Jump to content

Regarding "Heads Up Fair Warning"


flacorps
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just want to address a few things that came up in the thread you can find here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/323173-heads-up-fair-warning/#entry1286889

 

I am an experienced Florida-licensed attorney and have been since 1988. Since 2007 when the pace of business formation slowed to a trickle (and it has never recovered) I have branched out into other areas of practice, including estate planning, business litigation, foreclosure defense, FDCPA matters, and personal injury (bringing me full circle to where I started). I'm not immune to any of the winds that are buffeting others.

 

Here is an example of what I've been able to do recently, taken from a comment I made on Zeroedge.com:

 

 

Here just north of Tampa, Florida I'm just back from a hearing where I got a foreclosure case against my client dismissed on a very technical point of law, the requirement that a complaint be served on the homeowners within 120 days of its filing. Although the judge has ruled that they may refile the case, it is possible their refiling will not meet Florida's 5 year statute of limitations. That does not mean the client gets a free house, the bank lien remains--however, two different owners of the loan have denied modifications even though my clients have been willing to go along with almost anything, so you can ask yourself who is being unreasonable here?

 

One lender took seven months of HAMP payments and then denied a modification (which is what happened to almost all of those who entered the program ... and documents indeed came out a couple of years ago indicating that HAMP was never intended to help homeowners, it was to "foam the runway" for the banks). Lately my clients were again denied a modification.

 

The lawyers for the other side e-mailed me in increasing desperation six times seeking our "intent" prior to the hearing. I didn't answer them. Our intent was to go to the hearing and get the judge to rule on the motion to dismiss. And being a very experienced retired judge who saw that they filed the case in early 2010, screwed around for two years, finally served the suit after we appeared specially and moved to dismiss, then screwed around for two more years ... he dismissed.

 

My clients have a deteriorating house with a green pool on their hands. As much as they would like to work with a lender that would work with them, they would also like the whole thing resolved. I've hooked them up with a broker very experienced in short sales to see if perhaps it is worth it to do that rather than the husband be locked out of getting a mortgage for seven years post-foreclosure. It may or may not be worth it to them, she's the one who is working now.

 

I am by no means superlawyer, but I do know where many of the pressure points are, and while I don't always achieve a result like this I can generally give people another couple of years in their homes, during which time they can ready themselves for the next phase of their lives.

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-26/housing-recovery-myth-new-york-and-new-jersey-ends-bang-foreclosures-surge#comment-4481460

 

As for a 2003 posting with respect to HIPAA, the situation I described may or may not still be valid in 2014. I haven't checked. And as for WhyChat, she and I have had our disagrements, most notably over a method I successully used when I believed I was being overcharged for a helicopter ambulance that transported my toddler son. Since that discussion was on another board, I won't try to link it here.

 

I can be found here:

https://www.facebook.com/MarkHankinsLaw

and here:

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34637-fl-mark-hankins-1274066.html

 

And my book (which is not "self-published" ... it is published through Bookshaker, which is better described as a "lean" publishing house, one that does not deal with agents and publicity and what-have-you) may be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Debt-Hope-dirty-survival-strategies/dp/1907498524

 

I regard myself as very pro-consumer and anti-bank, and if I have put out any misinformation it was entirely inadvertant.

 

A couple of years back I was surprised to find this review of my book:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RLC7EGEVTVR91/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1907498524&nodeID=283155&store=books

 

Folks can make of me what they will. I am not, however, what Clydesmom describes ... an agent provocateur.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I followed both you and WhyChat on CreditBoards many years ago and found both of your opinions valuable in different ways.  I tend to agree that WhyChat's approach in general is not based on any known laws, but it is nonetheless a "technique" at our disposal like any other.  If it didn't work, move on to the next technique.

 

Thanks for clarifying, and hope to see more of you around here in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I tend to agree that WhyChat's approach in general is not based on any known laws, but it is nonetheless a "technique" at our disposal like any other.  If it didn't work, move on to the next technique.

 

It IS a technique that does work but it is NOT based in HIPAA in ANY way.  THAT is the major problem I have with it because it encourages people to falsely accuse and threaten medical providers who are not violating the law.  It my opinion that could be construed as black mail or extortion: "delete this trade line or I will file a complaint against you."  I have ALWAYS said when it does work it is because the CA that is reporting no longer has a business relationship with the provider under HIPAA and therefore they cannot validate.  When they do not respond to the CRA the TL must be deleted.  It isn't because of HIPAA it is FCRA and FCDPA that covers that.

 

Medical providers work hard enough to provide excellent care to their patients.  It is grossly unfair for one person to advise that threatening a HIPAA violation which could cause significant damage even if unfounded is dangerous and uncalled for.  It is despicable to not pay what you owe them and then threaten to turn a provider in to a Federal Agency for availing themselves for a remedy they are entitled to under the law.  

 

I know of several providers that when threatened this way simply discharge the patient from care.

 

I will address flacorps privately as I see that the resident instigator has already shown up to start trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.