Interest – Only Loan Settlement

July 19, 2013 By

Shaffer & Gaier’s clients owned a vacation home on the Jersey Shore since 1989, and in 2007 a mortgage broker qualified them to refinance into an “interest-only, negative amortization loan”. While our clients’ loan allowed them to make “interest-only” payments that were lower than a traditional monthly mortgage payment, the loan was misleading because the balance of the loan increased each month, even though a payment was being made. This is often because the Truth in Lending document does not appear consistent with the true terms of the loan.

These loans are so deceptive for the homeowner that they have been outlawed in many states while many of the big banks have even stopped offering the loans to prospective homeowners. Shaffer & Gaier filed a lawsuit in Cape May County, NJ against the lender and secured a confidential settlement in July, 2012 for money damages which allowed our clients to recoup the amount of interest they had paid since the loan’s inception.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense, Mortgage Modification Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Foreclosure Defense Workshop

July 17, 2013 By

Foreclosure Defense Seminar

Tuesday, July 23, 2013 – 7pm

For location information: FORECLOSURE DEFENSE SEMINAR

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 office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Filed Under: Current Events, Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , ,

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.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , , , ,

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.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , , , ,

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.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , , ,

Foreclosure Defense Authority Michael Gaier Presents Educational Program

June 24, 2013 By

michael-gaierPhiladelphia, 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.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , ,

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.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , ,

Lunch Seminar – Don’t Lose Your Shirt and Your House: What Professionals Must Know About the Tricky Area of Foreclosure Defense

June 4, 2013 By

Burlington County Bar Association’s
CLE Luncheon Seminar Series

‘Don’t Lose Your Shirt and Your House: What Professionals
Must Know About the Tricky Area of Foreclosure Defense’

Thursday, June 6, 2013 12-1:15pm
Bar Headquarters, 137 High Street, 3rd Floor, Mount Holly
Cost – $40 per person, includes lunch, seminar and any materials provided
For more information: http://burlcobar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Foreclosure-Defense-Luncheon-Flier.pdf

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 office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , ,

A Good Day in Cape May County

May 31, 2013 By

We had a foreclosure case come up for trial last month in Cape May County, New Jersey. The plaintiff was Fannie Mae, and they had bought the loan from my client’s federal credit union. There was significant fraud in the way the Lender lied to my client in order to get him to take the mortgage loan in the first place. I retained an expert witness, a former mortgage broker with 20+ years of experience, to testify at trial. As in a lot of my cases, the expert wrote a narrative report which outlined the fraud that was committed by the lender.

With the trial quickly approaching, the bank filed a motion asking that the judge not allow my expert to testify asserting two main points: 1) if fraud was committed, it was done by others, not Fannie Mae, and 2) the foreclosure lawsuit was simple enough that an expert witness was not required. I filed a Reply Brief demonstrating that Fannie Mae has a duty to evaluate a loan before it buys it, and my expert demonstrated the ways the lender manipulated the loan documents, eventually causing my client to spend $75,000 more than he should over the 30 year term of the loan.

After oral argument, The Honorable William C. Todd agreed with me and denied the bank’s motion. My expert can testify, and is ready and willing to do so at trial.

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 office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , , , ,

Big Banks Get a Slap on the Wrist

May 28, 2013 By

In 2011, Federal regulators told the nation’s big banks to investigate themselves because of the shoddy foreclosure practices that took place in 2009 and 2010. The banks were forced to hire consultants and if violations were found, they were supposed to reimburse homeowner victims for amounts found “as appropriate.” After spending an estimated $1.5 billion dollars on consultants, big banks found little wrong-doing which provided any significant relief for homeowners. Homeowners received next to nothing when compared to the soaring profits the banks continued to reap during that period of time. In essence, it was left up to each bank to decide what constituted both a wrongful foreclosure and “appropriate” compensation.

Yet, the banks got their way because in January, 2013, Federal regulators (The Federal Reserve and The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) reached a deal with 10 big banks which effectively ended the review and required the banks to provide $8.5 billion in aid to borrowers. The investigation could have been more expensive, but the deal also resolved any uncertainty or risk—which big banks no longer enjoy. Of the $8.5 billion, $3.3 billion is ear-marked for cash payments to borrowers who lost their homes and $5.2 billion is for various loan modification programs. The foreclosure abuses were obvious and caused not only the disruption of entire neighborhoods, but also depressed home values, caused children to relocate to different schools and forced seniors to move to housing that is not well suited for them. Given the extent of the crisis, Federal regulators could be questioned why they ended the review process with a settlement that may not give the required relief.

For their part, federal regulators are proudly claiming that the goal in ending the reviews was to provide borrowers relief in a more-timely manner, which begs the question why the flawed review process was instituted in the first place. There is, however, no reliable analysis to figure out which borrowers were victimized, so there really is no fair way to apportion the $3.3 billion among the 4 million borrowers who could be affected. Simple math bears out that if half of the eligible borrowers received the payment, each would get roughly $1,700 on average – a paltry sum for suffering through a wrongful foreclosure.

The $5.2 billion in loan modification relief can be effective as long as the banks keep the goal in mind – keeping families and individuals in their homes. There may be help, however, because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is expected to issue new rules shortly to reign in the risky and abusive mortgage practices of the past. These new rules are needed to ensure that all eligible borrowers facing foreclosure receive modifications according to specific publicly available criteria.

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 office location in Philadelphia at 215-751-0100, or in New Jersey at 856-429-0970.

Filed Under: Foreclosure, Foreclosure Defense Tagged With: , ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»

Our Services

img

Our Latest News Posts

Firm Newsletter: April 2019

April 3, 2019 By

Click here to download a printable pdf of this newsletter. Supreme Court Victory Leads to Arbitration Award It certainly seemed like a long-time coming, but our firm was successful in taking our client’s case all the way to the Pennsylvania … [Read More...]

Diagnosing Traumatic Brain Injuries

June 1, 2018 By

Nearly 50,000 patients die annually from traumatic brain injuries. Now a new study led by the University of Pennsylvania reveals that tiny blood vessels in the brain can offer clues to better treatment, according to an article from UPI’s Health … [Read More...]