The Harouni Law Group has helped borrowers stay in their home since 2008. The first step in any wrongful foreclosure case is to preserve the status quo. In other words, we want to stop your lender from foreclosing on your home or from evicting you pending the outcome of your case. That is why, upon suing your lender, we always file an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to stop any imminent foreclosure sales or evictions.
The second step is to negotiate with your lender to settle the case in exchange for a loan workout while continuing the litigation against your lender. We settle the vast majority of our cases because lenders realize that it is in their best interest, financial and otherwise, to give our clients a loan workout.
It becomes progressively more difficult to obtain a TRO the longer you wait to file suit. For example, it is more difficult to get a TRO after a foreclosure sale than it is before a foreclosure sale; it is more difficult to get a TRO after an eviction “unlawful detainer” lawsuit has been filed against you than before the date that it was filed against you; and it is more difficult to get a TRO after judgment has been entered in the eviction “unlawful detainer” lawsuit than it is before the judgment was entered.
Nevertheless, the Harouni Law Group has achieved success at stopping foreclosure sales and evictions at every stage of a case. While most foreclosure defense attorneys do not take on post-foreclosure cases because of their complexity, difficulty, and interrelatedness with other areas of law, such as Unlawful Detainer and Bankruptcy law, we accept post-foreclosure cases as well as any Unlawful Detainer and/or Bankruptcy cases that may exist. Most importantly, we have a very high rate of success in such cases.
At the Harouni Law Group, we settle more than 90% of our cases with favorable loan modification terms for our clients. Unfortunately, most settlement agreements contain confidentiality clauses which forbid us from mentioning the terms of settlement to the public. Nonetheless, the following is a small sample of the miraculous results that our litigation, loan modification application assembly, and negotiation skills have yielded us over the years:
Jones v. (confidential): The client retained the Harouni Law Group after his home in Torrance, CA had already been foreclosed upon and after the lender had already filed an Unlawful Detainer eviction lawsuit against him and his wife to evict them. Post-foreclosure cases are the hardest cases, especially when an eviction lawsuit has already been filed, so much so that most attorneys would not even take on a post-foreclosure case. Nonetheless, we took his case and immediately filed suit against his lender for wrongful foreclosure. Based on the strength of our lawsuit and motion, the lender dismissed its eviction lawsuit against our client and asked what he wanted in exchange for a dismissal of his wrongful foreclosure lawsuit. Our client stated that he wanted a loan modification. Thereafter, we applied for a loan modification while simultaneously litigating the case for our client. A few months later, the lender offered to rescind the foreclosure sale, reinstate our clients’ loan, and modify with both a reduced interest rate and reduced principal.
Bourland v. (confidential): The homeowner had retained another law firm to sue her lender for wrongful foreclosure in San Francisco. After 1.5 years of litigation, the homeowner’s attorneys could not even convince her lender to review her for a loan modification. The homeowner finally became fed up with her attorneys’ ineptitude and retained the Harouni Law Group. Because her lender’s attorney knew Mr. Harouni and the Harouni Law Group, knew that we file strong lawsuits that survive the demurrer process and have a high likelihood of success at trial, and knew that we would not ask for our clients to be reviewed for a loan modification unless we knew that they were eligible, she immediately called Mr. Harouni and asked if the client would like to be reviewed for a loan modification. Our firm was thus able to do within one day of being retained what our client’s former attorneys could not do after 1.5 years of litigation, based purely on the strength of our reputation. Not surprisingly, a few months later, our client’s lender offered her a permanent modification with great terms, which our client accepted. We dismissed our case against her lender immediately thereafter.
Kratz v. (confidential): Our client’s loan modification applications had been denied five different times prior to them retaining us. They were even told by their lender that they should stop submitting applications because they would no longer review them. The lender even set a sale date to foreclose on their home. Once our firm was retained, we sued the lender for wrongful foreclosure and filed a motion with the court to stop the sale. The court immediately granted our motion to stop the sale. Though the lender had told our clients that they would no longer be reviewed for a loan modification because they had been denied five times already, their attorney called Mr. Harouni one month after we filed suit and offered him an opportunity to submit one last loan modification on the clients’ behalf. We accepted because we knew that their previous denials of our clients’ application had been made in bad faith. Three months later, they offered our client a permanent loan modification, which our clients happily accepted.
Bell v. (confidential): Our clients were four years behind on their mortgage payment and their lender was close to foreclosing on their home. Their lender refused to review them for a loan modification because they had already been denied a few times. Further, our clients’ Homeowners’ Association filed suit against our clients to foreclose on their home or, alternately, to collect $55,000 for years of missed HOA payments. We sued the lender for wrongful foreclosure and filed a cross-complaint against the HOA for negligence, amongst other things. With respect to the HOA cases, we settled both of them by reducing the $55,000 debt to $33,000, agreeing that the HOA would pay our clients $15,000 for their own wrongdoing, and agreeing that the HOA would let our client pay the remainder over the course of 40 months. With respect to our case against the lender for wrongful foreclosure, we settled that case with a loan modification that brought our clients’ loan current and had them paying their mortgage over a 40 year amortization period. Needless to say, our clients were very happy.
Case 1 (Click Here) Case 2 (Click Here) Case 3 (Click Here) Case 4 (Click Here) Case 5 (Click Here) Case 6 (Click Here) Case 7 (Click Here) Case 8 (Click Here) Case 9 (Click Here) Case 10 (Click Here) Case 11 (Click Here) Case 12 (Click Here)