NJ FDCPA Case: Psaros v Green Tree et al

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 

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.

Also see https://fightforeclosuredotnet.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/what-homeowners-must-know-about-pleading-their-wrongful-foreclosure-cases-in-the-courts/

Hat tip to Ken MCLeod

I have already written about this case. But at the promoting of my friend Ken McLeod, it deserves further comment. This is a New Jersey Federal case based upon violations of the FDCPA. The court found that the Plaintiff had indeed stated a case not only against the parties seeking to collect from him, but also the law firm who certified they had done due diligence.

In this case the facts were very clear. They threw him under the bus of foreclosure for failure to pay insurance premiums which, as it turned out, had indeed been paid. Thus the case stated that the law firm and the alleged claimant were wrong and that they had misstated the amount allegedly due, which is the essence of the FDCPA remedial act.

The interesting thing about the opinion written by the NJ Federal Judge is that he picked up on the fact that representations in court ARE included in the scope of the FDCPA. Usually the general rule is what is said in court stays in court. Not so, says this Judge relying upon several other decisions. And I agree with his interpretation. Based upon Congress’ exclusion of court proceedings in other statutes and Congress’ failure to put that language in FDCPA, he correctly concluded that Congress didn’t put it in FDCPA because they didn’t want it in.

So it would appear that most foreclosure mills that are proffering documents or testimony that they knew or should have known to be false are liable for all sorts of damages.  And law firms are in for a nasty surprise if they are relying upon the indemnification of a servicers or even a bank (who is signing not on their own behalf but as trustee of a trust). Borrowers who have been wrongfully foreclosed probably have a cause of action against the law firm and the “plaintiff” (Judicial states) or against the law firm and the “Trustee and Beneficiary” (nonjudicial states).

Like rescission, the FDCPA is a path to clarity and reality of what is really happening. Law firms who represent banks and servicers should take note that they are walking into a buzz saw if they are relying upon the truthfulness of their clients.