I was keeping track of the number of Sheriff's Sales stopped, but I decided that this gave the wrong impression to viewers. An attorney should not be consulted as a matter of last resort. Instead an attorney should be consulted early in the process and the sooner an attorney is consulted the more likely a Homeowner will have a favorable result

The Law Office of Bruce M. Broyles

2670 North Columbus Street, Suite L, Lancaster, Ohio 43130

Phone: (740) 277-7850 / (330) 965-1093

The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct suggest that the reader be informed that one of the purposes of this blog is to attract potential clients, and therefore should be considered attorney advertisement

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Once Again National Media Outlets Blame the Homeowner

CNN Money published an article that states that many homeowners are staying in their homes without paying.  The overall tone of the article is that Homeowners facing foreclosure have taken advantage of technicalities to stay in their homes for free.  Once again the Media blames the Homeowners.

I find it amazing how such things as the burden of proof, evidence, and due process are called "technicalities" when Homeowners require Banks to follow these essential rules.  Maybe it is because Homeowners are not well organized, do not have Lobbyist, or do not own many of the National Media outlets. 

The majority of Homeowners are willing and able to pay their monthly mortgage payments that they have missed.  The Banks however will not accept these payments.  Instead the Banks demand fees and expenses that have not been earned or incurred.  Only if the Homeowner is willing to pay the missed monthly payments, plus interest, and additional fees and expenses (that often are several times greater than the actual missed payments) will the Bank accept the Homeowner's money.  No national media outlet has ever mentioned the fact that many Homeowners had payments returned to them.  many Homeowners were told that they had to enter into a Loan Modification program before payments would be accepted.  No national media ever mentions that the modification programs appear to purposely delay the application for many months.  During this time additional expenses and fees, which have neither been earned by the Banks or incurred by the Banks, are added to the amount alleged to be due.

So long as 90% or more of all foreclosures go undefended or Homeowners attempt to defend the foreclosure complaints themselves, the Foreclosure Crisis will continue.  These national Media Outlets will continue to write articles reminding everyone that it is the Homeowner's fault.  This will keep the majority of Homeowners facing foreclosure quiet.  Those Homeowners who are willing to fight will be ridiculed.

People do not talk about their financial struggles.  While you are rotely reciting the talking points of "they just want a free house", or "I wish someone would make my mortgage payments for me", someone within listening distance is probably quietly suffering through a foreclosure of their own.  These issues are not mere "technicalities", and Banks should be required to prove their complaints.  By forcing the Banks to prove their ase Homeowners facing foreclosure can begin to negotiate on a level playing field.

If you find yourself facing foreclosure do not quietly suffer contact an attorney to defend your rights.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Interview with a Blogger

On December 23, 2011, Mandelman Matters, a blogger on the West Coast and OhioFraudclosure,a blogger in Ohio, conducted a live Radio interview regarding the events surrounding a recent Delaware County, Ohio set-out.  The Homeowner's name was mentioned a few times.  The Attorney was referred to as only "the Attorney".  Once during the interview the attorney's first name was mentioned.  Throughout the interview the attorney is described as though he was merely a puppet reacting to the tugs and pulls of the involved blogger.

The interview demonstrates the fallacy of eyewitness testimony.  To demonstrate the problems with eye witness testimony law school professors recount the experiment in which a man storms into an evidence class.  Afterwards, the students are asked to provide a statement of what occurred.  Few if any noticed the man dressed in a gorilla outfit who walked across the front of the classroom.   The Ohio blogger was directly involved in the prevention of the Delaware County set-out.  Many of the details are correct.  However, many of the details or facts were distorted by the interview.  Witnesses, especially witnesses who come forward, will remember their involvement in a slightly altered manner.  I was directly involved in the Delaware County set-out and therefore my recollection may also suffer from the same fallacies. 

I recall reading an e-mail from my client; contacting the Sheriff's office, and negotiating with the Lender's attorney.  I knew the law and was familiar with the legal proceedings, and therefore I could intelligently discuss the situation with those in the Sheriff's office and the law office.  I had been involved in the legal proceedings for approximately a month and had filed pleadings in the case before the Court.  And Yes I spoke to the Ohio blogger, and he was in contact with Occupy Columbus.

I was dissappointed with the interview on many levels.  Trying to be aware of my own flaws, I know that I was dissappointed because my name was not mentioned and therefore I did not receive the free publicity and advertising.  I was also disappointed in the language used.  The use of profanity was offensive, and was harmful to my testimony and the Ohio blogger's testmony as Christians.  The use of profanity was unprofessional and will be used to continue to label Homeowners facing foreclosure and the Occupy movement as deadbeats and lunatics.

I was most disappointed by the interview's focus on the "blog's" ability to stop an eviction.  Homeowners need information and the bloggers are doing a great service to Homeowners by providing Homeowners with information to fight foreclosures.  However, the interview's emphasis on the role of the blogger will only continue to encourage Homeowners to fight foreclosures on their own; without the assistance of counsel.  On December 8, 2011, the Homeowner who was the subject of the Delaware County set-out was interviewed, and the most profound statement he made was that he wished that he had retained an attorney much earlier instead of trying to defend himself.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

The Day After the "Day of Action"

The Occupy Movement announced December 6, 2011 as a Day of Action and determined that the spotlight would be focused on the Foreclosure Crisis facing our nation.  Across the United States there were a number of events planned to bring attention to the people facing foreclosure and the families facing the prospect of being removed from their homes.  The traditional media outlets ignored these events for the most part, and the bright light apparently grew dim.

On December 7, 2011, the Banks were back to business as usual.  I arrived at my office and an e-mail was waiting "The Sheriff's Deputies are beating the crap out of my door, help."  Not wanting to be the target of any Occupy event on December 6, 2011, the Bank scheduled the "set out" for the following day, December 7, 2011. 

I do not believe that it would be appropriate to discuss the details of the litigation or the stage of the proceedings.  I can tell you that I was involved in negotiating with the Law Firm representing the Bank to reschedule any potential set out.  The Law Firm had been on the telephone with it's client the Bank for nearly 30 minutes.  The Sheriff's Office had only given us 15 minutes, and while the Judge was willing to cancel the set out, he needed the Bank to agree.

The Law Firm did not seem too optimistic that the Bank would agree to cancel the "set out".  At that moment, the Law Firm learned that Occupy was about to arrive at my client's house.  Suddenly, the Bank agreed and the Sheriff's Deputies left.  Victory !! A small one, but a victory no less. This was only a temporary solution and my client still faces an uphill battle in his foreclosure action.

Shortly thereafter I was asked to take part in two radio call ins, a newspaper wanted to do a story, and other social media carried the story.  Momentarily, I felt as though Homeowners would be informed, learn that there was hope and attorneys willing to help.

Now, 15 days later, Christmas is upon us; the traditional media has found other stories to follow; and the talking points that blame the irresponsible Homeowners have returned.

Friday, December 2, 2011

The Reactions to the 103 Year Old Woman's Eviction

In Atlanta, Georgia, Deputies arrived to evict the individuals occupying a home that had been foreclosed.  It turns out that the occupants were a 103 year old woman and her 80 some year old daughter.  The story has been carried recently by Ohiofraudclosure and a number of other groups attempting to fight foreclosures throughout the nation.  Today, I received my electronic edition of the ABA journal, which ran the story along with a comment section.  The comments mirrored those that I have heard throughout the halls of the Courts; "they spent their equity", "they are playing the blame game", "when did they last make a payment", "they just want a free home". 

These educated professionals are clueless.  Someone should take just a moment to think about who convinced this elderly woman to borrow against her equity?, was she targeted because or her age or race?, was she improperly placed in a high risk adjustable rate mortgage with interest only payments?, did she qualify for a conventional loan with a low fixed interest rate? 

Who is generating these talking points blaming the homeowners for borrowing too much and being irresponsible?  The Banks.  Do not look at all the outright fraud committed by the Banks, just blame the entire economic crisis on individual homeowners who purposely signed up to lose their life savings; wasted their time, efforts and energy to make their homes nice for their families, all to live in the house only for as long as they could play the Court system.  Really ????

If the ABA truly believes the above, then I have to seriously question the current admissions standards to the practice of law.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Occupy Our Homes

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is making a concerted effort to focus the attention on the Foreclosure Crisis in America.  It will not take the Standardized media long to attempt to marginalize this effort as "people who just want a free home"; "deadbeats", and "people who bought more house than they could afford".  On December 6, 2011, there will be National Day of Action.
 See, and

Regardless of what was the initial stumbling block for the Homeowner; a Homeowner misses a payment on his mortgage.  As a result, the Homeowner is at the Bank's mercy.  The entire balance will be accelerated and considered due and owing if the Homeowner does not pay the full amount declared by the Bank to be due.  This amount will include late fees and various charges that raise the amount required to bring the account current to an amount that is just slightly out of the Homeowner's reach.  If they struggle to make that payment; there's a good chance the next month's payment will be a struggle also.  As a result, the Homeowner is now involved in a constant struggle to make the monthly payment.

Eventually, the Bank is able to accelerate the entire amount due and owing.  Shortly thereafter, a foreclosure complaint will be filed.  In a rush to clear the overcrowded court dockets, the rights of Homeowners are steamrolled.  To date I have become involved in a number of cases after the Foreclosure Decree has been issued.  In those files, I believe that there have been numerous mistakes made by the Courts.  Each and every mistake has been to the advantage of the Bank.

The part that is not clearly understood is "why would the Banks want to force a foreclosure?"  Don't the Banks lose money when a property goes to Sheriff's Sale?  No.  Through Government Guarantees and PMI the Bank will be paid the amount of the mortgage over a period of less than three years instead of over a period of thirty years.  Why do you think that TARP funds can be paid back so quickly?

While I do not agree with each and every position taken by the Occupy Movement, I do believe that much more attention must be given to this issue.  If the Occupy Movement can bring attention to the issue, then I support their efforts.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Office of Comptroller of Currency and Independent Foreclosure Review

There are a number of articles discussing the OCC and the Independent Foreclosure Review so I recently viewed the Office of Comptroller of Currency's website and some of the consent orders that were entered into by the Banks.  The Consent Orders are nothing more than settlement agreements.  The Consent Orders list numerous items of wrongdoing that have been discovered in one or more files, but it is not determined to be an industry-wide occurence let alone the standard operating procedure for those involved in the foreclosure process.  Further, by signing the consent decrees the Banks do not admit to any wrongdoing. 

An article recently suggested that the OCC consent orders could be used offensively in State Court proceedings by Homeowners who have suffered from fraudulent activities involved in their mortgage/ foreclosure.  However, the Banks have not admitted to doing anything wrong and have merely settled in order to avoid the cost of litigating and defending themselves against cease and desist orders.  Any attempt to use the OCC and the Consent Orders offensively by Homeowners, will most likely be met by arguments that the Homeowner's loan file has been reviewed and found to be in order. 

The OCC and the various consent decrees should be seen as nothing more than a warning sign.   The foreclosure process is ripe with mistakes, errors, and outright fraud.  Homeowners should aggressively defend the foreclosure.  Do not be lead astray.  HAMP, the OCC, as well as, any government program that seems to be assistance to the Homeowner, is merely an attempt to whitewash the Foreclosure problem.  I suspect that the OCC Independent Foreclosure Review will have defenseless Homeowners sign up to have their file reviewed by someone who needs the system to work.

Previous governement programs have created a system of professionals who understand the loan modification process, the HAMP application procedure, the Catholic Charities or the Save The Dream application process.  But the professionals who are supposed to assist the Homeowners through these application processes do not object to the fees, costs, or charges added to the Homeowner's loan.  The programs have essentially turned Homeowners facing foreclosure into miniture account representatives for the Banks.  The government would like to give the Bank $Billions but what account should the Bank apply these funds to .....

................... (imagine Bank executives and Government officials confering) .......................................

The Bank will apply these funds to the account of whichever Homeowner succesfully navigates the program before the money runs out.  Minus, of course, fees paid to the Bank for completing the application on behalf of the Homeowner.

................... (imagine Bank executives and Government officials confering) .......................................

And the program will have to be just embarassing and degrading enough that not all Homeowners will apply.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Numerous Defenses

I previously wrote and stated that the plan in defending foreclosures was to simply treat a complaint for foreclosure like real litigation.  This may have been misinterpreted as a strategy to drive up litigation costs and thereby force the bank to settle.  This is not a winning strategy.  Who is in a better position to fund litigation than a bank? 

Instead, by defending the foreclosure complaint numerous defenses emerge.  The Lender did not do things properly.  The depositor, the custodian, the Trustee, the Servicer did not do things properly.  The issue is not the same in every case, but every case has some issue.  In addition, the law firms handling the foreclosure complaints are attempting to treat every foreclosure identical in order to process the paperwork as efficiently as possible. 

The Ohio Supreme Court has warned against discussing the particular facts of a case in a public forum, so I will speak only in general terms.  I have successfully prevented Sheriff's Sales from proceeding; received relief from judgment, or I am currently defending foreclosure complaints raising a number of different issues.  Here a just a few examples. The Plaintiff asserted that it held the promissory note at a time when Fannie Mae reported that it owned the mortgage note on its website.  The Plaintiff sought to foreclose on a mortgage that was assigned to it by way of a power of attorney, but the power of attorney was not recorded with the Recorder's office.  The Servicer sent notice of acceleration when the promissory note requires the Lender or the Note Holder to provide notice.  Default judgment was granted after the Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal.  Mers assigned a mortgage acting solely as a nominee more than a year after the Lender had been dissolved.  In a refiled complaint with a different named Plaintiff, the Plaintiff used the same affiant stating that he had again reviewed business records (were the records the  business records of the first plaintiff or the second plaintiff). 

All of these present major issues for the Plaintiff.  All of these major issues are probably repeated throughout the numerous foreclosures now pending.  The Plaintiffs and their attorneys are ill equipped to handle the many defenses, and therefore the Lenders are willing to resolve the foreclosure complaint on favorable terms.  It is not simply being a thorn; it is not simply driving up litigation costs.  Nor is it something that can be taught in a one day seminar.

Homeowners facing a foreclosure complaint must seek out an attorney with experience in Civil Litigation.

Thursday, November 3, 2011


The law office opened space in Boardman, Ohio; we placed an advertisement in the phone book, and new business cards were printed.  The image above is the back of the new business card.  This is really a different avenue for the law office.  Normally, people talk to one another about legal issues they might have encountered.  It comes up in casual conversation.  Referrals occur because people seek out an attorney; ask their friends about an attorney or actually know an attorney. 

With a Homeowner facing foreclosure it is completely different.  Homeowners do not talk about it.  Homeowners are afraid, embarrassed, and at their wits end.  It does not come up in casual conversation.  The last time I checked Mahoning County, Ohio had 796 pending foreclosure cases.  Trumbull County, Ohio had a similar number of pending foreclosures.  If there are so many pending foreclosures, why is it that individuals do not know that their friends, neighbors, and co-workers are facing foreclosure?  In addition, if there are so many pending cases, why are there not more attorneys representing Homeowners?

As a result, it is more difficult to get the information out to Homeowners.  Direct mail is one avenue, but I know that many individuals receiving my letter have already received a number of other letters.  The majority of those other letters are from attorneys who truly believe the only alternative is Bankruptcy.  "If I can fix my situation with my house, I do not need to file bankruptcy" is a comment I have heard on a number of occasions. 

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

The Ohio Supreme Court and Foreclosures

The Ohio Supreme Court in U.S. Bank NA vs. Duvall Case No. 2011-218 was set to determine the issue of standing, but decided that the case was rendered moot when U.S. Bank released the mortgage lien as paid in full.  A pending case of U.S. Bank NA vs. Perry Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2011-170 was stayed pending the outcome of Duvall. 

On October 7, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court continued the briefing in Perry now pending the outcome in Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. vs. Duane Schwartzwald Case No. 2011-1362 (the certified conflict) and Case No. 2011-1201 (the discretionary appeal).  The certified conflict asks the parties to brief the following issue:

"In a mortgage foreclosure action, the lack of standing or a real party in interest defect can be cured by assignment of mortgage prior to judgment"

The certified conflict was filed by the homeowner as Appellant.  Accordingly, anyone desiring to submit a brief in support of the Homeowner's position must file a brief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 6.2(A) within 40 days of the record being filed with the Clerk of Courts.  The record was filed on October 21, 2011.  As such, a brief in support of the Homeowners should be filed on or before November 30, 2011.  (Unless Appellants obtain an extension of time within which to file their brief.)

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Sheriff's Sales Stopped to Date

I added a small counter on the top of this site to count the number of Sheriff's sales that were scheduled and then cancelled because of a pleading I filed on behalf of a client.  In a way this is a measure of success and the bigger that number becomes it would appear that we are having more success.  Viewing that number as a measure of success will be short sighted and ultimately demonstrate a lack of success. 

I want homeowners who have a judgment against them and a Sheriff's Sale scheduled to know that there's still hope.  However, I want homeowners facing foreclosure to learn that they must defend the lawsuit and hire an attorney to do so.  The earlier the better.  As soon as a complaint is received the homeowner should be contacting an attorney.  In the early stages legitimate defenses must be met and overcome by the Bank.  After judgment, those same defenses can be avoided by demonstrating a lack of "excusable neglect".  The homeowner is again put on the defensive side of the issue.  Instead of taking charge of the litigation; explaining the many failures of the Bank to follow the rules (rules previously established by the Bank), the homeowner is left hoping the Court will understand their plight.

I am not implying that the Courts or the Judges are less than fair.  But sometimes in a fair game homeowners will lose.  Do everything possible to put yourself in a position to win; i.e keep your house with a manageable payment.  Defend the foreclosure complaint; hire an attorney, and do it early in the process.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Occupy Wall Street and Foreclosures

If you listen to the many voices coming from the Occupy Wall Street crowd, it is difficult to identify the purpose of the protest.  The problem is that the purpose does not fit neatly into a sound bite or onto a button.  What is the overarching theme throughout all of this is that people are challenging the status quo.  A revolution in thinking.  In college they taught that the beginning of the 1900's was a similar revolution in thinking; arts, religion, agriculture, industry.

What does this have to do with Foreclosure Defense?  Up to this point people have blamed the homeowner and the homeowner blamed himself/ herself.  The homeowner truly thought that a loan modification was the Bank's attempt to help.  The homeowner fell behind, couldn't catch up, the Bank had to file foreclosure, but then the Bank came to the rescue with a modification.  People have been accustomed to having the Government solve major issues, and therefore the Government can solve this issue.

Foreclosure Defense and those practicing it should be educating the public that the way to correct the foreclosure problem is to defend the foreclosure complaint.  The Bank has no desire or incentive to work out a reasonable modification.  The homeowner and the lawyers involved cannot understand why the Bank will not work with the homeowner.  If the house goes to Sheriff's Sale the Bank will certainly receive less than what the Bank would recieve if it worked with the homeowner.  Wrong. 

In May of 2011 Ginnie Mae, our Federal Governement, issued $25.4 billion dollars in mortgage backed securities.  The thought process by the Governement is that it must keep putting money into the system to keep liquidity in the market.  The unintended result is that Banks do not have to make good business decisions.  The Government encouraged Banks to make loans without considering a business decision.  Now the Banks do not have to consider business decisions when a mortgage goes into default.  Simply foreclose, purchase the home at Sheriff's Sale and eventually make a claim on the Government guarantee of that loan.  Why wait 30 years to get paid in full when a foreclosure dramatically reduces the time.

The Federal Government will never simply stop the current system, but individuals can dramatically slow down the system by defendning the foreclosure complaint.  The Bank faced with actual litigation is more inclined to make a business decision instead of simply following the same pattern of foreclose, Sheriff's Sale, make a claim against the Federal Guarantee.

Occupy Wall Street is in part an opportunity to inform homeowners facing foreclosure that they have the means to correct the problem without waiting for the Government to correct the problem.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Plan

I was recently asked to explain my plan for defending foreclosures.  The Plan is really pretty simple.  Treat a foreclosure complaint like real litigation.  Examine the evidence presented; compare the evidence to the applicable law, and formulate a defense. 

There are a number of issues that have been widely discussed such as "robo-signing" or "show me the note".  These issues and many other issues exist in many foreclosure cases.  Each homeowner is an individual; each mortgage note has been handled slightly different; each mortgage has been treated differently.  The Plaintiff is not the same and the allegations are not the same.  So the Plan for the defense is slightly different.  However, the ultimate Plan remains the same: Defend the Foreclosure Complaint.

While this seems like a rather simple approach the Plaintiff in the Foreclosure Complaint is not adequately prepared to litigate every foreclosure.  By making the Plaintiff treat the complaint like real litigation the homeowner can gain some leverage in the negotiations and possibly obtain a loan modification that makes sense.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

The Unfortunate Foreclosure Practice

There are a number of defenses available to individuals facing foreclosure.  As individuals have recently contacted my office to defend their foreclosure complaints from the beginning, I am excited to see a number of available defenses.  It feels very satisfying to explain a potential defense and a strategic outcome to the client and sense their relief.  Unfortunately, the majority of the foreclosure defenses with which I have been involved have been severely damaged by the time I became involved.  Legitimate defenses have to be raised in a motion for relief from judgment, or I have to argue on appeal that available defenses were asserted and overlooked by the trial court,

If a homeowner aggressively defends the foreclosure complaint from the begining, the outcome is more likely to be satisfactory for the homeowner,

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Motion to Reconsider Dismissal in Duvall

The Attorney for US Bank recently filed a motion to reconsider the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the certified conflict as being moot.  He cited authority that states that when an issue of great public importance remains, the Ohio Supreme Court has decided to hear the conflict even if the case has been rendered moot.  I believe there is a flaw in this thought process.  A certified conflict cannot be rendered moot by the parties.  The appellate decision which was found to conflict with another appellate decision still remains out there.  The conflict still exists.  The Ohio Supreme Court under Rule of Practice 12.2 could dismiss the certified conflict as not existing; i.e. we made a mistake thinking there was a conflict.  The Ohio Supreme Court under Rule of Practice 12.2 could dismiss the certified conflict as being previous determined by the Ohio Supreme Court in a prior case.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

U.S. Bank vs. Duvall Dismissed as Moot

On September 21, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the certified conflict as moot.  There is not a great deal of case law on the subject because, (1) a certified conflict does not occur that often, and (2) even less often does a case that is certified as a conflict become "moot".  In fact, my first reaction when I was asked about the memorandum regarding mootness, was that it did not matter.  Even if the case was resolved, there still remained an appellate decision that conflicted with other appellate decisions.  With the issue being brought to the Ohio Supreme Court's attention, I sort of assumed that the Court would still want to resolve the issue.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Bank of America vs. Duvall Update

If you are following the certified question before the Ohio Supreme Court in Bank of America vs. Duvall then you are aware that Bank of America has recently filed its reply brief.  The briefing process can be frustrating at times.  Rather than address the issues and arguments presented, the opponents will mischaracterize the argument or the issue. 

A number of well educated professionals have differing opinions on the issue.  Rather than acknowledge the difference of opinion and argue the correctness of its position, Bank of America has decided that we cannot possibly be as smart.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

In Modification Process ......You Still Need an Attorney

I have heard a number of stories related to the loan modification process.  The homeowner has to repeatedly provide financial information; the homeowner never hears back from the Bank; a trial modification that was supposed to become permanent after three payments has not been approved after 6,7 or more payments.  I have heard the same stories from homeowners, as well as, from attorneys representing homeowners.  In fact I have two clients who were treated completely different based upon how involved I was in the process. 

In the first situation, the clients did everything on their own.  They filled out the application and simply had me review the documents.  The Bank offered them a modification that placed all interest, fees, and charges on the end of the loan.  The monthly payment was reduced only by requiring a balloon payment at the time of the original maturation date.  The attorney did nothing; the clients received little to nothing, except an unacceptable loan modification proposal.

In the second situation, the clients were in a trial modification, but a foreclosure complaint was filed anyhow.  Clients were told not to worry the complaint was a mere technicality.  I entered an appearance, filed an answer, raised affirmative defenses and filed a counterclaim for quiet title.  The clients' permanent modification came through as originally promised without a hitch. 

The above is not enough for a clinical case study, but it seems as though Banks provide better service and more meaningful modifications when the homeowner is represented by an attorney who treats the matter as real litigation.

Monday, August 22, 2011

The Need to Be Represented by Counsel

If you read the amicus brief that I submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court, one thing that should become painfully obvious is the need to be represented by counsel.  The first proposition of law that I set forth essentially walks the reader through the five cases that have been certified as being in conflict.  To the typical person facing foreclosure, all five cases appear to raise the same question and answer it in a variety of ways.  However, to an attorney who is trained in Civil Procedure; in the various degrees of the burden of proof, the burden of production, and the rules of evidence the cases differ greatly based upon the evidence submitted and the procedural stage of each case.  It is your home, please hire a professional to assist you.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Ohio Supreme Court Case 2011-218

The Ohio Supreme Court in US Bank NA vs. Antoine Duvall Case No. 2011-218 has certified the case as a conflict and has certified the following question for briefing:
To have standing as a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the note and the mortgage when the complaint was filed?

On August 15, 2011, I filed an Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of Homeowners of the State of Ohio and