Win, Baby, Win! Ricardo & Wasylik Crushes it for Clients

The last few weeks have seen a flood of new victories for the firm on behalf of its clients. Here are just a few.

The most public victory we’ve had came when Jason appealed a trial loss—and convinced the appellate court that he actually won! That case, Sorrell v. U.S. Bank, N.A. [PDF], not only reversed the trial court’s ruling, it sent back an order to dismiss the case. The court ruled:

In light of the wealth of current case law on this issue, it should no longer be a surprise to a foreclosure plaintiff that it must prove that it had standing to foreclose on the date the original complaint was filed… And attempting to bedazzle the trial court with documents establishing all sorts of facts unrelated to standing at the inception of the case will not carry the day.

Other recent victories include:

Hillsborough County: At trial, the judge granted our motion to dismiss the case based on Nationstar’s failure to prove that the notice letter required by the mortgage actually got sent. Also, the judge had concerns that Nationstar failed to prove it had acquired the right to foreclose.

Bay County: This case from Florida’s panhandle turned on two issues: standing (the right of this particular bank to foreclose) and sending the notice required by the mortgage. After a hard-fought trial, and preparation of an extensive legal briefing outlining why our client should win, R&W received the news a few weeks later that the judge agreed with us on both those points, and dismissed the case.

Pasco County: Right in our backyard, this case went forward even though both sides wanted to reschedule to allow the bank time to consider a loan modification. The judge denied it, but everything turned out great for our client when the bank failed to prove it sent the required notice. Case dismissed!

Flagler County: This case was a hard-fought battle, involving many complicated legal issues. R&W argued that the bank didn’t have the right to foreclose because it caused the supposed “default” when it lied to our client about qualifying for a loan modification. But the victory came because standing was a complete mess: the bank had recorded two conflicting assignments of mortgage showing different chains of ownership; then it introduced a note with an undated indorsement showing a third, conflicting, chain of ownership; and finally, introduced a Pooling and Servicing Agreement that showed a fourth, conflicting, chain of ownership. The trial judge, despite being one of the smartest we’ve met, couldn’t untangle this mess, and in the face of the conflicting evidence, dismissed the case.

Pasco County: Another case in our backyard, and another denial by the judge to reschedule due to a pending loan modification. And once again, the same result: case dismissed! This time, it was a loan backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and R&W convinced the judge that the bank failed to obey federal regulations that attach to FHA-guaranteed loans.

With several more trials on our calendar in the near future, we’re hoping for several more wins on behalf of the families we represent.

Looking for help? Act now!

Recent Posts
Looking for help now? Contact us today

Please send us a message using the form below and we'll be in touch as soon as possible.

Not readable? Change text. captcha txt
Ricardo & Wasylik PLRicardo & Wasylik PL