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
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 C
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 Ohiofraudclosure.blogspot.com.