Fransen & Molinaro Obtain Results
Just a Few Representative Cases
Real Estate and Mortgage
- Borrower v. Broker – RECOVERY OF STOLEN CASH FROM A CASH-OUT REFINANCE
Client refinanced home to get cash out, but broker (who also owed the escrow company handling the transaction) took the cash for himself. Though we were successful against the broker, he had no assets. However, we were able to get a full recovery of the stolen funds from the California Department of Real Estate’s recovery fund.
- Estate v. Lender, Buyer, Notary, Title Insurer, and Heirs – RECOVERY OF STOLEN HOUSE PLUS COSTS
Client was an Estate where one of the heirs forged a deed conveying real estate of the estate to herself and then sold the property at a great profit. After two years of litigation, the case settled right before trial. The entire property was placed back into the estate and enough cash was recovered to pay all of our legal fees plus court costs.
- Borrower v. Hard Money Lender – OBTAINED LARGE CASH SETTLEMENT FOR VICTIM OF PREDATORY LENDING
Client refinanced his home to obtain cash for a personal emergency. The private hard money lender he used took advantage of client’s emergency need for cash and gave him a loan at a ridiculously high interest rate and completely unaffordable terms. We obtained a six-figure settlement in cash for our client.
- Buyer v. Seller, Broker, and Home Inspector – FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SERIOUS WATER DEFECTS AND MOLD
Clients were able to settle prior to trial and obtain enough money to fix all the defects and eradicate the mold.
- Borrower v. Hard Money Lender – PREDATORY LOAN PROVIDED AND HOME FORECLOSED
Client and her five children were forced into the street by a private hard money lender who provided a loan with illegally high interest and terms with the intent of taking the property. After a lengthy trial involving multiple complex motions based on federal and state law interpretations, we obtained a sizable cash judgment for our client.
- Agent v. Broker – BROKER “FIRED” AGENT RIGHT BEFORE CLOSE OF ESCROW AND KEPT THE ENTIRE COMMISSION
Client was a licensed agent who was the procuring cause of a real estate sale with a commission due of over $40,000.00. In a bold, and illegal, attempt to abscond with the entire commission, the broker “fired” the agent on on the eve of escrow’s close. We represented client in a successful real estate board arbitration. We then successfully represented client in superior court to enforce the arbitration award.
- Homeowner v. Lender, Broker, and “Buyer” – “BUYER” FORGED A DEED AND OBTAINED A LOAN
Title to client’s home was stolen through a forged deed and a cashout loan was then obtained against our client’s home. The lender wanted to enforce the note and deed of trust. At trial, we successfully defended such action in superior court and client remains in her home.
- Borrower v. Lender – LENDER FORECLOSED WHEN BILLS FOR FORCE PLACED INSURANCE NOT PAID
Client never let her homeowners insurance lapse, yet lender force-placed insurance and then billed her for the cost. She rightfully refused to pay, and lender foreclosed. A confidential settlement was reached on the eve of trial which made our client and her family very happy.
- Borrower v. Lender – BORROWER RESCINDED LOAN WITHIN THREE DAYS OF SIGNING PAPERS BUT LENDER FUNDED THE LOAN
Client client properly rescinded his loan within the three day period set forth in his contract yet lender funded the loan anyway. The District Court ruled against client, but we successfully appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now going back to the trial Court.Martin Andelman of Mandelman Matters wrote a great article on this case as well as provided the audio from Nathan’s argument before the Ninth Circuit. CLICK HERE to view that article and hear Nathan.
- Borrower v. Lender – BORROWER RECEIVES LOAN MODIFICATION AND MAKES PAYMENTS FOR A YEAR AND LENDER CHANGES ITS MIND
Client obtained a permanent loan modification and made every monthly payment as per the modification agreement. Lender states that it no longer agreed to the modification and demanded she submit a new application. Many months after filing suit, and after a great deal of time and money has been spent and invested in the case, Lender decides it would like to honor the original loan modification after all, if Client will just drop suit and forget about all the costs of bringing suit and emotional turmoil she has been suffering. Client refuses this ridiculous offer. We look forward to this trial.