Homeowners have everything to lose when hiring the wrong attorney

I hired Bruce Broyles from Boardman Ohio (Youngstown).  This lawyer stated he knew PSA’s and if you have the PSA, that tells you what happened to your original note. I not only had the PSA from the SEC which I got myself, it was proof that this securitized note from 2003 was void by the PSA.  Kicked out of the REMIC for not following New York Trust Laws which is the key to any PSA.  This note was voided making it worthless, so, from the beginning – there was no trust for the Plaintiff, US Bank to act as trustee. The PSA was even in the title of US Bank’s complaint.  I took Bryoles at his word that he was PSA and securitization literate. He states, “I am a civil litigation attorney with more than 20 years experience.”   Big mistake on my part as you will see.  He lists several specialities he is knowlegable in and areas he specializes and practices in -

Some of which are the following just to name some:  “appellate practice, business law, business litigation, commercial law, contracts, corporate governance, corporate law, credit and mortgage, foreclosure, landlord and tenant law…”

But as we know, some people are good at stroking their own “agendas”.

  Let’s view one of his big contradictions – Bryoles makes a statement that he uses his “experience to force foreclosure Plaintiff to prove each and every element of the foreclosure complaint” – So he “can level the playing field” for modification.  What happened to his knowing PSA and securitization.  You don’t have to be a lawyer to know the PSA is the golden egg to prove what happened to your securitized note and mortgage.  Bruce Broyles had more proof and information done for him on a case he lost but back up- Look at what Broyles states in his advertisements on the web.  He “forces Plaintiffs to prove each and every element of the foreclosure complaint” – Well, that certainly can be disputed.
 Evidence coming up how he screwed up big time with evidence, facts, documents, records, and excuses only to lose big time.
Broyles flops from the PSA to he’s gonna make the Plaintiff prove all elements of their claim to his objective, to get you a loan modification.  Read the national news lately on how well those loan modifications are working out for people?  As if the servicers and banks are going to end the corruption with a modification.  Then, Broyles flips again about modifications. Quick review – he tells me that he is literate on PSA’s and securitization.  Well, if that were the case, why didn’t he have the knowledge to get it across that the PSA from the SEC was proof that the note was kicked out of the REMIC – the trust – No trust= No trustee.  US Bank could not file a claim as trustee of no trust.  Now for modification – the property is deteroiating and underwater.  Ocwen added on charges to loan payments for services not performed – jacked up the payments – all of this and more given to Broyles as evidence.  Ocwen was fined $2.1 Billion and more for just this kind of misconduct – no mention of this from Broyles even though defendant had it outlined and spelled out precisely.  Any short sale would have left defendant owing huge amount in deficiency judgment and/or huge amount to taxes but the property is worth nothing compared to the inflated fees they have added on.  An agreement was given to defendant to take the settlement and shut-up.  Not to disclose anything to anyone of what the concocted settlement entailed.  Even Broyles had to admit this should be given thought before signing this, coming from one who states he is for modifications.  Most of the modifications have not worked in favor of the homeowners, have they?
Look at the stats of how well that mess worked out.  People pay lawyers thousands and thousands to end up moving out and the bank is left holding blighted properties.  But back to Broyles Blog – Again, he uses this as an ad to promote himself but take a good look at what he says on Friday November 7, 2014- Broyles refers to a Rolling Stones article on JP Mortgan.  Oh how far lenders will go to get profits.  How about how far lawyers will go for money money money money – This article by Broyles about “loan modifications and the moral hazard of principle reduction” -  – This is a guy who has the audacity to use the word “moral” -Broyles states “How “moral” does this guy appear now?” Second, he discusses the “principle” of all the fees including legal fees.  Broyles states the “moral” hazard could disappear when JP could use “accounting gimmics” of consumer assistance to get credits for the fines they got.  Broyles uses in his ads that loan modification is what he goes for.  So lets see, Broyles is gonna “level the playing field” to get you a “modification” but as for JP Morgan and modifications they are just immoral according to Broyles more contradictions from Broyles.   Screw the PSA, the evidence, the fraud, no standing of Plaihntiff’s corruption of documents, records fraudulent assignments made up by Plaintiff and their lawyers.  None of this seems to be immoral to Mr. Broyles.  Oh yes, and when he loses for a client, its the clients fault, not his.  But to keep his little home practice going, he throws out a few crumbs to attract more pigeons like me who should have ran but you see he offered a monthly payment plan.  Every month he got a check to the tune of $7300.00 before I caught on but back to his October 14, 2014 article- Don’t be discouraged plan – Broyles admits he did not read all of the case.   Marc Dann lost in the Bank of America Vs Kuchta case before the Supreme Court.  You may be asking you hires Dann anyway – well, I was one of the dummies who paid Marc Dann $2000.00 to tell me that the bank had glued the securitized note and mortgage back togerther.  Even I knew that was illegal – Remember US Supreme court law – seperation of note, what that does?  His invoice shows he spent money before and services he performed.  I think that is illegal according to the Ohio Bar Association Rules but does anyone care?
Back to Broyles-
After viewing parts or some of the Kuchta case, Broyles gut took a turn.  Oh my, homeowners need to get a lawyer right away.  Why?  Money for him?  Broyles states, in the appellate decisions, courts are “paying attention to the finer points” – Nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the 4th District Court of Appeals that Broyles has made arguments before.  Example – Broyles states, “was the affidavit proper” – Well, lets see, Broyles has a case before this court.  They rule Broyles client didn’t have an affidavit.  In another case, Broyles loses before these same Judges when the defendant has a clear cut affidavit but then they state that the affidavits are self-serving.  So, it appears these Judges can’t make up their minds- either way, Broyles lost – one client-not enough evidence- the other client- too much evidence.  But when it came to the bank’s affidavit that was proven she had no personal knowledge, Broyles let this bunch get away with licking up this document even when it was proven the affiant stated she never viewed the original note but swore that the copy was a true copy and much much more proven against this affiant.  Broyles goes on “did the lender comply with the condiditons precedent?”  Another joke, Mr Broyles?  In a case I had, the lender was not a trustee-no trust – they filed complaint before they themselves, US Bank stated they were not the owner and holder of the note, interrogatory answers and allonge that Broyles held skips over plus a fraudulent mortgage assignment.  Dates Bryoles-what did you miss here – does he listen to clients- that is extremely important- March comes before July.  US Bank filed case March 27, 2012 while stating New Century Mtg Corp was holder and owner of the note on July 31, 2012.  If the mortgage follows the note, which the courts have upheld that over and over – Oh my, where was Broyles attention to the note and mortgage.  The assignment of the mortgage wasn’t even filed with the complaint or amended to include that particular assignment.  Again, where was Broyles mind when defending this case.  Not with his client’s best interest.  Oh my, where was Mr Broyles and his attentive 4th District Court of Appeals Judges – Harsha, McFarland and Hoover? They had before them case precedents, the Scwartzwald case and the Slorp decision.  In his as, Broyles states homeowners are getting better loan modifications no matter at what state of litigation.  Could this allegedly be, give me your money at any stage of the game ploy.
Hypothetically, speaking of course, have you heard – It’s just me and my wife’s little business?
Broyles states “do not be discouraged by the Kuchta decision?”  Read the Kutcha decision yourself and then beware – Foreclosures are still going on.  Big time.  People are moving out leaving vacant blighted neighborhoods, where is Broyles proof that courts are treating foreclosures as something more than clogging the docket except to force homeowners into a modification only to have that modification turn on them.  Where is Broyles proof that ” Banks are getting weary of the fight” – Oh yes, look at all the homeless who are flocking back to their bank foreclosed homes in blighted neighborhoods – getting a good deal from the banks.  Shocking revelation – Mr Broyles words that “banks are willing to modify a loan than draw an unreasonable line in the sand” – Did the sandman visit this lawyer in dreamland or is this his play to draw in cusotmers?  This is the same lawyer Broyles who just stated on the same page that discussing loan modifications and the “moral’ hazard of principle reduction.  So, which is it?  Modificaiton – good or bad? Ask the thousands who got modifications only to have their payments and servicer charges go up and up.  After dumping thousands of dollars to lawyers and bank payments for something that shouldn’t have happened anyway, people lost their homes to illegal foreclosures.  It’s not like the banks and servicers had the legitimate papers to do this – they depended on these tricks from lawyers and judges upholding their fraud – when a servicer has to resort to fabricating paperwork – they are in the wrong.  Take for example – one of these cases I am referring to – the servicer, Ocwen, actually signed for a dead bankrupt company (who has an injunction placed on them by the State of Ohio) – they signed as an attorney in fact for a company that no longer exists.  Did Broyles allow this to be upheld – yes, he did.  Even opposing counsel has to be saying this is way too good to be true.  They were in such a hurry and made mistakes but the Court system with the help of Broyles let it slide and it’s business as usual.  I took my case before the trial court level.  I had everything covered tha could possibly be covered.   More than most lawyers would have – they just don’t put that much effort out – they usually hit the highlights – but nothing was left uncovered.  But when you are faced withy an alleged biases, lazy or angry judge who has been thrown off the bench and it has been said he is under investigation himself – not much could be expected.  What Broyles had to work with for the appeals court was monumental amount of solid evidence.  Broyles words “we only need a bite to win summary judgment”  -Well, Broyles didn’t just have a bite – he had the whole body of evidence to eat and he still couldn’t win.
Yes, all the evidence was before the trial court.  The summary judgment was typed by opposing counsel and the judge rubberstamped it.  No excuses.  Broyles remarks regarding a Sheriff’s sale – Well- one incident of a sheriff’s sale came up and Broyles wasn’t even on top of it -his client had to tell him. That’s scary- And you pay for this.  Excuse was, “I can’t be expected to keep up with the court docket etc”  If you hire Broyles – Forget the PSA – Forget the evidence, documents, records, facts – he has stated “retain counsel early”-
Translation – money, money, money, money – but then he states- at any stage will do etc.
Broyles words – “defend the foreclosure in order to level the playing field in the loan modification process” – Hypothetically speaking – give me your money and I will talk to the oppossing counsel, my buddies and get a modification – What a wonderful game? No money for you after the fraud has been put on homeowners – I’m not even going to mention the counterclaims or illegal foreclosure informatioin.

Ocwen has never ending fraud in their papers.  Heard of leverage in lawyer world?  What they want to pretend to forgive on your loan – you will pay in taxes not to mention deficiency judgement.  Broyles contradicts himself in my opinion with the modificaiton references in his JP Morgan article – “allegeldy” homeowner bias out to make sure the bank wins.  He seems to have the “free house” syndrome.  
Broyles states – ” Homeowners facing foreclosure that the banks are working against you to make you feel alone and helpless” – Well, guess what – if you hire Broyles, your chance of winning is likely so called more hopeless.  Look at the losses he has had.  If is up to him as he has said – make a modification  with the bank.  Right or wrong.  All the facts, evidence, certified papers, documents- don’t bother collecting all of this for him.  Broyles attitude against homeowners – you ain’t gettin a free house or any money damages.  You’re gonna give these banks something and I’m going to get me thousands, doesn’t have time to really listen or keep client up to date with information.  Broyles will do it his way, attitude problem and you will pay?  Forget about Broyles defending your counterclaims but that goes along with the don’t tell the client until I hook them for a lot of money  and it goes along with the free house syndrome they carry so well -
This article is the contributors opinion – The writer is not an attorney and does not give legal advice.