Foreclosure cases don’t usually have these dramatic scenes. In fact, many foreclosure suits are resolved without a trial, in a procedure known as “summary judgment.”

Lenders often file summary judgment motions in hopes of resolving the case quickly. As a borrower, you should understand that if the court grants a summary judgment motion, the case is decided in the lender’s favor, and a foreclosure judgment will be entered against you and a foreclosure sale date will be set by the court (usually in 30 days).

Summary judgment proceedings begin when one party to a lawsuit files a written motion for summary judgment with the court. The motion asks the court to decide two things: (1) that there are no factual issues in dispute; and (2) that based on the undisputed facts, the party making the motion is legally entitled to a judgment in his or her favor.

The motion will include legal arguments and supporting evidence. For example, in a foreclosure case, the lender’s evidence might include the promissory Note, the default letter that was sent to the borrower, and a payment history. The motion will also typically include affidavits establishing that the documents are authentic and admissible as evidence.

The lender must send opposing parties a copy of the motion and information about the date and time of the hearing. Borrowers and other parties to the lawsuit can file written responses to the motion. A response will usually raise factual issues, attack the lender’s evidence, or make a legal argument.

When a borrower doesn’t respond to the motion, the court will usually grant summary judgment in the lender’s favor. But in one recent case, a homeowner who was unable to attend a summary judgment hearing won reversal of a foreclosure judgment.

In Hubsch v. Howell Creek Reserve Community, a homeowner’s association had filed a lawsuit to foreclose based on unpaid association dues. The unfortunate homeowner was in prison, but she did file an answer denying the claims in the lawsuit. When the lender filed a motion for summary judgment, the homeowner asked to continue the hearing to a later date or to appear at the hearing by telephone.

The court denied the motion to continue but ignored the motion to appear by phone. The homeowner’s daughter then showed up at the hearing and – without her mother’s consent — agreed to a foreclosure judgment. The court entered judgment in the lender’s favor. Not surprisingly, the homeowner appealed.

The Court of Appeal said that prisoners are entitled to defend themselves in lawsuits, but must let the court know their intentions. In this case, the homeowner told the court she wanted to appear in court and raise a defense, and asked to appear by phone. When the court ignored the request, it denied the homeowner her due process rights. Because of this, the appeals court overturned the foreclosure judgment.

Nuestros abogados especializados en ejecuciones hipotecarias en Miami desean hacer hincapié en la importancia de buscar asesoría legal experimentada cuando se trata con Asociaciones de Propietarios. Puede existir primero la posibilidad de negociar un acuerdo con la Asociación para pagar un monto reducido, permitiendo que el propietario evite la ejecución hipotecaria. Por otra parte, un buen abogado puede ayudar a garantizar que el monto que se le ordena pagar en realidad está en consonancia con lo que adeuda.

En el reciente caso de Diwakar vs. Montecito, la Corte de Apelaciones del Cuarto Distrito de Florida se puso del lado de la propietaria en dos de los seis puntos de contención, tras un fallo final de ejecución hipotecaria y la adjudicación de honorarios legales y costas a su Asociación de Propietarios.

Aunque la propietaria planteó varios puntos en la Apelación, los dos en los cuales el Panel de Apelaciones encontró base jurídica fueron un presunto error en la adjudicación de los honorarios legales, ausencia de cualquier evidencia sustancial que respalde el monto y un fallo por moras en el mantenimiento mensual de aproximadamente $8,000 más de lo respaldado por la evidencia presentada.

El Panel de Apelaciones estuvo de acuerdo en ambos puntos, revocando la decisión de la Corte de Primera Instancia en estos asuntos y haciendo una remisión para acciones futuras.

Según los registros de la corte, la Asociación presentó una demanda para lograr una ejecución hipotecarias por cuotas ordinarias y extraordinarias impagas. Además, la Asociación intentó cobrar intereses anteriores al fallo y los honorarios/costas que se incurrieron mientras se trataba cobrar las cuotas.

El hecho de que la propietaria estuviera significativamente atrasada en sus cuotas no era un problema. La pregunta era en cuánto, y además cuánto le cuesta a la asociación recuperar las pérdidas.

En el juicio, la Asociación ofreció el testimonio de un solo auxiliar jurídico que trabajó para su abogado contratado en la rendición de cuentas de los honorarios legales. Este auxiliar jurídico había preparado el historial de las cuentas e indicado que los honorarios legales por cuenta de la demandada ascendían a casi $46,000. Aunque los documentos del historial de la cuenta presentados como evidencia indican los montos y las fechas de facturación, no había ninguna información detallada sobre la forma en que se incurrieron en dichos honorarios. Sin embargo, el testimonio del auxiliar jurídico indicó que los honorarios legales cargados a la cuenta ascendían a $41,000.

Más tarde, después de que la Corte estuviera a favor de la Asociación, el juez instruyó al abogado de la asociación a preparar un fallo final propuesto. Ese fallo final escrito, presentado después de juicio, indicó que el propietario debía pagar $21,000 por cuotas en mora.

La propietaria señaló que ninguno de estos montos eran exactos ni sustentados por evidencia.

La Corte de Apelaciones estuvo de acuerdo.

En cuanto a los honorarios legales, la norma empleada por la Corte es si el monto indicado es sustentado por una “evidencia sustancial competente”, en la que se incluye un número razonable de horas y un honorario por hora razonable considerando el tipo de litigio. Además, debe ser sustentado por pruebas periciales, que generalmente incluyen el testimonio del abogado que prestó los servicios.

En este caso, el Panel de Apelaciones dictaminó que la Asociación no pudo ofrecer ninguna evidencia sobre la sensatez de los honorarios. Aunque un experto en honorarios figuraba en la lista de testigos antes del juicio presentada a la Corte, la única evidencia en este sentido hacía referencia a una fracción del trabajo, con muy poco detalle.

En segundo lugar, con respecto a la cantidad de las cuotas en mora, la Corte de Apelaciones examinó minuciosamente el expediente y solo pudo encontrar que el monto adeudado por la propietaria debía por las cuotas ascendía a $12,300. Aunque hubo algunas cuotas adicionales que se añadieron mientras estaba pendiente el juicio, el monto no podría haber superado los $14,000. La Corte no halló ninguna justificación para que la Asociación afirmara que la propietaria debía $21,000.

Por lo tanto, las dos sentencias sobre estas cuestiones fueron revocadas y remitidas a futuras audiencias para llegar a una conclusión que esté mejor sustentada por evidencia.

Póngase en contacto con el Neustein Law Group PA, abogados especializados en ejecución hipotecaria en Miami, llamando al número (305) 531-2545.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeals recently reversed an earlier judgment granting foreclosure to a loan services firm that failed to produce documentation of proper standing.

To its credit, the defense in Hunter v. Aurora Loan Services LLC readily admitted it didn’t have the appropriate records at the outset of the proceedings.

Our Miami foreclosure defense lawyers are familiar with many cases wherein the banks forged the necessary paperwork in order to push cases through the system. In fact, this was the driving force behind the “robo-signing” scandal that for years pushed Florida foreclosures through the pipeline, but ultimately brought them to a screeching halt once discovered. This was a byproduct of the frenzied real estate boom that preceded the inevitable bust. Rapid transfers were improperly recorded, and in many cases, key documents were never obtained.

While the defendant’s honesty may be appreciated by the courts, it’s not enough to win a case.

Here, the plaintiff appealed an initial victory for the mortgage loan company, which obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against him. He argued the bank lacked standing to sue for foreclosure, pointing to the trial court’s alleged reliance on evidence he said was improperly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Specifically, this improperly-admitted evidence resulted in the trial court’s finding that the company did hold the promissory note at the time the lawsuit commenced.

The appellate court sided with the plaintiff, reversing the earlier foreclosure finding.

The loan company indicated in its filing, “Complaint to Foreclose and Enforce Lost Loan Documents” that it owned and held the promissory note and the mortgage. However, it conceded it was not in physical possession of the original documents, didn’t know where they were and had no way of obtaining them.

There was evidence presented at trial that another firm was the original owner of the note and mortgage, and that this company had later assigned both to the new loan service. Among these records were computer-generated documents indicating that the borrower’s loan was sold to the new bank, that payment in full was received and that the physical note and mortgage were mailed (though it is not clear where).

By the time the case went to trial, these records were possessed by a third loan-management service. An employee was called to testify that the records were supplied by the original loan holder. However, he could not attest to personal knowledge that the documents were generated by the original loan company.

The appellate court determined that admission of these records amounted to hearsay. No one from the original loan company was called to testify regarding personal knowledge of the transfer of the note and mortgage.

Those seeking a business records exception to the hearsay rule have to show that all of the following is true:

• The record was created near or at the time of the event;
• It was created by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge;
• It was kept in the ordinary course of business activity that was regularly-conducted;
• It was regular practice for that particular business to make such a record.

These criteria, established under earlier case law, specifically Yisrael v. State and King v. Auto Supply of Jupiter, Inc., were not met.

The employee who testified as to the authenticity of the documents neither worked at the original loan company nor had any firsthand knowledge of their creation. He was unable to substantiate much of the necessary criteria to allow a business record exception.

Because the error was not harmless, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to address the borrower’s counterclaim.

The Neustein Law Group PA, Miami foreclosure attorneys, can be reached at (305) 531-2545.

El caso reciente de U.S. Bank National Association v. Bevans proviene de una acción similar, que provocó que el banco tuviera una fuerte disputa con una empresa de inversión sobre los derechos a una propiedad.

Pero empezó con las ejecuciones hipotecarias iniciadas tanto por la Asociación de Condominios como por el Banco.

En 2007, la prestataria tramitó un préstamo para comprar la residencia. Ejecutó un pagaré e hipoteca y la hipoteca fue registrada tres meses después de la venta y luego asignada al Banco.

No mucho después, la prestataria dejó de pagar tanto su hipoteca como las cuotas de la HOA.

En 2009, la Asociación de Condominios registró un gravamen contra la propiedad por las cuotas no pagadas. En última instancia, hubo dos gravámenes sobre la propiedad: el gravamen hipotecario superior, iniciado por el banco y el gravamen HOA inferior, iniciado por la asociación.

Al año siguiente, la Asociación solicitó una ejecución hipotecaria. En dicha acción, el banco no fue nombrado como demandado. Se emitió un fallo final a favor de la asociación en Palm Residence of S. Beach Condo. Ass’n v. Bevans, en el Undécimo Circuito de Florida.

A principios de 2011, el Banco solicito la ejecución hipotecaria sobre la propiedad. Al mes siguiente, se produjo la venta judicial por parte de la asociación, basada en la ejecución anterior. Un inversionista adquirió la propiedad en cuestión y luego la revendió a otro inversionista mediante escritura de finiquito.

Mientras tanto, la Corte de Primera Instancia dictó un fallo de ejecución hipotecaria a favor del Banco.

Sin embargo, el inversionista poseía el título legal de la propiedad en cuestión, ya que anteriormente el Banco no había registrado un aviso de litispendencia, aunque sí nombró a la Asociación como demandada en la acción.

El inversionista afirmaba que la participación del Banco no estaba debidamente registrada, y por lo tanto, el Banco perdía su participación en la propiedad. Inicialmente, este argumento fue aceptado por la Corte de Primera Instancia, pero luego fue revertido y remitido por la Corte de Apelaciones del Tercer Distrito de Florida.

Llegado este punto, el asunto ya no atañe al prestatario, pero el caso en su integridad podría haberse evitado si el propietario hubiera buscado, en primer lugar, alternativas a la ejecución hipotecaria.

La Ley de Florida (específicamente el Estatuto de Florida 720.3085(4)) sostiene que una HOA está prohibida de presentar un gravamen sobre una propiedad, a menos que primero presente al propietario una demanda escrita de pago, que permite un mínimo de 45 días para cubrir todos los importes adeudados. Una COA (Asociación de Propietarios de Condominios) dispone de 30 días.

Una de las peores cosas que los propietarios hacen llegado este punto es ignorar dichos avisos. Incluso si usted no tiene el dinero para pagar por adelantado, muchos propietarios de la asociación pueden estar abiertos a una negociación justa. Es conveniente para ellos mantener a los propietarios en sus propiedades, cubriendo los costos de mantenimiento y reparación.

Si un propietario responde a este aviso antes de la fecha límite con el pago completo (o tal vez un acuerdo negociado), hay una fuerte posibilidad de que no sea castigado con los costos y honorarios legales de la asociación, que de lo contrario tendría que pagar.

También hay un estatuto de limitaciones durante el cual se pueden aplicar acciones de gravamen de COA y HOA en el plazo de un año desde la fecha en que se registran.

Si tiene preguntas acerca de estos gravámenes o una ejecución hipotecaria pendiente y la manera de evitarla, póngase en contacto con nuestras oficinas.

Póngase en contacto con el Neustein Law Group PA, abogados especializados en ejecución hipotecaria en Miami, llamando al número (305) 531-2545.

Those who reside in a condominium, townhome or house that belongs to a common interest community typically are required to pay assessments and dues to a homeowners’ association, in addition to the mortgage. Miami foreclosure defense attorneys know if a homeowner goes into default on these HOA dues, the homeowners’ association has the right to initiate a lien that could result in foreclosure. In some cases, the HOA can even file its own foreclosure.

The recent case of U.S. Bank National Association v. Bevans stems from one such action, which led the bank wrangling with an investment firm over rights to the property.

But it started with foreclosures initiated by both the condo association and the bank.

In 2007, the borrower took out a loan in order to purchase the residence. She executed a note and mortgage, and the mortgage was recorded three months after the sale and then assigned to the bank.

Not long after, the borrower stopped making payments on both her mortgage and her HOA fees.

In 2009, the condo association recorded a lien against the property for unpaid assessments. There were ultimately two liens on the property: the senior mortgage lien, initiated by the bank, and the junior HOA lien, initiated by the association.

The following year, the association filed for foreclosure. In that action, the bank was not named as a defendant. A final judgment was issued in favor of the association in Palm Residence of S. Beach Condo. Ass’n v. Bevans, in Florida’s 11^thCircuit.

In early 2011, the bank filed for foreclosure on the property. The following month, the association’s judicial sale, based on the earlier foreclosure, took place. An investor purchased the subject property, and then re-sold it to another investor by quit-claim deed.

Meanwhile, the trial court issued a foreclosure judgment in favor of the bank.

However, the investor held the legal title to the subject property, as the bank had earlier failed to record a notice of lis pendens, though it did name the association as a defendant in the action.

The investor claimed the bank’s interest wasn’t properly recorded, and therefore the bank forfeited its interest in the property. Initially, this argument was accepted by the trial court, but it was later reversed and remanded by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals.

At this point, the matter no longer concerns the borrower, but the entire case might have been avoided had the homeowner sought alternatives to foreclosure in the first place.

The law in Florida (specifically FL Statute 720.3085(4)) holds that an HOA is barred from filing a lien on a property unless it first supplies the homeowner with a written demand to pay, which allows a minimum of 45 days to cover all amounts due. A COA (or condominium owners’ association) has 30 days.

One of the worst things homeowners do at this point is ignore these notices. Even if you don’t have the money to pay upfront, many association owners may be open to fair negotiation. It is to their advantage to keep homeowners in their properties, covering maintenance and repair costs.

If a homeowner responds to this notice before the deadline with full payment (or perhaps a negotiated settlement), there is a strong possibility he or she will not be slapped with the association’s attorneys’ fees and costs, which they otherwise might have to pay.

There is also a statute of limitations during which COA and HOA lien actions can be enforced – one year from the date on which they are recorded.

If you have questions about these liens or a pending foreclosure and how to avoid it, contact our offices.

The Neustein Law Group PA, Miami

Did you know that failing to pay your condominium or homeowners’ association dues could land you in foreclosure lawsuit? It is true.

Just like the bank, your association can foreclose on your house, townhouse or condo for falling behind on your payments. The association can place a lien on your property upon your account becoming delinquent. Once a lien is filed, the association can file a foreclosure suit against you in either county or circuit court, depending on the amount they are claiming you owe them. And, just like the bank, the association can take your home away from you, if you fail to act.

Condo and homeowner association attorneys are known to move quickly to foreclose on properties. Unlike the bank, the association does not have thousands upon thousands of cases. Every homeowner who fails to pay their dues causes a very direct impact to the community. Maintenance to common areas, such as community gyms, pools, parking lots, landscaping / lawn maintenance, etc., are contingent on the association’s ability to pay for the upkeep. A nicely kept neighborhood can lose curb appeal quickly when homeowners fail to pay. Not having your monthly payment, makes a notable impression on the community, so associations are eager to begin collecting assessments as soon as possible.

Also, attorneys for the associations know that they can accrue attorneys’ fees by working on your case for which you, the property owner, will be ultimately responsible. Racking up attorneys fees, costs, interest, late fees and other penalties, your few missed payments can increase exponentially once the foreclosure suit is filed against you. And they will only continue to amass, if you do not act immediately.

Moreover, these foreclosure actions are much harder to defend than those filed by the banks. A standard uniform residential mortgage has several defenses built right into the ~20-page mortgage document. Your condominium documents do not afford you with nearly as many defenses. If your property is being rented, the association can move the Court to collect rent from your tenant while the case is being litigated. The cases move to summary judgment much more quickly and once that is obtained your home can be sold at auction in 30 days. Time is of the essence when dealing with any legal action, but this cannot be stressed enough when it comes to association foreclosures.

Defenses are limited in association cases, but they do exist. You have rights, but you won’t know what they are until you speak with an experienced foreclosure attorney.

Consulting with a lawyer as soon as possible may help you save your home from foreclosure. A qualified attorney can give you information about your options and can help you make the right decision as to how you will contend with the association foreclosure. Whether that means defending the association lawsuit in Court or assisting you in negotiating a payment plan, having the right counselor can get you back on track and help you stay in your home.

Neustein Law Group, P.A. can help you with your condo or homeowners’ association foreclosure case. With offices in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and throughout the State of Florida, meeting with an experienced professional is just minutes away from your home or office. The attorneys at Neustein Law Group, P.A. can help you defend your association foreclosure and negotiate a payment plan so that you can stay in your home.

Contact us today – 305-531-2545 (Direct) or 888-400-ATTY (2889) (Toll Free)