Best Foreclosure Defense Attorney

Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen Stops Another Bank from Wrongfully Foreclosing

November 4, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen, P.A.

This foreclosure case was the result of a bank force-placing insurance with its wholly-owned subsidiary for exorbitant profit. Our client had his own insurance with some of the best companies in the world and continued to make his timely, full payments. But the bank rejected those payments and continued to demand our client pay for insurance he did not need.

From our very first meeting, our client was adamant about his claims. He’s a retired businessman, having worked his way up from being a car washer to owning several car dealerships. He could afford his payments and kept damn good records of the entire history of his dealings with the mortgage and insurance companies.

We needed some time to review multiple issues in the case so our first filing was a motion for enlargement of time. After filing an answer, we propounded request for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. Two months later, the bank responded late to our request for admissions and filed a motion to enlarge the time for them to respond to all our discovery. A few days later, we asked the other side how much time they needed to respond. They immediately propounded their own discovery and filed a notice that the case was ready for trial! The following day, we agreed to 35 days for them to respond to our discovery. They obtained a trial date of June 1, 2016 and Plaintiff set the deposition of our client for May 9th.

Even Though She Paid, The Bank Still Tried to Take Our Client’s Home!

July 9, 2019 | by The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen, P.A.

As detailed below, there were never any issues with this loan until a new servicer took over. At no point in time was this client unable to pay her mortgage payments. But for the bank and its debt collector/servicer, this case should never have been filed.

Our client has lived in her condominium for over 20 years. She’s had a full-time job with the same company for over 23 years, making approximately $63,000 per year. Her mortgage payment is $662.56 per month. Underwriting standards dictate that housing debt is generally affordable so long as it does not exceed 28% of a person’s income. Our client’s housing debt is 10% of her income. For many years, until the incidents leading up to this case, our client’s mortgage payments were auto debited from her checking account without issue. She had no issue affording this loan, ever.

And, she has always paid her taxes and her association dues, which includes insurance. There were no escrows.

Outstanding Compliments From the Honorable Judge Rodolfo Ruiz

November 2, 2018 | by The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen, P.A.

Read the outstanding compliments the Honorable Judge Rodolfo Ruiz recently gave Mr. Rosen. Transcript of Hearing Excerpt

Another Trial, Another Win!

October 30, 2018 | by The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen, P.A.

After years of litigation and a hard-fought trial, the team worked tirelessly to prepare this memorandum: 2018-10-15 Reply to P’s Amended Memo of Law on Standing

Ten days later the Judge ruled – Case Dismissed! 2018-10-25 Signed Order on D’s Mtn for Involuntary Dismissal

Another trial, another win!

Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen Wins Foreclosure Trial Based on Fraud on the Court

August 17, 2015 | by The Law Offices of Evan M. Rosen, P.A.

A few years ago, great lawyers who are pioneers in our field, tried to blaze a trail alleging fraud in a foreclosure case. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Florida. Despite finding that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appeared to be tainted with suspect documents,” the Court ultimately held that since the bank didn’t get away with it, it’s not fraud. Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2013). The Florida Supreme Court would not even commit to stating that sanctions would be warranted for the bank’s attempted use of fabricated evidence. Id.

Before the case reached the highest court in our state, Justice Polen relayed the words of Justice Farmer, writing that:

Decision-making in our courts depends on genuine, reliable evidence. The system cannot tolerate even an attempted use of fraudulent documents and false evidence in our courts. The judicial branch long ago recognized its responsibility to deal with, and punish, the attempted use of false and fraudulent evidence. When such an attempt has been colorably raised by a party, courts must be most vigilant to address the issue and pursue it to a resolution.