Saturday, July 19, 2014

How to Win $16 Million in the Loan Mod Lottery

You Can Win Colossal Damage Awards in a Jury Trial by Proving the Lender Injured you at the Inception of the Loan

by Bob Hurt, 19 July 2014.  Distribute Freely

The Linza v PHH case shows the good sense of MORTGAGE ATTACK ( as a methodology for dealing with foreclosure.  It shows how to win $16 million if the mortgagee cheats you in the loan modification process.

In a nutshell, mortgage company PHH agreed to a loan modification to reduce Phillip Linza's payments about $500, then jacked the payments higher than before, then demanded over $7000, and then refused to accept payments, and THEN foreclosed. Linza hired a lawyer, sued, and after 3-years of legal combat the jury awarded $16 million to Linza because of egregious lender behavior including credit rating damage.
If a lender/servicer has jilted YOU in a loan mod,  you might see something familiar in this scenario.  If so, you should do what Linza did:  SUE.
This does not exactly constitute a Loan Mod Lottery, but it might as well because so few mortgagors sue the lender for cheating them in the loan mod.  You can easily see why.  In a lottery you pay a dollar for a ticket and have a slim chance of winning.  In a loan mod lawsuit, you must find an attorney willing to take the case on contingency, or have enough money to pay for a 3-year litigation, but you have a HUGE chance of winning IF your lawyer has sufficient skill and perseverance.

I see a major problems with Loan Modifications.  To begin with the interest rate goes sky high in 5 years and you have a balloon you can never pay off.  Most loan mod agreements require the borrower to agree to an indemnity clause which waives the right to sue for prior injuries in the loan.  I see THAT as INSANE because lenders and their agents have injured 90% of all single family home mortgagors in the past 12 to 15 years.  

Yuba jury awards homeowner $16 million in mortgage case
Published: Friday, Jul. 18, 2014 - 2:43 pm
It started out as a simple loan modification for a troubled homeowner. It turned into a $16.2 million jury verdict against a nationwide loan-servicing company.
A Yuba Superior Court jury this week awarded $16.2 million in damages to a homeowner who nearly lost his home to foreclosure after the loan servicer botched his mortgage modification, the homeowner’s lawyers said Friday.
Phillip Linza, a homeowner in Plumas Lake, was awarded the damages after a three-year battle against PHH Mortgage Services, a loan servicer based in Mount Laurel, N.J.
Linza’s attorneys, Andre Chernay and Jon Oldenburg of the United Law Center in Roseville, said the award included $514,000 in compensatory damages and $15.7 million in punitive damages.

Call The Bee’s Dale Kasler, (916) 321-1066. Follow him on Twitter @dakasler.

If you need help unraveling the weirdness of your mortgage and loan mod, and finding the causes of action underlying either, visit to learn the basics, and then call me for a discussion.  I don't practice law or give legal advice, but you might appreciate my business perspectives.
Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t 
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Friday, July 18, 2014

Solutions for the high cost of messing with SOF

Trade and labor laws all tamper with the natural Law of Survival Of the Fittest (SOF). 

Somewhere along the way of Civilization, the unfit and their champions gained enough political power to create laws protecting the unfit from the exploitation of the fit, in a manner of speaking.  But they characteristically failed to remember put into those laws a means of retaining the benefits of SOF.  To do that they must first look at the history of SOF and determine its benefits. 

One can easily see that SOF provides the main benefit of ridding rids the planet of the segment of the unfit that presents the most challenge and direct threat to the fit.  That means, of course, that the absolutely LEAST fit often manage to thrive in remote enclaves because they slither under rocks when the shooting starts and stay their till after the combat ends and the fit go on enjoying their fitness undisturbed. 

Clearly, society tampers with SOF because it seems so gruesome and unpleasant to see the fit slaughter (as in the case of the white man versus Americian Aborigines) and enslave (as in the case of the white man versus African tribes people imported into the Americas) the less. But how shall laws retain the benefits of SOF without fully reinstating SOF?

I believe answering and implementing the answers to that question constitutes such an onerous task that the SOF reformers say "to hell with it" and simply mess with SOF, having no regard for the unsavory consequence of a burgeoning population of the unfit, or terrifying penalties of tampering with SOF.

We can see the lack of wisdom in laws protecting the unfit down through American history.  But for some reason (like the presence of many delusional and possibly unfit people in government who refuse to heed SOF's lessons) they seldom seem savvy enough to fix the laws so as to retain the benefits of SOF.  Few examples of this neglect become more clearly evident than the grand schemes of liberating slaves without preparing them for citizenship, allowing labor unions to have a monopoly over labor negotiations, or child labor laws that teach sloth to children.  Philosophers have observed that people who don't work go crazy, and crazy people don't work.

All of this tampering with SOF has caused the unfit to proliferate because parents see no problem with procreating hordes of unfit children.  Now government will care for them, and if the offspring want to, they can become even more criminally wealthy by venturing forth in the neighborhood to engage in criminal activities like drug dealing, mugging people, carjacking, and burgling homes.

All of this tampering with SOF has imposed profound and monumental burdens upon the American population without providing much benefit for those who must pay the tab.

Now, let's take a look at three examples of such tampering:  minimun wage laws, labor union laws, and right-to-work laws.  Government imposes a lower limit on the wages employers may pay certain kinds of workers.  Government requires corporations to negotiate with unions for wage scales, benefits, and conditions for workers under penalty of shutting the business down with a strike.  And of course union members then intimidate all who hate the unions and their thuggishness into joining or staying away from the workplace.   All of that causes a dramatic increase in the cost of goods and services provided by unionized labor, and it helps to drive factories offshore where workers cost the corporation less.  That deprives American laborers of jobs, and many go on the welfare rolls or get unemployment which increases the tax burden of the entire taxpayer population.

Advocates of such laws say people need minimum wage laws in order to live, and without such laws, low-wage workers will have to depend upon public welfare for subsistence.  For some reason they never manage to see low-wage workers in a class of people known as "dependents," but they should.  And ALL such dependent people should either live on whatever wages they can earn, OR find a family to take them in for domestic labor in exchange for room and board, OR find a corporation willing to provide gainful employment in exchange for room and board (such as in a FEMA camp). And after all, minimum wage laws don't, in actual practice, keep people off the welfare rolls.

To counteract the negative impact of unions on people who hate them and don't want to join them, states enact right-to-work laws that prohibit employers from restricting employment to union members.  THAT regulation requires policing, of course, and it costs taxpayers even more, and further increases prices of the goods and services.  Of course, the non-union workers try to demand the same wages and benefits that union workers get, and that makes union members generally hate scabs.

I think government should eliminate laws requiring companies to negotiate with unions, and prohibit unions from destroying companies who don't want to pay exorbitant wages (pay more than the value of the work).  And laws should impose severe penalties on union members who intimidate scabs.  People can always relocate or choose other employment, or become entrepreneurs.

And those who lack the intelligence to compete can become domestic servants in exchange for room and board with affluent families.  Or they might opt to live in a labor (FEMA) camp, do piece work in its free trade zones, and enjoy the close supervision they deserve.  Those who don't like this can implement laws restricting procreation privileges to those intelligent enough to take care of themselves in modern society.

See?  I have solved the whole dilemma of protectionism - let those enjoying the protection pay the cost.  But you might enjoy someone else's perspectives.  How about this one?

July 18, 2014

The Problem with Right-to-Work Laws
by Logan Albright on July 18, 2014

One area where many otherwise-correct free-market thinkers and libertarians stumble is in the area of right-to-work laws, now gaining considerable popularity across the nation. These laws come in a variety of forms, but in most cases a state that adopts right-to-work laws makes it illegal for employers to require union membership as a condition of employment. So far, twenty-four states have adopted these laws and the state legislature in Missouri has plans to make that state a right-to-work state sometime early next year.

Right-to-work laws are attractive to some because they help undercut the monopoly powers granted to labor unions by government. They also appeal to the more pragmatic minded because of the distinct improvements in economic growth. A recent study by the National Institute of Labor Relations Research found that, over a ten year period, states with right-to-work laws experience significant growth in manufacturing output and GDP compared to non-right-to-work states. This is, of course, the result we would expect from diminishing the power of government-created monopolies such as those granted to labor unions.

But utilitarian concerns aside, free-market advocates must ask whether these laws are the right way to reduce government power, and whether they satisfy the moral and ethical criteria at the root of free-market and libertarian thought. Is it right to restrict the freedom to contract in order to counteract existing restrictions on that same freedom?

Read more here:

Logan Albright is Director of Fiscal Research at Capital Policy Analytics, Research Analyst for FreedomWorks, and a contributing editor for Mises Canada. He lives in Washington, DC. See Logan Albright's article archives.

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


Monday, July 14, 2014

PEB clarifies the relationship between note, mortgage, and enforceability

FYI, every pretender defender and mortgage victim should read the UCC Permanent Editorial Board comments from November 2011 regarding security in mortgages:

The upshot:  almost ANYBODY with a modicum of proof can enforce (foreclose) a mortgage loan.  This shoots a silver bullet into the brain of assignment, standing, and securitization arguments.

Get used to it.

Can you solve mortgage problems with bankruptcy or loan mod?

Why get a loan modification when you know the interest rate will bump up after 5 years?  The overall cost of a loan mod far exceeds the cost of a mortgage examination that you can use to negotiate a settlement or sue your crooked lender.

Why do bankruptcy when you have to pay the arrearage within 5 years?


Only one practical way exists to solve mortgage problems:

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


Sunday, July 13, 2014

Securitization and Show-Me-The-Loan MALARKEY Destroys Mortgagor Case

With respect to the message from Lee, way below, John Stuart is full of baloney and so is N.W. Raja the so called mortgage forensic auditor.  Please forward this reply to your mailing list.  I write to set the below issue straight for the readers misled by the Stuart (show-me-the-loan) and Raja  (securitization audit) BULLSHOUTS.  This has to do with the 2011 Virginia Eastern USDC case of Jeffrey Brown v HSBC, for which Raja prepared a long-winded forensic exam (securitization audit).

  1. The so called forensic audit report is full of meaningless history and conjecture and legal conclusions and contains not a single salient, demonstrable fact in support of the conclusions.  Therefore it is worthless, and Jeffrey Brown wasted his money on  it.
  2. In the memorandum opinion
    1. the court dismissed the counts 1 and 2 for fraud because the complaint did not contain the proper elements for that cause of action.
    2. the court dismissed count 3 and chided the plaintiff for his "show me the note" nonsense because Virginia's non-judicial foreclosure procedure does not require a show of the note.  
    3. the court denounced the securitization argument on the basis that nothing related to it made the note unenforceable, and because it had nothing to do with the plaintiff's failure to make payments.  And the court cited two cases in support of that view.
    4. The court dismissed the RICO claim Count 4 for failure to state a claim of fraud, or that any RICO violation injured the plaintiff.
    5. The Court dismissed count 5 (TILA rescission, RESPA, FDCPA) for failing to show the will and allege the ability to repay the lender the amount of the loan, and RESPA statute of limitations had tolled, the plaintiff's conclusory allegations about FDCPA violations lacked factual support, etc.
    6. The court dismissed count 6 (slander of title) for failure to state a claim, and denounced the diatribe against mortgage backed securities and the mortgage industry (neither are illegal).
    7. The court dismissed count 7 (unjust enrichment) as just more whining about the mortgage industry, and because it provided no legal basis for relief.
    8. The court dismissed count 8 (civil conspiracy) for failure to state a colorable claim
    9. The court dismissed count 9 (breach of fiduciary duty), a bogus legal conclusion, for failure to state a claim.
    10. For all of the above reasons, the court denied the request for declaratory judgment AND dismissed the whole case, counts 1-3 and 6 with prejudice, and warned plaintiff not to file any more frivolous complaints or suffer sanctions under Rule 11.
  3. Here are the relevant case documents:
Bottom line, Brown got his bottom torn up in federal court because of
  1. The incompetence of his legal adviser (John Stuart, I presume?),
  2. Reliance on a worthless securitization audit (a roll of T.P. would have more value) to save the day, and
  3. A TERRIBLE litigation strategy.
The mortgagor never became a party to assignment or securitization of the note, and has no standing to dispute or enforce either in court, in spite of 2 or 3 anomalous court opinions to the contrary.

REMEMBER, all who read this, ONLY ONE METHODOLOGY stands a chance of beating the bank in a foreclosure mess -  MORTGAGE ATTACK:
  1. Get a comprehensive mortgage examination by a competent professional, and
  2. Use the resulting evidence to negotiate a settlement or
  3. Sue for the torts, breaches, and legal errors underlying the mortgage itself.
You cannot successfully defend against foreclosure of a valid mortgage which the mortgagor BREACHED.  Your best and only viable defense lies in MORTGAGE ATTACK with proof in hand that the mortgage lacks validity.  Here's the best example of such an attack that I know of:
For full details on the principles of Mortgage Attack, see  NO, I don't sell anything. I'm just a mortgage attack evangelist.

Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t  
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary


On 2014-07-08 02:57, paralegals wrote:
  --------------------    From: Lee  Date: June 17, 2014 21:44:55 PM PDT  Subject: Fw: INFO on HOW MORTGAGES are created !!      Thought you all would be interested in this info, if you don't  already have it....    I have a link from John Stuart, which then provides two HYPER links,  so I will give you those here....  <>    Here is the TEXT from the above link and below that will be the  two LINKS with a total of 32 pages.  Share with others you know  that have a MORTGAGE.  At least you will have the facts of what  they do when the BANKS create a FAKE LOAN from THIN AIR>>>>    Show me the loan!    A legal doctrine developed by: John Chester; of the family Stuart    Show Me the Loan Clarification and Example of a Forensic Exam From  John Stuart    Attached is some of the best shit I have EVER forwarded, I mean  that. You need to read them both.    We all know I created the saying "Show me the Loan" because every  one else was saying "show me the Note" I don't believe anyone. I  know almost everyone else has been brainwashed by the government  and the banks.    But holy shit. Some one has used my phrase Show me the loan  and written a short paper explaining exactly why I say it. Its  excellent. I get plagarized a lot, usually it pisses me off. This  time I don't care. I just want the truth out there. That short  document shows the truth, I think better than I have shown it. This  document kicked my ass as far as teaching goes. I don't mind getting  my ass kicked if it helps save some of you. Shit, my life is a  daily ass kicking any way.    I have also attached by link below a 27 page forensic exam and 5  page HOW LOAN ARE CREATED.    You MUST read both of these until you understand them. When you  understand these you will get it.  --  John C. Stuart -- Not sure if this  link is still good.... These are the other two links that are tied to  the above article  -- 5 pages <>  --27 pages      

An Ideal Kind of Adverse Possession in Florida

Polk County, Florida sits in the middle of the state between Tampa Bay and Cape Canaveral.  It has a lot of wide open spaces in it. 

You can find the Adverse Possession (AP) filings for Polk County here:

I browsed around and found several AP Notices filed by Layne and Cary Lightsey, including the below parcels.  Click them and look at the filings.  These ranchers seem bent on gobbling up a bunch of land.

Search these on the map:

You'll soon see that as a real pain in the neck.  I don't think it works right because it doesn't show the actual parcels, but does show the Range, Township, and Section.

Notice the  approximate area of 293024...13040:

Another part of the county property appraiser's web site shows Plat Maps where I found the actual parcel.  So it looks like an area of sinkholes, scrub brush, and pasture fit for cattle grazing and citrus groves in the area north of Florida 60 & Sam Keen Rd, Lake Wales, Florida 33898.  The Lightseys listed their address as 2330 Sam Keen Rd.  Google Maps does not show any house in that area, so they probably own some adjacent property. 

Maybe they could build a lean-to on any one of the areas and live there, and the sheriff would do NOTHING about it.  Pretty soon they'll have unfettered claim to the property.  They probably have fenced it and use it to graze their cattle.

Any bona fide squatter could do the same.  Wouldn't THAT be fun? THAT's the kind of land would-be adverse possessors should seek out.

I note that a lot of the plat map does not show parcel numbers.  Does that mean the county or state owns the land, or it is just unclaimed?  Who knows?  If government owns it, you cannot take adverse possession of it.  But maybe some investors own it and lost interest or went broke.  Lightseys probably do their research, try to find the owner, and if unsuccessful, file an AP notice with the property appraiser.  In 7 years of paying the taxes and continuously occupying the property, they become adverse possessors and the owner loses the right to remove them from the land.

As I see it, people looking for land should do this all over America.  They could start by looking for land with unpaid taxes.  That could include farm or ranch land for which the county tax collector has auctioned the tax liens.  A land hunter could buy the liens from investors, and then keep paying taxes as part of an AP effort.

Such land hunters need to become familiar with your state's AP laws, and consult a competent attorney to find out for sure what they mean.

Bob Hurt
727 669 5511

Friday, July 11, 2014

Brown v. Quicken Loans shows how to beat a bad lender

Brown v. Quicken Loans teaches all mortgagors a critical lesson about MORTGAGE ATTACK.  A fifth grader should have no trouble grasping the idea.  You can undo a mortgage AND a foreclosure, even if you breached the note.  You need only ATTACK the lender and agents for injuring you, and prove in court that the mortgage lacks validity because of those injuries.
Brown v. Quicken Loans is a Wheeling, West Virginia case in which Quicken Loans created such a predatory loan for Lourie Jefferson (originally Brown) and her daughter Monique Brown that no investor would buy it or securitize it.  The house was worth $46,000, but Quicken gave them a 40 year amortized $144,000 loan with a 30-year balloon of  $107,000 balloon, charged outrageous origination fees, and, of course, lied about the value of the house in the appraisal.  
Brown sued and won a $2+ million judgment.  Quicken appealed and on remand, the trial court upped the judgment to nearl $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages and legal fees, and allowed Brown to sell the house when she pleases, with up to the loan amount going from the proceeds to Quicken.  Quicken appealed that, and the case awaits the WV Supreme Court opinion.  The parties have no dispute about whether Quicken injured Brown.  Quicken simply disputes the amount of the judgment they must pay for that injury. Oh, and Brown received $700,000 in a settlement from the appraiser who lied about her house value.
I have uploaded all of the relevant docs from the WV Supreme Court web site, and a news article overviewing the status of a few months ago.  The file is about 19MB in size, a combined PDF.  Get it here:

I encourage all mortgagors, whether or not in foreclosure to download and read it ENTIRELY and LEARN from it.  Why?  Because it shows what a competent lawyer can do.  Because of a prior relationship, and the extent of the provable injuries, the Lawyer took Brown's case on contingency for 40% of the winnings.  Most mortgagors will have a hard time finding lawyers willing to take such cases on contingency because most don't have the money to fund the litigation.  Brown, previously a Licensed Practical Nurse, certainly could not have afforded the litigation on her own.  And she could not have managed or litigated the case on her own.
I also encourage all mortgagors to look carefully at the potential outcomes of fighting a foreclosure and attacking the mortgage like Brown's lawyer did.  Nearly ALL foreclosure battles result in loss of the house because the Foreclosure Defense lawyers refuse to look at the inception of the mortgage for causes of action against the lender and lender's agents, and even if they find such causes, they merely engage in dilatory tactics to delay the inevitable foreclosure as long as possible.
If you don't believe this, ask Lisa Epstein whether she saved her house from through defending against the foreclosure, whether she knows ANYONE who has won anything more than a temporary dismissal with such a tactic, and whether her favorite law firm has ever won a damages and fees award because of attacking the mortgage as in Brown.  Excuse me while I tell you the uncomfortable answer:  NO - NO FORECLOSURE BATTLE EVER WINS ANYTHING except a delay - it just leads the mortgagor to ultimate loss of the house or an onerous loan mod that leaves them worse off than before financially.
I point out the above because issue with Lisa Epstein because for some reason she or one of her associates purged my previous article from this blog, EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT SELL ANY SERVICE OR PRODUCT AND DO NOT CHARGE ANY FEE.  Her deleting my article constitutes a waste of her and my time and does a DISSERVICE to the subscribers who NEED the data I provide FREE.
I can think of only one motive for her purging my blog articles:  MONEY.  Somehow, she must earn money from some foreclosure defense service, and she cannot tolerate my telling people the truth that foreclosure defense of a valid mortgage which the borrower breached CANNOT bear worthy fruit, and so people who hire lawyers for such defenses merely throw their money away on worthless legal services.
Don't worry. I shall post on my OWN blog THIS blog entry along with my previous blog entry which Lisa deleted.  Sadly, maybe she'll delete this one too.  
FYI, I have created a web site which explains the principles of MORTGAGE ATTACK and sells nothing but ideas.   Check it out.  You might learn something valuable for free.

Call me if you need help with your mortgage, whether or not you face foreclosure, OR if you want to sue your foreclosure pretender defender lawyer for pretending to help you while he knowingly led you to lose your house and neglected to examine the mortgage for underlying causes of action.
Bob Hurt 727 669 5511
Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t 
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Proof of How to Punish Your Abusive Mortgage Lender

Here's Proof that A Talented Attorney Can Beat the Stuffing out of a Crooked Mortgage Lender

10 July 2014 by Bob Hurt. 727 669 5511. Okay to distribute this freely.

The Beauty of Brown v Quicken Loans

The outcome of the Brown v Quicken Loans case gives hope to all mortgage victims and should embarrass all Foreclosure Pretense Defense Attorneys.  This compilation  shows the public and the legal community HOW TO BEAT THE ABUSIVE MORTGAGE LENDER and obtain a nearly $5 million judgmentI challenge every Mortgagor to READ the above-linked document COMPLETELY.

Hats off to Jim Bordas and Jason Causey of Bordas & Bordas Law firm, Wheeling WV, for engineering the defeat of Quicken Loans and using the LAW to bludgeon them into submission.  I expect the final opinion in Quicken's second appeal from the WV Supreme Court soon.

The Key to Winning - Attack the Mortgage, NOT the Foreclosure.

How did the Bordas team win?  They examined the mortgage and discovered a horror story of criminal and civil abuses by lender Quicken Loans.  Quicken made the loan so toxic they couldn't sell or securitize it.

Quicken refused to offer Brown a reasonable settlement, so Bordas sued, and won a whopping $2+ million judgment.  Quicken appealed, the Supreme Court of WV remanded, the trial court upped the judgment to nearly $5 million.  Quicken appealed again, and the Supreme Court of WV will soon end the case with a final opinion against Quicken.

What lesson shall we learn from this?  Just this... If you face foreclosure, you need a comprehensive mortgage examination to prove the causes of action against the lender, and you need a lawyer willing and able to attack the mortgage, not merely defend against the foreclosure.

If your lawyer won't seek and find the causes of action underlying your mortgage and then attack the lender on that basis, you need to FIRE that attorney.  Don't rest until you have found a competent litigator like Jim Bordas. 

Legal Malpractice Lawsuit Opportunities for Foreclosure Victims

If you have already lost your home to foreclosure AND you had a lawyer helping you who FAILED to seek causes of action or to attack on that basis, you may have a valid legal malpractice claim against that attorney. Call me at 727 669 5511 to discuss your issues.

Step-by-Step Plan for Coming Out Ahead

In order to save your home from foreclosure, or become able to negotiate a cram-down of the loan balance (and other favorable terms), or to sue the lender for injuring you, you must do one thing first:
  1. HIRE A COMPETENT MORTGAGE EXAMINER OR ATTORNEY to examine your mortgage and find all the causes of action. 
Of course, a good mortgage examiner will charge you a fraction of what the lawyer will charge, IF you can find an examiner or lawyer with the requisite competence.  Which worries me.  Which is why I have gone to the trouble of writing this message.

Read then call 727 669 5511 for more info.  I know the only competent professional mortgage examiner in America. 
  1. If the examination report reveals causes of action (torts, breaches, legal errors) against the lender or lender's agents (title company,  mortgage broker, appraiser, servicer)...
    1. Notify the servicer and then attempt to negotiate a settlement.  I suggest finding a "CLOSER" type of lawyer to negotiate for you.  I suggest a "loan mod" type of settlement where the lender lowers the balance to the present market value, gives a favorable fixed interest rate, sets the term for 30 years, no prepayment penalty, assumable, no balloon, forgive arrears and legal fees/costs.  If this fails...

    2. Sue via complaint, counter complaint, cross complaint as necessary.  I suggest hiring a COMPETENT lawyer (not a foreclosure pretender defender) for this purpose.  If possible, find one to take your case on contingency.  The lawyer will use the causes of action from the mortgage examination report to formulate the pleading.

    3. Go to next step if you have no money or no causes of action.
  2. DO NOT let your home go to foreclosure final judgment.  If you do, it will haunt your credit record for 10 years AND (depending on your state) leave you owing a huge deficiency judgment when the auction does not bring enough money to discharge your debt.  Instead, try to work with the lender to do one of these:
    1. Short-Sale:  Bank agrees that you may sell the house at a discounted price in order to end the foreclosure, and hand over all the proceeds from the sale to the bank.  This imposes some work and stress on you, but if you have equity in the house (it has higher resale value than you owe on the mortgage note), this should be your first choice
    2. Keys-for-Cash:  Bank pays you cash ($2,000 to $20,000, depending on the value of the home) to move out, leave the home broom clean, and deed the property to the bank.   This can save a huge litigation cost for the bank, and make leaving the property less stressful for you.  Sometimes a mortgage examination can reveal weak causes of action that can pressure the bank to give you a Keys-for-Cash deal.

    3. Deed-in-Lieu-of-Foreclosure:  Same as Keys-for-Cash, except the bank gives you no cash.

Take the Right Action - Contact Me NOW

Okay, I have given you the proof that you can beat your abusive lender, and I have shown you the strategic plan for doing so.  If you simply refuse to do what I have outlined above, then you really deserve to lose your home to foreclosure, or to make underwater loan payments.  But if you feel READY TO ACT SENSIBLY, contact me immediately for help.

And if you don't need help, SOMEBODY you know DOES.  Pass on this message and encourage your friends, associates, family members, loved ones to call me or write me for help.  And send them to for an education on the issues.

No, I have no authorization to practice law or give legal advice, so I refrain from both.  But I'll discuss the academic and strategic business aspects of your situation as necessary.

Yes, if you fit into the category of "Foreclosure Pretender Defender,"  you can contact me too, and I'll help you the best I can.  Believe it or not, training for kool-aid drinkers like you has become available.  Sorry, no CLE credits.

AND... I don't charge money for giving business guidance.  So, what do you have to lose?  Give me a call.


Bob Hurt            Blog 1 2 3   f  t 
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
Email Call: (727) 669-5511
Law Studies: Donate   E-Letter Subscribe
Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary