IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
XXX, et al.,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Plaintiffs /
Substitute Trustees,
v.
XXX, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
CASE NO. XXX
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY FORECLOSURE SALE
COMES NOW Defendants XXX and XXX, by and through their attorneys, XXX, Esq. of
XXX (hereafter “XXX”), requesting that pursuant to Maryland Rule 14-211 This Court stay the
foreclosure sale of Defendant’s property currently scheduled for October 4, 2013, and in support
thereof state as follows:
1) Plaintiffs / Substitute Trustees in this case have scheduled a foreclosure sale of the
Defendant’s property at XXX (hereafter the “subject property”) for October 4, 2013
at 10:20am on behalf of XXX, the servicer on the mortgage secured by the subject
property. The notice of sale is included as Exhibit 1.
2) Defendants state in satisfaction of Maryland Rule 14-211(a)(3)(F) that the reason for
the untimely filing is that Defendants had refrained from bringing this motion while
XXX was attempting to correct its mistakes and work with the borrowers in loss
mitigation. The imminent sale date now threatens Defendants’ ability to receive a fair
and accurate review, thus compelling Defendants to bring this motion.
3) Defendants have been working with XXX, a HUD-Certified Housing Counselor
employed by XXX, since February of 2013.
4) In satisfaction of Maryland Rule 14-211(a)(2)(A)(i) this motion is supposed by
affidavits from XXX, included as Exhibit 2, and from XXX and XXX, included as
Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively.
5) Counsel attended a foreclosure mediation for Defendants on June 10, 2013 at which
no agreement was reached, after which Defendants continued working with XXX.
Included as Exhibit 5 is an email counsel sent to XXX the day after the foreclosure
mediation, summarizing the five items that needed to be sent by June 24, 2013 per
XXX request.
6) XXX thereafter denied the loan modification review on that basis that the requested
documents were never received, despite the fact that XXX submitted all requested
documents to XXX through their substitute trustees via fax on June 21, 2013, which
met the June 24, 2013 deadline. The fax confirmation is included as Exhibit 6.
7) On July 9, 2013 XXX called XXX and spoke with a representative who apologized
for the miscommunication and indicated that the review would be reinitiated if
additional documentation was submitted. The Defendants submitted this
documentation on July 24, 2013 through XXX via fax directly to XXX. The fax
confirmation is included as Exhibit 7.
8) Defendants were not contacted by XXX after submitting this new documentation, nor
were XXX voicemails returned. XXX reached a representative on August 19, 2013
who confirmed that there was no active modification review because the loan
modification had been denied on June 25, 2013.
9) Since this time XXX has been attempting to work with XXX representatives and
supervisors to reinitiate the wrongfully denied modification review, but continues to
leave messages that are not returned.
10) The modification review was wrongfully denied, as Defendants timely sent
documents to the Substitute Trustees as requested, and XXX has provided misleading
communication about the status of the review which falsely indicated that it would be
reinitiated.
11) XXX negligent communication and handling of the modification review along with
the scheduling of a sale date on the subject property has put Defendants at risk of
having their home sold at foreclosure without receiving the modification review they
are entitled to as they have completed all the requirements.
12) Defendants are asking for a stay of the foreclosure sale so that they may appeal the
removal of their modification, reinitiate the modification review, and be legitimately
reviewed for the Making Home Affordable Program and all other applicable loan
modification options.
13) On September 20, 2013, Defendants submitted a new complete loan modification
application package to XXX. Defendants submitted this new package in an effort to
continue their loss mitigation efforts in order to reinitiate the modification review and
obtain a loan modification. The fax confirmation is included as Exhibit 6.
14) If This Court determines there is insufficient time prior to the foreclosure sale date to
schedule a hearing on the merits of this motion, Maryland Rule 14-211(c) permits the
entry of “an order that temporarily stays the sale on terms and conditions that the
court finds reasonable and necessary to protect the property and the interest of the
plaintiff.”
15) There are no other collateral actions involving the subject property of which
Defendants and Defendants’ counsel are aware.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that This Court Stay the foreclosure sale
of the subject property scheduled for October 4, 2013, and grant such other relief as This Court
may deem appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
XXX, Esq.
XXX.
XXX
XXX
Phone: XXX
Fax: XXX
Email: XXX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this XXX day of XXX, a copy of the foregoing was emailed
and mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to:
XXX, Esq.
XXX, Esq.
XXX
XXX, MD XXX
__________________________________
XXX, Esquire
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND
XXX, et al.
,
Plaintiffs /
Substitute Trustees,
v.
XXX, et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. XXX
*
*
*
*
*
*
ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale, it is
hereby
ORDERED on this _______ day of ________________, 2013 that the Defendants’
Emergency Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale is GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that the foreclosure sale on the property at XXX, MD XXX scheduled for
October 4, 2013 is hereby STAYED.
____________________________
JUDGE