Foreclosure Mills Liable Under FDCPA

“When interpreting a statute, the court must begin with the text.[e.s.]  Allen ex rel. Martin v. LaSalle Bank, NA., 629 F.3d 364, 367 (3d Cir. 2011). “If the statute’s plain language is unambiguous and expresses [Congress’s] intent with sufficient precision, we need not look further.” Psaros v Green Tree, NJ Federal District Court (New Jersey) Case #15-4277 (JLL)(JAD)

Editor’s Note: Another decision that corroborates what I have been saying for years — that excellent actions for damages lie against both the servicers (and Trustees) AND the law firms that represent them.

=================================

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation.

Our services consist mainly of the following:

1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys

2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys

3. Case review and analysis

4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording

5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review

6. Expert witness declarations and testimony

7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners

8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.

================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see PSAROS-v.-GREEN-TREE-SERVICING-LLC.

see also Goodin v Bank of America NA

*

Both of the cases in the above links are worthy of intense study. For one thing I have found that lawyers who skimmed the statute didn’t realize that damages were NOT limited to $1,000 per violation, plus fees and costs. Compensatory damages including that for emotional distress are readily available upon a proper showing.

*

But the other thing I found interesting is that this recent case (end of December for the Psaros case) specifically references the beginning and end of a court’s authority to “interpret” the statute and specifically refers to FDCPA as a remedial statute clearly intended to lean in favor of borrowers, not the banks.

*

I would suggest that when a Judge starts ranting about how he or she is not going to rule in favor of the borrower on their objections and claims for rescission, FDCPA claims etc, that the lawyer ask a simple question: “Your Honor, what part of the statute  do you find ambiguous?” When they can’t answer that question (because all courts in the land have established that there is no ambiguity, then “Your Honor, in the absence of finding an ambiguity, the court lacks authority to interpose an interpretation.

*