homeowner that the mortgage is in default and unless action is taken to cure the default within 30 days, the lender intends to accelerate the mortgage payments (the outstanding balance of the original mortgage becomes due immediately).
ACT 91 Notice (Take Action to Save Your Home from Foreclosure)
This notice, also sent from the lender, informs the homeowner that he/she has 30 days from the date of the ACT 91 Notice to (1) cure the default or (2) contact a HEMAP Consumer Credit Counseling Agency. (3) If the homeowner takes no action within the 30-day period, the lender will instruct her attorney to file a lawsuit and proceed with foreclosure. The ACT 91 Notice provides information about HEMAP (The Housing Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program) and a list of Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies including contact information. The ACT 91 Notice, however, IS NOT sent to homeowners with FHA Title 2 Loans, homeowners more than 24 months delinquent or with past due amounts greater than $60,000.00, or when the home is not owner occupied.
Plaintiff’s Firm Shaffer and Gaier Sponser 5K for Charitable Cause
June 26, 2013 By
Philadelphia, PA (June 24) –
Philadelphia area law firm Shaffer & Gaier recently sponsored Sam’s Soldiers in a 5k race to benefit the Center for Pediatric Eosinophilic Disorders at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“We are so pleased that our firm chose to sponsor the caring and committed medical team at CHOP. We have seen firsthand how demanding their jobs are and we want to support them in any way we can,” commented managing partner, Michael Shaffer, resident of Lower Merion, PA.
The law firm sponsored a team on behalf of Michael Shaffer’s son, Sam Shaffer, who has an eosinophilic disorder. The firm was happy to sponsor a team in camouflage outfits, ready to fight this disease.
Contact Shaffer & Gaier
Shaffer & Gaier offers more than 45 years of combined legal experience to individuals and businesses in the areas of foreclosure defense, commercial litigation, personal injury and medical malpractice. To learn more, visit the Firm’s website.
New Jersey Judge Vacates Bank’s Default Judgment
June 26, 2013 By
We represent the homeowners in an action in Somerset County, New Jersey. The bank claims that its process server successfully served our clients with a foreclosure lawsuit in December, 2012, yet our client claims he was never served. The bank’s process server indicated that he served a dark-skinned male with brown hair, yet my client has had a shaved head for over 10 years.
Based on the bank’s claim that they successfully served the foreclosure lawsuit on my clients, the bank then entered a default judgment because there was no Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed within the 35 days required under New Jersey law. When a default is entered, it can and often will preclude any litigation or challenge to the loan itself, including ownership, standing and predatory lending defenses that a homeowner often has.
I filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment based on the bank’s failure to serve the complaint on the proper individuals. The court granted my motion, the Default Judgment has been removed from the court docket, and I filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses with the Court. The case is now being litigated, but if the Default Judgment had remained in place, the bank would have been entitled to a Final Judgment, and then a Sheriff’s Sale, without ever giving the homeowners a chance to litigate and discover the true nature and ownership of the loan. Even though we persuaded the Court to vacate the default, this case illustrates the need for a homeowner to be vigilante and to get any and all paperwork over to his or her attorney in a timely manner.
Contact Shaffer & Gaier
To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or, call our Philadelphia office location at 215-751-0100 or our New Jersey office at 856-429-0970.
Foreclosure Defense Authority Michael Gaier Presents Educational Program
June 24, 2013 By
Philadelphia, PA (June 19) – Philadelphia and South Jersey area foreclosure defense authority Michael H. Gaier, Esq. recently presented “Don’t Lose Your Shirt And Your Home: What Professionals Must Know About The Tricky Area Of Foreclosure Defense” for the Burlington County Bar Association in Mt. Holly.
In his presentation, Gaier, a Haddonfield resident, provided in-depth insight into how homeowners who have become delinquent in their mortgage payments have numerous legal options to save their home, either in conjunction with a foreclosure action or with other remedies.
Joining Gaier in the educational program was Carrie J. Boyle, Esq. a Cherry Hill resident, bankruptcy attorney with McDowell Posternock of Maple Shade, NJ. Boyle addressed the interplay of foreclosure and bankruptcy and the potential effects of Chapter 13 and 7.
For over five years, Gaier has represented hundreds of homeowners in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, successfully securing principal loan reduction, dismissals of foreclosure lawsuits and loan modifications. In addition to defending homeowners when the bank sues them, Mr. Gaier has successfully filed dozen of
lawsuits against the “big banks,” including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Chase Bank for predatory lending and loan servicing mistakes.
Boyle focuses her practice on bankruptcy law, representing both consumer and business debtors. She has handled extensive work with mortgage modifications and foreclosure defense since the housing market crash in 2008.
Shaffer & Gaier offers more than 45 years of combined legal experience to individuals and businesses in the areas of foreclosure defense, commercial litigation, personal injury and medical malpractice. To learn more, visit the Firm’s website.
Settlement Results in Cash Payout and Mortgage Principal Reduction
June 20, 2013 By
We recently settled a vigorously contested Philadelphia foreclosure case against one of the nation’s biggest banks. Three weeks before the trial was scheduled to start, the bank, originally represented by a local foreclosure law firm, brought in and retained as trial counsel an international law firm with over 1,500 attorneys. However, we were able to settle on the morning of trial for a significant lump sum cash settlement, as well as a substantial principal reduction in the loan.
The bank had been overcharging our client for homeowners’ insurance for many years, and when our client refused to pay these additional and unnecessary insurance charges, the bank then sued the client in foreclosure, claiming that my clients were delinquent in paying what the bank said they owed. A counterclaim against the bank was filed, alleging improper accounting and unfair trade practices under Pennsylvania law. Several settlement conferences with the judge proved unsuccessful, so I issued a subpoena to the bank to present a witness to testify about the way the bank accounted for the insurance, principal and interest on the loan.
As the trial drew near, the bank kept increasing its settlement offer, but on the morning of trial, an generous offer was made that was accepted and the foreclosure lawsuit and counterclaim have been discontinued and settled. Our clients have lived in the home for 21 years, and were always required to pay their own insurance. In approximately 2005, however, the bank made repeated mistakes in which the bank paid the own insurance coverage but then charged our client for the insurance that the bank purchased. This lead the bank to believe that our client owed money to the bank, but when we went over the loan history, we determined that it was the bank’s mistake, not our clients’. In this case, the devil was in the details and it was clear to see after the bank produced the loan history. In this case, the devil was in the details, and it was clear to see after the bank produced the loan history.
I then took sworn deposition testimony from a bank witness who essentially admitted that the bank was in error. This type of case illustrates the way banks often take advantage of homeowners without the homeowner even knowing that they were violated.
Contact Shaffer & Gaier
To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or, call our Philadelphia office location at 215-751-0100 or our New Jersey office at 856-429-0970.
Safer Automobiles Might Actually Sell Better
June 18, 2013 By
Last month, ailing U.S. automakers and their workers accepted huge concessions in return for a $17.4 billion federal rescue package meant to buy them time to survive. As part of the package, GM received $9.4 billion and Chrysler $4 billion. In the interim, Ford opened the door to receiving additional aid. Upon receipt of the bailout, GM’s CEO, Rick Wagoner, admitted that the automobile maker has significant work to do and that federal loans were a blue print to the company’s continued success. However, looking back at the automobile manufacturer’s attitudes toward product safety it is hard to imagine how they can be saved from themselves.
During the hand ringing that led to the bailout, there was considerable discussion about Detroit’s failure to recognize and, in fact, participate in the green movement which led to the industry’s demise. The Big Three automakers have been fighting low emission and fuel economy standards for decades. Thankfully, the Obama Administration pushed the Big Three into the 21st Century by reversing the Bush Administration’s horrendous policies on these standards. Many people ascribe Detroit’s refusal to make more fuel efficient cars as the biggest reason that the automobile manufacturers are losing huge parts of their market share. One other issue that certainly has affected the marketability and profitability of the Big Three is their absolute reluctance to embrace safety and make their cars safer for the public.
Can anyone really say that they purchased an American car because it’s safer than other foreign cars? Until being acquired by Ford, Volvo has centered its marketing campaign around safety. Volvo had countless commercials and promotions extolling passenger safety in accidents. Before being acquired by Ford, Volvo did tremendously well with that campaign. Of course, Ford’s influence on Volvo squelched their focus on safety and their profitability suffered.
Every since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was charged with regulating the safety of automobiles over 40 years ago, Detroit has been kicking and screaming at every turn. For the past decades, the automobile industry has been fighting seatbelts and then airbags which, now, are uniformly embraced by the automobile insurance industry and consumer groups alike.
In 1971, when Lee Iacocca was President of Ford Motor Company, he so strongly opposed automobile airbags that he personally appealed to then President Richard Nixon and persuaded the President to kill a pending federal regulation mandating airbags for U.S. cars. Of course, Iacocca did not know that Nixon was taping the conversation. At the time, automakers predicted that a single driver’s side airbag would add $1,000 to the cost of a new car. The industry predicted that benefits would be marginal and that the consumers would not want or pay for them. Now, airbags are standard in every vehicle and it’s hard to imagine buying a new car without this safety feature.
Not only did the Big Three oppose airbags, but if you go back even farther, their track records against safety have been consistently wrong. The automobile industry even opposed seatbelts years ago. The U.S. government started studying seatbelt use in the 1960’s, but the auto industry believed that safety would not sell and instead emphasized the cars comfort, style, and performance. In 1970, NHTSA proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that all vehicles have passive restraint, i.e. seatbelts, by January 1973. Over the next ten years, the standard was debated, delayed, altered and eventually rescinded by NHTSA in 1981. Finally, in 1984 NHTSA proposed that all vehicles have seatbelts by 1989.
It is undisputed that seatbelts and airbags have improved vehicles and enumerable studies have shown that these features save lives. Despite this fact, the automobile industry refuses to get ahead of the curve a make a safer car.
Despite these mandates, Detroit continues to refuse to prioritize designing and building a safer car. For example, the automobile industry is confronted with autos that are prone to rollover, roof crushes and tires that are defective due to tread separation. In addition, the rise of defective airbag cases has seen steady growth over the past ten years. One of the biggest reasons is because Detroit continues to scrimp and cut corners wherever and whenever it can and these decisions are affecting safety. For example, there are numerous cases being filed due to the airbags’ failure to deploy. Upon further review of these cases, it has become clear that the auto makers have cut corners by having inadequate sensors that detect the forces of an accident and make the airbag deploy. The Big Three’s attitude is that more sensors cost more money and are not needed. This is the exact same approach to business that got them in trouble in the first place.
The Bush administration’s lax rules and regulations over the automobile industry probably only rivals its abysmal regulation over the oil companies. However, since taxpayers are funding part of the bailout, not only should we insist on greener technology but we should also demand that NHTSA do its job and ensure that these vehicles are safer for consumers.
What’s next? It still remains to be seen if the Big Three can meet the challenges ahead and make the kind of cars that Americans want and deserve—because safer cars will sell better. Or, will the bailout just be a band aid so they can go back to their business as usual approach to technology and safety. Undoubtedly, if they go down that latter road – we can stop calling them Big Three because they won’t be so big and there sure won’t be three viable American automobile manufactures.
Workers’ Compensation Claims – Ten Common Mistakes
June 13, 2013 By
After a workplace injury, a workers’ compensation claim can provide much-needed financial assistance. Avoid these common mistakes, however, to maximize the likelihood of success with your workers’ compensation claim. This blog post lists five common mistakes. Stay tuned for a second article listing five more common workers’ compensation claim mistakes.
- DO tell your doctor you got hurt at work.
You may think your doctor doesn’t need to know, or that it complicated things unnecessarily. Your doctor needs to know so that he or she is prepared when the workers’ compensation insurance company calls. - DO report your injury even if you think your health insurance will cover all your expenses.
Health insurance definitely does not cover lost wages, which is one of the major categories of expenses covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation is better than health insurance coverage for workplace injuries for other reasons, too, including lack of a deductible and coverage of expenses that most health care policies do not pay. - DO report even if you didn’t miss work.
Workers’ compensation pays more than missed wages. A properly filed and qualifying claim will also pay other costs like medical care, travel costs to receive care or fill prescriptions. Furthermore, a seemingly minor injury can worsen with time, and you could miss out on critically important benefits if you don’t report the original injury. - DO report even if you think the incident was your fault.
First of all, you might be wrong. An experienced workers’ compensation attorney reviewing your claim and the incident may determine that responsibility lies elsewhere. Also, the very purpose of the workers’ compensation system is to allow employees to get financial compensation for on-the-job injuries without having to prove fault, except in cases where the employee’s extreme negligence or purposeful misconduct caused the incident. - DO report even if the workplace injury “just” worsened an existing condition.
Workers’ compensation may cover injuries that make an existing injury or medical condition worse. These are legally and medically complex cases and it is wise to seek guidance from a knowledgeable workers’ compensation attorney as soon as possible after the incident.
What are the next five most common workers’ compensation claim mistakes? Stay tuned.
Contact Shaffer & Gaier
To set up a free initial consultation regarding a workers’ compensation claim, contact our office online or call our foreclosure hotline at 855-289-1660. Or, call our Philadelphia office location at 215-751-0100 or our New Jersey office at 856-429-0970.
How Do Personal Injury Attorneys Put a Dollar Value on an Injury?
June 6, 2013 By
There are two types of damages in any personal injury case: compensatory damages and punitive damages. Compensatory damages, sometimes called “actual” damages, are intended to return the accident victim to the status he or she had before the accident.
Obviously, the victim of a serious accident cannot always regain everything he or she had before the accident, especially in the case of traumatic injuries like loss of limb, traumatic brain injury, severe burns or spinal cord injury. However, compensatory damages are still intended to put a dollar value on the losses suffered by the accident victim. In a personal injury lawsuit, compensatory damages are divided into economic damages and non-economic damages.
Economic damages are losses that have an actual monetary value attached to them, such as medical bills, lost wages from time off work, and repairs to or replacement or property. Non-economic damages are where the math gets tricky. The purpose of noneconomic damages is to place a dollar value on things that do not have a dollar value – such as loss of future earnings due to a debilitating injury, permanent scarring, pain and suffering, and loss of family, social or educational experiences.
It is a hard fact for many injury victims to accept, but a personal injury lawsuit will place a hard dollar value on these kinds of “priceless” losses. Usually, the math problem goes something like this:
- medical expenses x (some number usually between 1.5 and 10) + future lost earnings = total compensation
Your personal injury attorney and the insurance company will negotiate over the number between 1.5 and 10. This is the number that indicates the seriousness of the losses. When injuries are relatively minor, the insurance company may offer a multiplier of 1.5 or 2. You and your attorney may or may not think this amounts to fair compensation. In more serious injury cases, the multiplier may be closer to 5 or – in extremely traumatic accident cases – as high as 10.
Keep in mind, the accident victim may also be entitled to punitive damages if the person who caused the accident acted willfully or with malice.
Contact Shaffer & Gaier After a Serious Accident
If you or a loved one has suffered a serious, life-changing accident, you deserve representation by knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys. To set up a free initial consultation, contact our office online, call our Philadelphia office location at 215-751-0100, or call our New Jersey office at 856-429-0970.
