Representative Clients

Homeowner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., San Mateo County After being told that their home would not be sold because they were being considered for a loan modification, a national lender sold this family's home anyway to a third party, who promptly visited the family's home and told them that they would need to leave. The family contacted The Goodell Law Firm, who contacted both the investor who bought the home and JPMorgan Chase. After a few weeks of negotiations, The Goodell Law Firm was able to persuade both parties to unwind the foreclosure sale and let the family to remain in their home only a few days before Christmas. This result is very unusual, as it is quite difficult to unwind a foreclosure sale where the purchaser is a third party, and not the lender itself.

Private Money Lender v. Tenant, San Mateo County Superior Court and San Mateo County Appellate Division Mr. Goodell successfully set aside a default judgment and writ of possession in this unlawful detainer case, since the tenant had never been served with the summons and complaint and had no knowledge of the lawsuit. The lender appealed the trial court's decision to the appellate division of the San Mateo County Superior Court, who unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision, which resulted in the tenant being permitted to remain in his home. Shortly thereafter, the private money lender dismissed the case and filed a new lawsuit against the tenant. The Goodell Law Firm represented the tenant in this new action. In this case, after engaging in a significant amount of written discovery and depositions, the private money lender dismissed the lawsuit on the day that a jury trial was scheduled to occur.

Homeowner v. National Lender, California Superior Court The Goodell Law Firm filed a lawsuit days before a foreclosure sale, which was subsequently canceled after The Goodell Law Firm gave the lender notice that they would be seeking a court order to prevent the sale. After over two years of litigation, the Plaintiff was ultimately offered a remarkable loan modification that reduced his principal balance on the loan by over $300,000 and reduced his monthly payment by over $2,000.

Homeowner v. National Lender, California Superior Court. After falling into default on loan, homeowner entered into loan modification agreement with national lender. Thereafter, the servicing of homeowner's loan was transferred to another national servicer, who refused to honor the previous agreement and instead began foreclosure. The Goodell Law Firm filed suit against both national lenders, and homeowners ultimately obtained a loan modification with far greater terms than the one they were originally offered, which substantially lowered their monthly payments and deferred over $250,000 of their principal balance.

Homeowner v. Hard Money Lender, California Superior Court After losing her home through an improper foreclosure sale, the Plaintiff was subsequently evicted and had her belongings hauled away in a dump truck. The Goodell Law Firm was subsequently retained, and immediately obtained a court order preventing the further transfer of the property (which would have made it much more difficult to get title of the property back) until trial. After nearly two and a half of years of intense litigation, including having to file a second lawsuit against new defendants that were represented by one of the most well-known law firms for real estate law in California, the Plaintiff ultimately entered into a settlement agreement where she received title and possession to the property with a loan on the property that reduced her debt on the property by over $200,000, and was much less than the property was worth. In addition, the vast majority of the Plaintiff's costs and attorney's fees were paid as part of the settlement.

National Lender v. Homeowner, California Superior Court After losing their home to foreclosure and being sued by national lender to evict homeowner's family, The Goodell Law Firm was hired to obtain title back to home and defend the eviction. After propounding a plethora of discovery and scheduling depositions in the eviction action, national lender dismissed case and sold home back to homeowner's family for much less than the amount owed on home at the time of the foreclosure and significantly less than the fair market value of home at the time. Four years later, Clients sold home for $700,000 more than they paid for it at the time of the dismissal.

Client v. Real Estate Agent, San Francisco County Superior Court Client discussed a dispute that had arisen regarding a property that he had a fractional interest in with a licensed real estate agent. Agent prepared a contract that required Client to pay him $10,000 to prepare and interpret legal documents and, effectively, give legal advice, notwithstanding the fact that Agent was not a licensed California attorney. Due to real estate agent's inaccurate advice and improper preparation of legal documents, Client lost his interest in the home. The Goodell Law Firm filed suit against the real estate agent due to the fact that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law without a license, which harmed Client by losing his title interest. Real estate agent settled approximately six weeks before trial by agreeing to pay the entirety of the amount requested by the client, $90,000 with simple 5% interest, over a period of several years.

Client v. Local Bank, United States District Court Client was locked out of his investment property that contained tools, construction equipment, and other similar items. Local bank forcibly entered the property following foreclosure and changed the locks, preventing client from taking possession of the property and challenging the foreclosure and their right to possess the property. Client filed suit against bank, who used at least five attorneys on the case while client had the assistance of Mr. Goodell alone. Court ruled that foreclosure was proper but, after a two-week jury trial, a jury unanimously found that the bank had wrongfully evicted client from property and trespassed on his property.

Confidential v. Confidential, San Francisco Client hired different law firm to challenge foreclosure proceedings on his home. Previous law firm abandoned case and did not oppose motion to dismiss case, and case was dismissed. Client then hired The Goodell Law Firm who was able to set aside order dismissing case, and ultimately negotiated a confidential six-figure settlement while the case was on appeal.

Confidential v. Confidential, California Superior Court The Goodell Law Firm obtained order preventing foreclosure of client's home days before it was scheduled to occur, and Court subsequently awarded attorney fees of approximately $16,000 for obtaining said order. Client ultimately obtained very favorable loan modification, and confidential six-figure settlement.

Homeowner v. JPMorgan Chase and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, San Mateo County Superior Court Client purchased home, and escrow company negligently failed to ensure that seller's home equity line of credit (HELOC) was paid off and released as part of escrow. Thus, Seller fraudulently continued to draw on HELOC for years, unbeknownst to client. Finally, Seller passed away and quit making payments on HELOC. Chase began foreclosure, and Client immediately contacted Chase and Fidelity. Client informed both parties that he had already paid off loan as part of purchase of home. Chase ignored Plaintiff, and Fidelity denied his claim for title insurance. Client sued both parties, and thereafter the HELOC was paid in full by the Defendants who also paid Client $150,000 as a cash settlement.

Homeowner v. Mortgage Servicer, San Francisco Superior Court Mortgage servicer breached repayment agreement by demanding that Client pay a higher amount than had been previously agreed upon. After servicer initiated foreclosure, Client filed a lawsuit and sought a temporary restraining order to prevent foreclosure. On two occasions, Servicer postponed foreclosure sale after Client filed applications for injunctive relief. Ultimately, mortgage servicer agreed to discontinue foreclosure proceedings and Court awarded Client more than $12,000 in attorney's fees and costs for prevailing on his claims under the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. Thereafter, mortgage servicer offered Client favorable loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program with an initial interest rate of 2%, which was accepted by Client.

Confidential v. Confidential, California Superior Court National bank repeatedly improperly denied Clients for a loan modification, even though Clients were entitled to a loan modification pursuant to federal guidelines. After two years of hard-fought litigation, Clients were ultimately given a loan modification that reduced Clients debt by over $200,000, as well as a substantial attorney fee and cost award.

Confidential v. Confidential, California Superior Court Client entered into repayment agreement with national mortgage servicer, and subsequently made regular payments pursuant to said agreement. National mortgage servicer transferred servicing rights to other national mortgage servicer, who refused to honor the agreement and initiated foreclosure. The Goodell Law Firm was subsequently retained, and obtained injunctive relief enjoining foreclosure sale on the day before it was scheduled to occur. The case settled after being sent out for trial, with mortgage servicer providing loan modification that capitalized arrearages and lowered client's interest rate and monthly payment, along with paying a portion of client's attorney's fees and costs.

Confidential v. Confidential, United States District Court Client was evicted from her home following an illegal foreclosure sale. The Goodell Law Firm was subsequently retained, and client was able to regain possession of her home during the pendency of the litigation. Following a lengthy order denying mortgage servicer's motion to dismiss Client's case, mortgage servicer agreed to give title back to Client with a favorably-modified loan.

Client v. Unlawful Occupant, California Superior Court The Goodell Law Firm successfully defended client from false allegations that another party, who already had possession of the property at issue, had purchased an interest in a San Francisco home that was superior to client's interest. The Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Client on four of the Plaintiff's six claims. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining two claims, and the case ultimately settled on the day scheduled for trial on very favorable terms that awarded possession to Client and confirmed that Plaintiffs had no valid title or possessory interest in the property.

National Lender v. Client, San Francisco Superior Court National lender filed eviction action against tenant and his sister following a foreclosure sale. Court denied the lender's motion for summary judgment, sanctioned the lender nearly $2,000 for discovery abuse, and ordered the lender to appear for a second deposition. Lender dismissed the case the day before the court-ordered deposition, which permitted the tenant to stay in his home.