Foreclosure Fraud Meets Malpractice

"In her relationship with HSBC, Doyle essentially abdicated her professional judgment to a black box." This line came from Circuit Judge Fuentes and summarizes not only this case, but the large scale Mortgage Fraud that has run rampant in our society today. The case In re: Niles C. Taylor; Angela J. Taylor, is a snapshot of why so many people are having so many issues with paying their foreclosures today and it is largely because lawyers and entire firms are ignoring the professional rules of conduct. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 10-2154 (March, 2011). 

The best way to begin discussing this case is with another quote from the court "This case is an unfortunate example of the ways in which overreliance on computerized processes in a high-volume practice, as well as a failure on the part of clients and lawyers alike to take responsibility for accurate knowledge of a case, can lead to attorney misconduct before a court."

In a nutshell, Mr. and Ms. Niles C. and Angela J. Taylor filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in September 2007. In the Taylors' bankruptcy petition, they listed the bank HSBC, which held the mortgage on their house, as a creditor. In turn, HSBC filed a proof of claim in October 2007 with the bankruptcy court.

At the time of the bankruptcy proceeding, HSBC believed the Taylors' home to be in a flood zone and obtained "forced insurance" for the property because of their belief and the cost was passed on to the Taylors. The Taylors disputed HSBC‟s position and continued to pay their regular mortgage payment, without the additional insurance costs. However, when HSBC filed its proof of claim, it failed to mention that the Taylors were making their regular payments and instead treated each payment as a partial payment, so that, in its records, it appeared the Taylors were becoming more delinquent each month.

Because of this, in March 2008, the Taylors filed an objection to HSBC‟s proof of claim. The objection stated pointed out the dispute over the insurance. HSBC's attorney, Lorraine Doyle, of the Udren Law Firm, then filed a response to the objection to the proof of claim. The response did not discuss the insurance issue at all. In fact, Doyle later admitted that she made that statement simply as "part of the form pleading," and "acknowledged having no knowledge of the value of the property and having made no inquiry on this subject." She even said she could not even speak with the client to confirm the information.

Additionally, there were Request For Admissions filed that also claimed that the Taylors were delinquent and also did not mention the insurance. Finally, there was a motion for relief from the stay requested as well.

When the there was a hearing in the bankruptcy court May 2008 for these issues, HSBC was represented at the hearing by a junior associate at the Udren Firm, a Mr. Fitzgibbon. This attorney was forced to admit that HSBC had received a mortgage payment for November 2007, even though both the motion for stay and the response to the Taylors' objection to the proof of claim stated otherwise.

Despite these glaring errors, Mr. Fitzgibbon urged the court to grant the relief from stay, because the Taylors had not responded to HSBC's RFAs. In the RFAs was an "admission" that the Taylors had not made payments from November 2007 to January 2008, which was clearly false.

The bankruptcy court denied the request to enter the RFAs as evidence, noting that the firm "closed their eyes to the fact that there was evidence that . . . conflicted with the very admissions that they asked me [to deem admitted]. They . . . had that evidence [that the assertions in its motion were not accurate] in [their] possession and [they] went ahead like [they] never saw it." Additionally, the court noted: "Maybe they have somebody there churning out these motions that doesn't talk to the people that-you know, you never see the records, do you? Somebody sends it to you that sent it from somebody else. I really find this motion to be in questionable good faith," the court concluded.

Ultimately, the court found the following violations of Rule 9011: Fitzgibbon's for pressing the motion for relief based on claims he knew to be untrue; Doyle's for failing to make reasonable inquiry concerning the representations she made in the motion for relief from stay and the response to the claim objection; Udren's and the Udren Firm's, for the conduct of its attorneys and HSBC's for practices which caused the failure to adhere to Rule 9011.

Though the court seemed particularly put off by these particular defendants' actions, they are far from a singular occurrence. It is these types of practices, mostly through the use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) that puts so many people in trouble with their foreclosures today. If Attorneys who work for the banks were held more accountable and forced to actually deal with not only the home owners but their own clients, then many of the current problem could likely be alleviated or avoided.


Why Clients Want Us

  • Thousands of Clients Helped

    We have helped thousands of clients with both small and big cases since the inception of the firm. Our attorney Matthew Weisberg has had the opportunity to fight for the rights of clients before the Supreme Court.

  • Affordable Pricing

    We are committed to providing transparent flat fees that are affordable. Everyone deserves the ability to fight for their rights without the worry of affordability.

  • Over 20 Years of Experience

    Since 2005 our firm has advocated for the rights of clients in Philadelphia and surrounding cities. In addition, our attorneys have been in the legal field for over 20 years bringing immeasurable knowledge with them to the firm.

  • Free Consultations

    We understand the stressful nature of the situation you can be in. Call us for a free consultation and we will strive for a response within 24 hours.

Start Your Free Consultation Today!

Defending Our Clients

See What Our Clients are Saying
  • “They helped me get my life back. I will always remember how empowered I felt after I testified and when the case was over (in my favor!).”

    - Robin R.
  • “When no one would take my legal malpractice case, they did and won!”

    - Doniell W.
  • “Weisberg Law was the only firm that took an interest in our racial discrimination case against a local school district.”

    - Kerry M.

Contact Us to Start Assisting You

  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.