Preview
Filing # 93015548 E-Filed 07/23/2019 02:56:19 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17"
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. CACE 12-012220 (11)
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
REGISTERED HOLDERS OF NOMURA.
HOME EQUITY HOME LOAN, INC.
ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-2
Plaintiff
Vv.
MICHAEL BARRETT, et al.
Defendant
/
MOTI ANCEL FORECL RE SALE ON 8/6/19
COMES NOW, Defendants, MICHAEL BARRETT and JENNIFER GAYLE, by and
through thier undersigned counsel and files this Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale and as
grounds, states as follows:
1. The sale in this matter has been set for August 6, 2019.
2. The Final Judgment was entered on February 12, 2019.
3. There has been one prior sale cancellation in this matter .
4. The Defendants had originally submitted a loan application to Ocwen, but shortly thereafter,
the servicing agent changed to PHH Mortgage Services. The Defendants’ complete loan modification
application was resubmitted to PHH Mortgage Services .
5. On July 16, 2019, the undersigned received a denial of the loan modification
application.
6. On July 18, 2019, an appeal was submitted to PHH Mortgage Services. See Exhibit “A”
attached an incorporated herein.
7. However, there will be insufficient time prior to the foreclosure sale date to finish the
appeal process.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/24/2019 12:48:56 PM.****8. It is in the best interest of all parties to conclude the loss mitigation appeal
process.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant their Motion to
Cancel the Sale in order to allow the completion of the loan modification application appeal
process.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via US Mail
and eservice to Julia Y. Poletto, Esq., Aldridge Pite, LLP, 1615 South Congress
Avenue, Suite 200, Delray Beach, FL 33445; ServiceMail@aldridgepite.com this 23rd day of July,
2019.
/s/ Dolores K. Sanchez
DOLORES K. SANCHEZ, ESQUIRE
Attomey for Defendants, MICHAEL BARRETT and
JENNIFER GAYLE
4701 N. Federal Highway, Suite 316
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
Telephone (954) 785-8585
eservice: dolores@bizhall net
Florida Bar No. 0795976
Florida Bar No. 0795976EXHIBIT AAMPHION Communications Mail - NOTICE OF APPEAL Michael... https://mail google.com/mail/u/27ik=3 18a472afa& view-pt&search=. .
.
G M l | Dolores Sanchez
NOTICE OF APPEAL Michael Barrett, Loan No. 801 0072885
1 message
Dolores Sanchez Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:00 PM
To: escalatedcases@mortgagefamily.com
Please see attached Notice of Appeal of Improper Denial of Loan Modification for the following:
Borrower: Michael Barrett
Property: 7309 NW 57" Drive, Tamarac, FL 33321
Loan No. 8010072885
Dolores K. Sanchez, Esq.
Law Office of Dolores K. Sanchez
4701 N. Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
Telephone: (954) 785-8585
E-Fax: (954) 301-0154
e-mail: dolores@bizhall.net
=) Barrett Appeal.pdf
“" 989K
lofl 7/23/2019, 2:40 PMILAW OFFICES OF DOLORES K. SANCHEZ
4701 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY
SUITE 316, BOX B-1
LIGHTHOUSE POINT, FL 33064
TELEPHONE (954) 785-8585
FAX (954) 785-6163
E-MAIL: Guiuresijviiuaii.uee
NOTICE OF APPEAL
IMPROPER DENIAL OF LOAN MODIFICATION
July 18, 2019
Via E-mail: escalatedcases@mortgagefamily.com
PHH Mortgage Services
Escalations Dept.
P.O. Box 5432
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
RE: Borrower: Michael Barrett
Property: 7309 NW 57" Drive, Tamarac, FL 33321
Loan No. 8010072885
Dear Sir/Madam:
This office represents the above-referenced borrower. We are in receipt of the Decision on the
Request for Mortgage Assistance dated July 3, 2019 and received July 16, 2019. This letter shall
serve as an appeal of the decision of denial as to the loan modification application.
First of all, your letter provided none of the required notices as to right of appeal and the
timeframe thereof. This is a violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act as well as the
terms of the Consent Judgment entered in State of Alabama, et al. v PHH Mortgage Corporation,
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:18-cv-00009. Thus your denial
letter is defective.
On July 16, 2019, I reached out to your counsel to (1) ascertain a more detailed basis for the
decision as the denial letter contained no specific information and (2) to try to have a conciliation
conference call. The purpose of such was to obtain proper specific information so that perhaps
the non-borrowing contributor could increase her contribution such that a loan modification
would be feasible. On July 18, 2019, your counsel responded that PHH is unable to provide
additional information regarding the decisions and recommends that we move ahead with the
appeal process. That is unacceptable.July 18, 2019
PHH Mortgage Services
Page Two
In your letter of denial, you simply made a general statement of the reason for denial without
specific details. Your statement regarding a “Streamline Modification” was as follows:
“Due to our modification program rules, the lowest modification payment that
we can provide will exceed the current mortgage payment by more than 25%.”
We believe that the above denial failed to provide the specific reason for denial, again in
violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act as well as the terms of the Consent Judgment
entered in State of Alabama, et al. v PHH Mortgage Corporation; United States District Court,
District of Columbia, Case No. 1:18-cv-00009, You merely refer to a cryptic 25% threshold.
You have not provided the amount of the proposed modification payment upon which you based
this conclusion. You did not provide the principal and interest payment, the escrow amount, any
interest bearing portion of the loan and how that was determined, and forbearance amount of the
loan and how that was determined, any reduction of the loan and how that was determined,
interest rate used and how that was determined, amortization period and how that was
determined, and the property valuation used in the consideration of the modification. You have
stated your program rules will not allow low enough payment, but do not disclose the terms of
the rule(s) upon which you have based this decision. Basically, you provided no substantive
information whatsoever. Once that information is received, we can amend our appeal to address
any specific deficiencies.
Sincerely,
cc: client
Preview
Filing # 93015548 E-Filed 07/23/2019 02:56:19 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CACE 12-012220 (11) HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF NOMURA. HOME EQUITY HOME LOAN, INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-2 Plaintiff Vv. MICHAEL BARRETT, et al. Defendant / MOTI ANCEL FORECL RE SALE ON 8/6/19 COMES NOW, Defendants, MICHAEL BARRETT and JENNIFER GAYLE, by and through thier undersigned counsel and files this Motion to Cancel Foreclosure Sale and as grounds, states as follows: 1. The sale in this matter has been set for August 6, 2019. 2. The Final Judgment was entered on February 12, 2019. 3. There has been one prior sale cancellation in this matter . 4. The Defendants had originally submitted a loan application to Ocwen, but shortly thereafter, the servicing agent changed to PHH Mortgage Services. The Defendants’ complete loan modification application was resubmitted to PHH Mortgage Services . 5. On July 16, 2019, the undersigned received a denial of the loan modification application. 6. On July 18, 2019, an appeal was submitted to PHH Mortgage Services. See Exhibit “A” attached an incorporated herein. 7. However, there will be insufficient time prior to the foreclosure sale date to finish the appeal process. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/24/2019 12:48:56 PM.****8. It is in the best interest of all parties to conclude the loss mitigation appeal process. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant their Motion to Cancel the Sale in order to allow the completion of the loan modification application appeal process. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via US Mail and eservice to Julia Y. Poletto, Esq., Aldridge Pite, LLP, 1615 South Congress Avenue, Suite 200, Delray Beach, FL 33445; ServiceMail@aldridgepite.com this 23rd day of July, 2019. /s/ Dolores K. Sanchez DOLORES K. SANCHEZ, ESQUIRE Attomey for Defendants, MICHAEL BARRETT and JENNIFER GAYLE 4701 N. Federal Highway, Suite 316 Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone (954) 785-8585 eservice: dolores@bizhall net Florida Bar No. 0795976 Florida Bar No. 0795976EXHIBIT AAMPHION Communications Mail - NOTICE OF APPEAL Michael... https://mail google.com/mail/u/27ik=3 18a472afa& view-pt&search=. . . G M l | Dolores Sanchez NOTICE OF APPEAL Michael Barrett, Loan No. 801 0072885 1 message Dolores Sanchez Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 8:00 PM To: escalatedcases@mortgagefamily.com Please see attached Notice of Appeal of Improper Denial of Loan Modification for the following: Borrower: Michael Barrett Property: 7309 NW 57" Drive, Tamarac, FL 33321 Loan No. 8010072885 Dolores K. Sanchez, Esq. Law Office of Dolores K. Sanchez 4701 N. Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 785-8585 E-Fax: (954) 301-0154 e-mail: dolores@bizhall.net =) Barrett Appeal.pdf “" 989K lofl 7/23/2019, 2:40 PMILAW OFFICES OF DOLORES K. SANCHEZ 4701 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY SUITE 316, BOX B-1 LIGHTHOUSE POINT, FL 33064 TELEPHONE (954) 785-8585 FAX (954) 785-6163 E-MAIL: Guiuresijviiuaii.uee NOTICE OF APPEAL IMPROPER DENIAL OF LOAN MODIFICATION July 18, 2019 Via E-mail: escalatedcases@mortgagefamily.com PHH Mortgage Services Escalations Dept. P.O. Box 5432 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 RE: Borrower: Michael Barrett Property: 7309 NW 57" Drive, Tamarac, FL 33321 Loan No. 8010072885 Dear Sir/Madam: This office represents the above-referenced borrower. We are in receipt of the Decision on the Request for Mortgage Assistance dated July 3, 2019 and received July 16, 2019. This letter shall serve as an appeal of the decision of denial as to the loan modification application. First of all, your letter provided none of the required notices as to right of appeal and the timeframe thereof. This is a violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act as well as the terms of the Consent Judgment entered in State of Alabama, et al. v PHH Mortgage Corporation, United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:18-cv-00009. Thus your denial letter is defective. On July 16, 2019, I reached out to your counsel to (1) ascertain a more detailed basis for the decision as the denial letter contained no specific information and (2) to try to have a conciliation conference call. The purpose of such was to obtain proper specific information so that perhaps the non-borrowing contributor could increase her contribution such that a loan modification would be feasible. On July 18, 2019, your counsel responded that PHH is unable to provide additional information regarding the decisions and recommends that we move ahead with the appeal process. That is unacceptable.July 18, 2019 PHH Mortgage Services Page Two In your letter of denial, you simply made a general statement of the reason for denial without specific details. Your statement regarding a “Streamline Modification” was as follows: “Due to our modification program rules, the lowest modification payment that we can provide will exceed the current mortgage payment by more than 25%.” We believe that the above denial failed to provide the specific reason for denial, again in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act as well as the terms of the Consent Judgment entered in State of Alabama, et al. v PHH Mortgage Corporation; United States District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:18-cv-00009, You merely refer to a cryptic 25% threshold. You have not provided the amount of the proposed modification payment upon which you based this conclusion. You did not provide the principal and interest payment, the escrow amount, any interest bearing portion of the loan and how that was determined, and forbearance amount of the loan and how that was determined, any reduction of the loan and how that was determined, interest rate used and how that was determined, amortization period and how that was determined, and the property valuation used in the consideration of the modification. You have stated your program rules will not allow low enough payment, but do not disclose the terms of the rule(s) upon which you have based this decision. Basically, you provided no substantive information whatsoever. Once that information is received, we can amend our appeal to address any specific deficiencies. Sincerely, cc: client