Staci Matthei, a paralegal in the Indiana office of Lender Legal PLLC, recently demonstrated how experience and attentiveness can make a meaningful difference in an interaction with a borrower.
Drawing on her background in loss mitigation, Staci was well-equipped when a borrower reached out in distress, urgently seeking to understand a notice of default. The borrower was panicked and unsure where to turn. Staci responded with calm professionalism, and ensured that the borrower had the servicer’s phone number to call and discuss any potential options that were available to them.
“The person was in need, and I was there to offer as much informationas I could,” she explained.
Leveraging her experience, Staci outlined the documents the borrower needed to gather and provided a clear overview of the process. She then ensured the borrower was connected with the appropriate contact at the loan servicer who shared their appreciation for her help.
“If I had not been assigned to that specific file, I would not have immediately known how to help,” she noted. “That made a big difference in this case.”
Indiana and Ohio Partner Phil Barragate emphasized Staci’s expertise, stating, “Staci has an immense knowledge of both mortgage default and bankruptcy.” He added, “Our attorneys and paralegals know each file assigned to them intimately—far beyond simply processing a file in a system. That depth of knowledge gives them confidence in situations like this.”
Phil also highlighted Staci’s efficiency and attention to detail: “I have seen her turn around an Assignment of Mortgage on a rush and file a Motion for Relief the same day, due to her command of each case and dedication to our clients.” Phil adds, “Our technology-driven approach empowers focused attorney–paralegal teams to handle high volumes with precision—while preserving the personal attention that defines our client experience.”
With experience spanning five states and at other multi-state firms, Staci brings a broad perspective to her role. Reflecting on Lender Legal, she shared, “The culture here is focused on treating these matters as the judicial legal process they are. Our attorneys and paralegals lean into the details of each case because those details matter—and understanding the details creates efficiency. Clients and borrowers are never sent from person to person for an answer. I feel knowledgeable and respected in my job.”
As the Spotlight Series continues, we will remain focused on examples of our approach to quality and how it adds value in mortgage default legal services. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to reach out to our VP, Business Development, Josh Miller for further information on the firm.
Welcome to the Spotlight Series where we will put a spotlight on quality and value in legal services. This installment of the series is a discussion with attorney Ali Kalman, Managing Attorney- Bankruptcy.
Ali focuses on Florida foreclosure work and has practiced in the state for 12 years. Throughout her time with Lender Legal, she has experienced numerous moments that highlight the value of our model.
While state-of-the-art technology is essential, our approach begins with something more foundational: each file is assigned to a dedicated attorney and paralegal. This team manages the matter from inception through the life of the file, ensuring consistency and true ownership.
Ali has had successful hearings because she knows each file thoroughly from the very beginning. She has found that firsthand knowledge of each file helps her respond to judges’ questions regarding the history of the case more effectively, without needing to delay the matter for further research or a hearing continuance.
As Ali explains, "These are court cases, and we take the utmost care to ensure they are brought to resolution as efficiently as possible while minimizing unnecessary delay.” She adds, “When I work a file from start to finish, it gives me complete confidence. There’s nothing a judge can ask that I’m not prepared to answer.”
Firm Managing Partner Anas Iqbal adds, “In a judicial state, having this depth of knowledge—without relying on notes from multiple people touching different parts of the case—humanizes the work and creates a better experience for our clients and our attorneys and borrowers, increasing our efficiency. Judges appreciate it as well, which is why attorneys like Ali have such strong reputations in the courts.”
As the Spotlight Series continues, we will remain focused on examples of our approach to quality and how it adds value in mortgage default legal services. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to reach out to our VP, Business Development, Josh Miller at jmiller@lenderlegal.com for further information on the firm.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a temporary and partial waiver of regulation on December 19, 2022. This waiver applies specifically to 24 CFR § 203.6041, which deals with servicing responsibilities and contact with the mortgagor.
Reasoning Behind the Temporary Changes
The HUD waiver2 is an extension of a temporary waiver that was already put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related concerns regarding in-person contact. The current waiver was prompted by numerous factors, including continued COVID-19 concerns, increased seasonal flu infections, and a surging Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) season3.
Further, HUD recognized that, in addition to the increase in illnesses, employee and resource shortages4 are affecting industries throughout the country, including the mortgage servicing industry. Thus, enabling alternative methods of communication to be used during the lending process is also beneficial for mortgagors whose resources may already be stretched thin. What does the waiver, which is set to extend through December 31, 2023, mean for mortgage lenders?
The Temporary Changes for Mortgagors
Mortgage lenders are still required to establish contact with borrowers, but they may now do so using alternative methods such as:
These remote or telephonic meetings allow the mortgagor to assess the borrower’s circumstances and create a repayment plan. Lenders must also use these meetings to inform the borrower of the following things:
The documentation requirement for lenders still stands, as they must keep a record of their contact with borrowers. The waiver now also requires that the method of communication be documented.
HUD’s extended waiver does not apply to the Section 248 insurance program requirements, which still require face-to-face contact.
1. 24 CFR § 203.604.
2. Temporary, Partial Waiver of 24 CFR § 203.604.
3. Yale Medicine. ‘Tripledemic:’ What Happens When Flu, RSV, and COVID-19 Cases Collide?
4. CNBC. Worker shortages, supply chain crisis fuel 2022 Top States for Business battle.
The Second District Court of Appeals recently held that so long as judgment is not entered in favor of Plaintiff and the Note has not been cancelled, the Note should be returned. See Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB v. Morroni, — So. 3d —, 2021 WL 2171756 (Fla. 2d DCA May 28, 2021).
In Morroni, Wilmington was unable to prove standing at non-jury trial. Morroni provided expert testimony at trial who opined that the signature on the note offered into evidence was a photocopy. Despite the expert testimony, the circuit court originally ruled in favor of Wilmington and granted a judgment of foreclosure. Morroni appealed, and the appellate court found that the trial court had no basis to rule in favor of Wilmington and reject the expert testimony. The case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Morroni.
Wilmington subsequently petitioned the trial court to release the loan documents. The court denied Wilmington’s Motion to Release Originals, believing the prior ruling by the appellate court included a factual determination that the Note was not an original. The appellate court disagreed as to that interpretation. In addition, the court found other recent cases persuasive and ruled Wilmington was entitled to the release of the loan documents in the absence of a final judgment cancelling the note. See Id. citing MTGLQ Investors, L.P., v. Merrill, 312 So. 3d 986, 990-91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Santiago v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. as Tr. For Banc of Am. Funding Corp., 257 So. 3d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Rodriguez, 256 So. 3d 882, 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); and Kajaine Ests., LLC, v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., 198 So. 3d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
In Cook v. Bank of America, N.A., 2021 WL 1148816 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021), the Appellants raised the affirmative defense that Appellee, Bank of America, failed to comply with mailing a notice of default pursuant to paragraph 22 of the mortgage. At trial, over the Appellants’ objections, Bank of America presented the testimony of a customer representative who had no first-hand knowledge regarding the mailing of the notice of default. Rather, the witness testified that she had reviewed information in a document, in Bank of America’s computer system, which indicated the letter had been mailed. However, the document referenced by the witness was not introduced into evidence.
While the witness testified that she was familiar with the Bank’s business practices, her testimony did not include an explanation of the mailing procedures used in order to send the notice of default. No other evidence, such as affidavit of mailing, mail logs, or return receipts, were offered into evidence.
The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Bank. Upon appeal, the Fifth District Court reversed the final judgment, ruling that the evidence submitted at trial was not substantial, competent evidence proving the mailing of the notice of default by the Bank. The Court noted that a mortgagee may prove that a default letter was sent by providing: (1) the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge that a default letter was sent; (2) evidence of a routine business practice of the entity drafting and mailing the letter; or (3) evidence in the record such as an affidavit or a return receipt to prove that the letter was sent. Here, none of these were presented or entered into evidence. Furthermore, the Court found that where, as here, a timely hearsay objection is made, a witness may not testify about the contents of a business record if that record was not properly introduced into evidence.
Plaintiff’s bar should note that witness testimony regarding the mailing of a notice of default should include (a) personal knowledge testimony of the default letter being sent; or (b) testimony of the entity’s specific routine business practice and procedures for drafting and mailing the notice of default. Alternatively, record evidence may be admitted, such as a return receipt or mailing logs, which prove that the letter was sent.