The proposed new application would also allow consumers to shop around for the best mortgage offers, according to Dow Jones.

Jeff Kaufmann, senior partner at KEL Attorneys, said the planned revamp of the paperwork is a huge win for consumers.

“Right now, these people are brutally confused,” Kaufmann said. “Normally, around the country it’s just notaries present at a home closing. You are signing 29 documents in 15 minutes—it’s like rapid fire.”

Before the housing meltdown, and still today, many consumers are just happy to be able to secure a loan, he said. Therefore, they are not taking the time to ask what their exact monthly payment will be, or even what type of a mortgage they are getting.

Original article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/05/20/cfpb-announces-plans-simplify-mortgage-process/#ixzz1MuI2dtfV

According to a document obtained by The Huffington Post, Palm Beach County has already started cancelling foreclosure cases. “Because of the lack of funding from the Florida legislature, judges will be unable to preside over foreclosure trials beginning July 1, 2011,” the order reads.

Florida created its special foreclosure-only courts in order to prevent the enormous load of eviction cases from overwhelming other judicial functions. These courts earned their “rocket docket” label as judges began pushing through foreclosure cases as fast as possible, under circumstances that consumer advocates claim make it difficult for borrowers to receive a fair hearing. Judges routinely hear hundreds of cases in a day, with some hearings last as little as 20 seconds. Attorneys for homeowners say the courts do not receive sufficient funding to handle their caseloads.

The Florida foreclosure courts came to national attention last summer as major banks and their lawyers were accused of a massive robo-signing scandal, in which employees signed thousands of key foreclosure documents a day without reviewing them for accuracy. These shoddy, questionably legal practices mirrored those employed by the state’s eviction judges.

“Those foreclosure courts are a joke,” says Matt Englett, a partner at the Florida law firm Kaufman Englett Lynd PLLC. “The judges just ran ‘em through. And we could appeal them and win. But if you can’t afford to appeal them, you’re stuck.” Englett notes that rocket-docket judges often don’t even review documents or evidence in the cases, but simply ask a few questions before making a ruling — generally in favor of the bank. “A lot of this robo-signing — if they’re in front of a real judge, they would have to look at these things,” Englett says.

In March, Republican Governor Rick Scott approved a $14 million loan to foreclosure courts statewide that must be repaid by the end of the state’s fiscal year on June 30. And the governor’s office says no additional funding will be coming on July 1. Judges are already cancelling hearings in anticipation of the funding shortage.

If the the Florida’s foreclosure courts shutdown, which attorneys in the state currently expect, the result may well be a heavy burden on its overall judicial system. But homeowners battling the banks will likely benefit. Many claim lenders’ lawyers have served them with fraudulent documents that overstate their loan balances and misrepresent their cases.

Zach Carter zach.carter@huffingtonpost.com Become a fan of this reporter

GET UPDATES FROM Zach

Like

466

‘Awful’ Florida Foreclosure Courts May Shut Down Due To GOP Budget Cuts

In a turn of events that consumer advocates are celebrating, Florida’s infamous “rocket docket” foreclosure courts may be on the verge of extinction, thanks to state budget cuts.

According to a document obtained by The Huffington Post, Palm Beach County has already started cancelling foreclosure cases. “Because of the lack of funding from the Florida legislature, judges will be unable to preside over foreclosure trials beginning July 1, 2011,” the order reads.

Florida created its special foreclosure-only courts in order to prevent the enormous load of eviction cases from overwhelming other judicial functions. These courts earned their “rocket docket” label as judges began pushing through foreclosure cases as fast as possible, under circumstances that consumer advocates claim make it difficult for borrowers to receive a fair hearing. Judges routinely hear hundreds of cases in a day, with some hearings last as little as 20 seconds. Attorneys for homeowners say the courts do not receive sufficient funding to handle their caseloads.

The Florida foreclosure courts came to national attention last summer as major banks and their lawyers were accused of a massive robo-signing scandal, in which employees signed thousands of key foreclosure documents a day without reviewing them for accuracy. These shoddy, questionably legal practices mirrored those employed by the state’s eviction judges.

“Those foreclosure courts are a joke,” says Matt Englett, a partner at the Florida law firm Kaufman Englett Lynd PLLC. “The judges just ran ‘em through. And we could appeal them and win. But if you can’t afford to appeal them, you’re stuck.” Englett notes that rocket-docket judges often don’t even review documents or evidence in the cases, but simply ask a few questions before making a ruling — generally in favor of the bank. “A lot of this robo-signing — if they’re in front of a real judge, they would have to look at these things,” Englett says.

In March, Republican Governor Rick Scott approved a $14 million loan to foreclosure courts statewide that must be repaid by the end of the state’s fiscal year on June 30. And the governor’s office says no additional funding will be coming on July 1. Judges are already cancelling hearings in anticipation of the funding shortage.

If the the Florida’s foreclosure courts shutdown, which attorneys in the state currently expect, the result may well be a heavy burden on its overall judicial system. But homeowners battling the banks will likely benefit. Many claim lenders’ lawyers have served them with fraudulent documents that overstate their loan balances and misrepresent their cases.

“They’re going to have the foreclosure court cases transferred to the regular circuit court judges,” Englett tells HuffPost. “It’s really a good thing for people in foreclosure, because now you’ll have judges who will actually hear the cases instead of just try to ram ‘em through, which is going on right now.”

The foreclosure courts are operated on a county-by-county basis. While some counties with fewer homeowners in default may remain open, lawyers expect to see courts in the major foreclosure hotbeds shutting down in the coming weeks.

Former Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), an ardent critic of Florida’s foreclosure system during his time in office, blasted both the foreclosure courts and Scott’s funding strategy in an email exchange with HuffPost.

“They’re awful,” Grayson writes, referring to the rocket dockets. “The whole point of the justice system is to apply the law to the facts. Simply pushing as many cases through as possible, at the highest possible speed, resembles sausage-making more than due process.”

“But what’s even worse,” he adds, “is that Rick Scott is gutting the legal system, one of the core functions of government, in order to finance more tax cuts for the rich, since Scott is insisting on eliminating the corporate income tax.”

Both the governor and the Florida legislature could approve more funds for the foreclosure courts at any time before July 1. But doing so would involve a significant loss of political face for Scott, who is embroiled in other political spats with the state’s judicial system over a new “non-partisan” redistricting plan that voters approved by direct ballot last fall. And for now, at least, Scott isn’t offering up any more funds.

“This is a question of the courts being able to live within their means,” Scott spokesman Lane Wright tells HuffPost. “We’ve got a budget and we’ve gotta stick to it.”

Original Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/florida-rocket-docket-forclosure-courts-budget-cuts_n_864063.html

The expert, Lynn Szymoniak, an attorney who specializes in white-collar crime, is widely considered on Capitol Hill to be one of the nation’s top experts on foreclosure law. When Deutsche Bank attempted to jack up the interest rate on the mortgage for her Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., home in May 2008, she contested the move, setting off an investigation which unveiled mountains of forged signatures and fraudulent bank paperwork associated with the foreclosure process.

Szymoniak alerted other attorneys, neighborhood advocates, lawmakers and the media about the apparent rampant fraud. She appeared on “60 Minutes” in April to discuss the broader foreclosure scandal [video appended below].

Her own home has been in foreclosure since June 2008. A month earlier, she had been notified that the interest rate on her adjustable-rate mortgage was being raised, increasing her monthly payments by about $1,000. But the terms of her mortgage only allowed interest-rate hikes at certain dates.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Szymoniak noted that Deutsche Bank was not acting within the allowed timeframe.

“They missed my adjustment date, and then when they figured it out, they just slapped that higher payment on anyway,” she said. “I paid one payment at the higher rate and then I said, ‘This is ridiculous.’ And I stopped paying and then they sued me in June ’08.”

After she’d been sued, Szymoniak said, she began investigating the documentation on Florida foreclosures, uncovering alarming irregularities, including signatures that were apparently forged. If so, those signatures allowed banks to push foreclosures through overly quickly, charge improper fees and assert improperly inflated borrower debts.

Shortly after appearing on “60 Minutes” Szymoniak won a major victory in her own foreclosure case. The court found that Deutsche Bank was unable to demonstrate ownership of her mortgage, which had originally been issued by the defunct subprime mortgage lender Option One, and threw the case out.

Deutsche Bank was permitted to refile their case if the bank could obtain proper documentation, however. And on Friday, May 6, Szymoniak received a notification from the bank’s lawyers that she was again being sued for foreclosure.

But Deutsche Bank wasn’t just going after her. The bank was also attempting to sue her son, Mark Cullen, who is currently pursuing a graduate degree in poetry at the New School in New York. Cullen hasn’t lived in Szymoniak’s house for seven years and is not a party to any aspect of her mortgage — he has no interest in either the property or the loan, and never has had any such interest, according to Szymoniak.

“It is just absolute harassment,” Szymoniak said. “He doesn’t own anything, for god’s sake! He’s getting a masters in poetry. He not only doesn’t have any money, he’s never going to have any money.”

And other Florida foreclosure experts say it’s difficult to interpret Deutsche Bank’s move as anything other than retaliation for Szymoniak’s media presence. If it is not, in fact, retaliation, they argue, then Deutsche Bank’s lawyers have demonstrated rank incompetence.

“It sounds crazy,” said Margery Golant, a principal with the foreclosure defense law firm of Golant & Golant PA in Florida. “I can think of no legitimate reason, if he doesn’t have some connection to the property or to the mortgage, to include him in an action to foreclosure.”

“It’s an intimidation tool,” said Matt Englett, a partner at the Florida law firm Kaufman Englett Lynd PLLC. “Most people, they get scared and they get nervous and I think that’s the effect that they’re trying to have on him and his mother.”

“If he’s not an owner of the house, it’s pretty clearly just vindictive,” said Joshua Rosner, the managing director of Graham Fisher & Co., a mortgage investment firm. “If they’re doing it intentionally, that’s one hell of a statement. If they’re doing it randomly, that’s still pretty incredible.”

The experts said the lawsuit against Szymoniak’s son could also have negative implications for him beyond the immediate costs of fighting the foreclosure case, even though he has no financial interest in anything related to it.

“He’s going to have a lawsuit out there against him,” Englett said, “so if someone were to do some kind of background check against him, that would come up.”

Update:

Deutsche Bank maintains that it is not to blame, and notes that while it is legally listed as the plaintiff in the Szymoniak foreclosure case, another company directs the actual legal maneuvering.

“Pursuant to the aforementioned contracts for securitization trusts, loan servicers, and not the trustee, are responsible for foreclosure-related legal proceedings. The attorneys and law firms who oversee foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the trusts are engaged by loan servicers rather than the trustee. Loan servicers are obligated to adhere to all legal requirements, and Deutsche Bank, as trustee, has consistently informed servicers that they are required to execute these actions in a proper and timely manner,” said Deutsche Bank spokesman John Gallagher.

Original post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/deutsche-bank-lynn-szymoniak_n_861900.html

The plaintiffs claim they have lost money because Toyota failed to either disclose or fix the defects in their cars that made them accelerate without warning, Reuters reported. Meanwhile, the automaker stands by its claims that the models were not defective.

Matt Englett, partner at KEL Attorneys, said the consumers have a good case, as long as they can prove the vehicles are actually defective.

“Consumers are saying their cars are now worth a lot less than they should be,” Englett said. “They’re right, as long as they can prove the cars are actually defective. It’s the plaintiff’s burden to prove that, and I think that’s where they may run into some problems.”

The nature of the case is extremely technical, he said, and the plaintiffs will likely enlist an army of experts to testify on their behalf. Starting this lawsuit process in California is likely due to the state’s more liberal mentality toward consumer law, he said.

Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, banks are required by law to post notices on or around the ATM – and not just within the digital screen — about their ATM fees for non-customers. Class action suits against banks failing to post the info have been popping up across the country, according to USA Today, and in Michigan alone, more than 30 lawsuits are pending. Members of such class action suits can receive up to $1,000 if the court finds against the banks, and Independent Bank recently settled for $350,000 for not properly posting its fees, USA Today reported.

Matt Englett, partner at KEL attorneys, said many consumers are not actually aware that a separate fee notification must be visibly posted outside of an ATM. The class action suits being filed are worth pursuing, Englett said, because many banks are purposely not posting their fees.

“It’s not a nuisance lawsuit by any means,” he said. “If you’re already in the process of getting your money and then the fee pops up, you’re more apt to continue with the transaction, which is probably why they aren’t putting the signs up outside the machines.”

But Doug Johnson, vice president of Risk Management Policy at the American Bankers Association, said the consumer lawsuits that have reportedly been cropping up are inconsequential and will not do anything to benefit bank customers in the end.

Original article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/04/26/atm-fee-lawsuits/

Five of the nation’s largest banks have outlined their plans to resolve a nationwide investigation of mortgage-servicing practices.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the banks sent government officials a proposal Monday discussing standards they would follow as a part of settlement abuses in the real estate industry. The proposal was sent in response to a term sheet state attorneys general sent to the banks earlier this month, which would require them to consider reducing mortgage principles for borrowers under water. The government talked of a settlement sum in the range of $20 billion, but according to the Journal, the document the banks drew up doesn’t include any discussion of principle reductions or a potential sum that banks could pay for borrower relief or penalties. Bank leaders are meeting with government officials on Capitol Hill Wednesday to address the matter.

Matt Englett, managing partner at KEL Attorneys, said although it isn’t likely, he is hopeful the two sides will resolve the settlement terms swiftly. This way a full-blow litigation process can be avoided.

“As consumer advocates, we want a process set up where every single person in jeopardy can go through some type of set procedure to be quickly vetted for a loan modification, to see if they qualify,” Englett said, “so that we can keep the people that can afford to stay in their homes, in their homes.”

The banks’ draft proposal included an outline for “borrower portal” that would allow customers to check the status of their loan modifications online, as well as a third-party review of foreclosures and a single point of contact for troubled borrowers.

The government proposal for $20 billion in principle reductions is nowhere near where it needs to be to actually help those in foreclosure, Englett said. The sum would have to be four-to-five times the amount being discussed in order to offer real relief. The $20 billion would leave people with between $6,000 and $10,000 in principle reductions.

“This is one aspect of things that is very controversial,” he said. “Everyone is missing the boat on that. If you extrapolate that number over the number of people who would qualify for that, it’s not enough to keep them in the game. If you are under water with your mortgage, it’s not enough to keep you in the game.”

Resource: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/03/29/banks-mortgage-investigation-settlement/

Valrico, Florida -  A civil wrongful death suit was filed Monday in Hillsborough County court against Trevor Dooley, the man accused of shooting a father in front of his 8-year-old daughter on a neighborhood basketball court.

The complaint was filed after a failed attempt for a resolution in mediation, according the father’s family attorneys Eric Faddis and Matthew Englett.

David “DJ” James was playing basketball with his daughter, Danielle, on their neighborhood’s basketball courts, as they often did on Sunday afternoon’s, when he overheard Dooley
confronting a teenager who was skateboarding on the courts.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputies say James was defending the teenager when Dooley went back to his home across the street and retrieved a handgun, which he then
showed to James.

This is when investigators say James lunged toward Dooley to get the gun away from the children and it went off, striking him in the chest.

The wrongful death suit seeks unspecified damages.

Original article: http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/182624/8/Wrongful-death-suit-filed-against-Trevor-Dooley

By Kate Rogers

Published February 17, 2011 | FOXBusiness

In California the cashier can no longer ask for your zip code during a purchase. But even if this isn’t the law in your state, you should know if they do ask, you don’t have to answer.

Last week California’s Supreme Court ruled that asking for a zip code infringes upon consumer rights. The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 prohibits stores from recording a consumer’s “personal identification information” during credit transactions – and the ruling labeled a zip code as personal information. Since the ruling, consumers have filed class action suits against major retailers in California, including Target, Wal-Mart and Victoria’s Secret. The penalty for requesting such information can be anywhere between a penny and $1,000.

Matt Valdes, senior associate attorney at Kaufman Englett & Lynd Attorneys in Orlando, Fla., said nearly a dozen states already have laws in place against recording consumers’ personal information, like zip codes, and the ruling may prompt these states to reevaluate their own policies. Credit card companies like MasterCard and Visa also have their own rules about such information.

“This will open up the door for similar actions in those states,” Valdes said. “This allows zip codes to be considered personal identification information.”

Many consumers have no idea that there is no law stating stores need the zip code to complete credit transactions and they are not obligated to comply with such requests, he said. A retailer can request an ID to complete a credit purchase, but it is illegal to record any information from the ID.

“People just do it uniformly,” Valdes said of giving their zip codes to stores. “People think that they are doing it to confirm it’s their card and protect you, but in reality they are doing it for their own marketing.”

Retailers often run a reverse check on the shopper to obtain their address information, and then proceed to send them marketing information, according to Valdes. These mailing lists are often duplicated and sold to other retailers.

In the event he injures someone or damages another’s property during our tours, could other club members be held financially or criminally responsible, since we are all privy to his condition?

W.R., Clermont

Answer: Generally speaking, the car club could be held liable for damages and/or personal injury to people or property caused by the blind member’s driving. This is especially true at events sponsored or promoted by the car club.

The liability relationship between a car club and a member are much like that between an employer and employee. It is well settled in Florida law that employers may be held liable for the wrongs of employees if these actions committed were authorized by the employer or with the employer’s knowledge.

Moreover, the officers or organizers of the club events could face individually liability for the negligence or wrongful acts of another member, if they approved of the acts taken by that member. While his condition is very sad, the best way to avoid liability is to not allow this member to drive a vehicle during a club-sponsored event.

Question answered by attorney Jeffrey Kaufman of Kaufman, Englett & Lynd.

Original Article on Orlando Sentinel

When borrowing from a mortgage lender, prospective home buyers are often anxious and eager to secure the loan itself, and sometimes therefore overlook key issues in the process.

Jeffrey Kaufman, partner at Kaufman Englett & Lynd Attorneys, PLLC, said his firm currently represents thousands of people facing foreclosure and bankruptcy who could’ve avoided the situation if they had better investigated the fine print before getting in over their heads with lenders.

“It’s painful right now,” Kaufman said. “They trusted everything, and were led astray.”

Here are three questions every borrower should ask before signing with a mortgage broker:

No. 1: What are my closing costs? While many lenders will tell buyers there are ‘no closing costs,’ fees are often added onto the backend, including government charges and application fees, according to Kaufman.

“You need to know your total costs before you get to the table,” Kaufman said. “Sometimes there is an additional $4,000 or $5,000 and lenders say you have to ‘sign now, or you will lose the mortgage.’“ In that case, he said, borrowers have to be willing to walk away if the lender was dishonest about costs.

No. 2: What kind of mortgage do I have? If you have a fixed mortgage rate, the interest cannot go up, but adjustable rates can see costs add up over the course of the loan.

“They can change your interest rates with an adjustable loan, meaning you will pay a lot more over its life,” Kaufman said. “It picks up really quick.”

No. 3: How long will my guaranteed rate last? If a broker gives you a guaranteed rate on your loan, timing is key.

“If it only lasts a week, then by the time you get your house it may not count anymore,” Kaufman said. “You have to lock in a time frame.”

Read original article here