Successes

Confidential v. Confidential
National bank repeatedly improperly denied Clients for a loan modification, even though Client was entitled to a loan modification pursuant to federal guidelines. After years of hard-fought litigation, Client’s debt was reduced by over $600,000, and awarded nearly $500,000 in attorney’s fees, costs and damages.

Confidential v. Confidential
National mortgage servicer misrepresented amount owed to client on property, and repeatedly sought to foreclose on same.  On two occasions, Goodell Law Firm obtained court order preventing foreclosure sale from occurring.   Shortly before trial, case settled for over $500,000 and mortgage servicer gave up on its attempts to foreclose on property.

Confidential v. Confidential
National mortgage servicer violated state and local laws in unlawfully selling client’s home to a person that was not entitled to purchase same at a foreclosure sale.   The Goodell Law Firm successfully defended both the subsequent eviction action brought by the third-party purchaser, as well as filing an affirmative lawsuit against servicer and purchaser.   Shortly before trial was scheduled to begin, all parties agreed to unwind the foreclosure sale and permit client to keep her home.

Multiple Clients
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, The Goodell Law Firm has successfully obtained many court orders permitting borrowers and tenants to remain in their home.

Homeowner v. Hard Money Lender, Alameda County 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.

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.

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. 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 
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, lowered client’s interest rate and monthly payment, and paid a portion of 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.

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 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.

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

Client v. Ex-Husband, San Francisco
During their marriage, client’s ex-husband fraudulently took out a mortgage on their family home without her knowledge.    By the time that the Goodell Law Firm was retained, mortgage debt would have been nearly $300,000.   The Goodell Law Firm sent a letter to the lender explaining that both spouses have to consent to a mortgage on community property during a marriage and threatening litigation unless the mortgage was immediately released from property.   Within weeks of receiving the letter, lender released its lien on the property, thereby saving Client nearly $300,000 in equity.