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

5815 Market Street, Suite 2, Boardman, Ohio 44512

Phone: (330) 965-1093 Fax: (330) 953-0450

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, 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