Landmark Foreclosure Victory in California Against HSBC
“Landmark Foreclosure Defense Victory: Attorney Richard Antognini’s Success in California and How FRAUD STOPPERS Mortgage Audit Can Help You Achieve Similar Results”
In a noteworthy case, attorney Richard Antognini achieved a remarkable victory in California through meticulous analysis and interpretation of documents. Despite prevailing expectations of defeat, Antognini emerged successful. The case involved plaintiff Shetty, who acquired the property before the foreclosure sale deadline and sought to reinstate it by paying the required amount.
However, the default lawyer, following instructions from a third-party law firm, rejected the payment and proceeded with the foreclosure sale. Shetty subsequently paid off the entire sum and filed a lawsuit, claiming damages for interference with his right to reinstate as a successor. While the trial court dismissed the case, Shetty appealed, arguing his status as a successor in interest.
The appellate court closely examined the contractual term and determined that Shetty qualified as a successor to the property, rather than the loan itself. This ruling discredited the argument against Shetty’s standing and clarified that mortgage and foreclosure terminologies cannot be used interchangeably. Additionally, the court emphasized the significance of reinstatement as a matter of public policy. However, challenges arise during reinstatement due to breakdowns in communication regarding the recipient’s entitlement.
Notably, the FRAUD STOPPERS mortgage audit could aid in achieving similar outcomes by examining the mortgage documents and identifying any irregularities or inconsistencies that could be used to structure a robust defense strategy. Just as attorney Richard Antognini demonstrated, persistence and thorough analysis are key factors in achieving success in foreclosure defense.
Attorney Richard Antognini Score Big Win in California
By Neil Garfield
Here is a case where a lawyer took the trouble to parse the words and documents down to their essence. And he won under circumstances where virtually all other attorneys and judges would have predicted defeat. This is what I have been talking about. The case decision is important for several reasons.
see Opinion 5-18-2023
The fact pattern is particularly interesting. Shetty is the Plaintiff who lost in the trial court. He acquired title from the homeowner before the sale of the property and before the time period had expired for reinstatement. His strategy was simple: pay the amount required for reinstatement and resume monthly payments.
The default lawyer, (which was operating under instructions from a third-party law firm) rejected the payoff and continued with the foreclosure sale. Shetty then paid off the entire amount due. He then sued for damages (interference with his right to reinstate as a successor to the homeowner).
AS usual the trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the whole case. But Shetty is not your ordinary ignorant homeowner. He pursued the matter into the appellate court. He cited the fact that the right to reinstate extends to anyone who is a successor in interest.
The Appellate Court parsed that contractual term. It said that Shetty was not a successor to the homeowner in the “loan” — he was a successor in interest to the property — having paid money for it and having received record title. In one fell swoop, the court brushed aside the argument against Shetty as lacking standing and the idea that terms of art used in connection with mortgages and foreclosures cannot be used interchangeably.
The court also opined that allowing reinstatement is simply good public policy. But the problem with reinstatement is that if the party making the payment wants to know who is getting that money, communications ALWAYS break down.
And that is because if any homeowner does their due diligence or their lawyer is doing his/her job, they will ask for something before they hand over the check or execute the wire transfer. They will ask for acknowledgment that the party receiving the money warrant their entitlement to it.
Since there is no such party and no such account, the lawyers are obfuscating with claims that they are not required to communicate with the successor in interest to the land title, and they are not legally required to accept money for reinstatement. That false statement of the law enables them to proceed with the foreclosure and produce sales proceeds from the forced sale of the property.
Attorney Richard Antognini did what I am begging every foreclosure defense lawyer to do. Take a moment, find the procedural and substantive inconsistencies in the claim (they are ALWAYS there), and structure your defense strategies and tactics accordingly. He also exhibited persistence which is the one characteristic that defines success in foreclosure defense.
If you’re serious about getting the legal remedy you deserve, FRAUD STOPPERS has everything you need to succeed, including:
- Audits & Investigations
- Expert witness affidavits & testimony
- Turnkey litigation packages
- Professional paralegal support
- Nationwide attorney networks
- Legal education and training
- Debt settlement negotiations
- Private lending
- And much more!
To get started complete the form below.
Then check your email for instructions to move your file forward.