and i filed this case in two thousand and three and after years of battling fair banks we were unlawfully foreclosed on our money and property was stolen our home was old out from under us by a rd to a rd party in a deal that was pre arranged by fair banks and fair banks attorneys this left us in financial ruins our family of six days from eviction about to become homeless and foreclosure was just a flat out horrible experience the most important message i wanted to bring today was that after years of litigation the state supreme court we finally prevailed the judge justice paul basically issued a decision and judgment order in july and twelve and we proved we prove this was an unlawful foreclosure by banks we prove the predatory loan servicing by fair banks we prove fair banks was liable we established to counter claims against fair banks and the judge basically had issued this decision and judgment in our favor was made on the merits as well the federal action centers on predatory loan just making a claim of a procedural violation and there are no actual damages because we were fully compensated not at all that now we certainly were making a claim  as just just to finish what i wanted to say real quick with the federal action was on predatory loan servicing fair banks was the largest sub prime mortgage in the united states in two thousand and three and the state judgment proved telfair banks use predatory loan servicing practice to abuse our family and you say as i understand it that that farrah banks was was the real party behind the  which is we immediately submitted into the federal action because we won and it looked like we proved our federal case as well but the district court did not extra dopped the state judgment and that's really where the thing went sideways at that point in order to have a violation of the new york general business law you have to have november two thousand and three my wife and i were customers during that time it was obviously private as they were investigating it before it became public fair banks which as i said was the largest servicer in the united states had over five hundred thousand families mortgages that the sharma's for with most of them in foreclosure at that point and the settlement that explains the predatory practices that ferry banks  my question is what do i do with that two things one is that the state court determined and broke down the predatory practices in detail in the well and we had never venture a hearing in two thousand five which was adopted by the state judgement two thousand and twelve and that's in the record in the brief to the to the other point of the general business law that was for deceptive and deceptive practices basically to the general public when a mortgage servicer applies predatory services to a homeowner and in our case we prove they stole our money they didn't apply the payments they abuse the senate and it's  detailed as i said and the in my writings it's isn't part of your argument that there's evidence in the record that there are banks answered in to a settlement with court's judgment when it's not on the merits and so on i'm not i can't recite the exact words but the federal court didn't adopt the state's judgment and that and they didn't apply or counter claim and counterclaims for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and for misrepresentation what was described and in the u s government case versus fair banks mirrored our case i mean we were that's we were the customers of that company getting abused by them they settled we had already filed our action i didn't settle i didn't want to settle and we litigated the case and then twenty and then we proved it and then we came back you know we're still in the federal case it took years all of us took years but we proved it yet we couldn't show the jury we couldn't talk to the jury about it if we did would we were warned it would be a mistrial so the evidence couldn't come in another state evidence could come in and the evidence that was allowed to be used we couldn't respond back to it without saying or or risking a mistrial and that was really why the jury why the trial was so difficult it was it was basically impossible we had claims dismissed diminished and again those are my brief and i'm certainly it please the court stephen or creamer for pelly your honors i tried the case i was involved in a year of the pretrial proceedings a couple statements i think you've all made evidence  the judge expressed lee said to the plaintiffs you can if you can independently bring in evidence from the state court trial you can do that and the judge repeatedly said that to the plaintiffs at one point in the transcript stops this is a pretrial hearing says to the plaintiff counsel how you can prove this let me let's talk about this and the judge says you can use the transcripts they never did your honour's they never brought a one point during the trial the judge judge chen said you can use the statements below as in a you know one d if you want me ask you this i understand that with don's particular circumstance that something that shows some general or some broader consumer harm there is evidence in the record isn't there that the federal government  answered into a sound meant for forty million dollars having to do with related predatory practices claims there was a motion in women a on that which was granted by the district court the district court that the claims that they were perceiving were not linked to that it's in my brief that the judge says that mike go to the nd phase of the case as to damages  claim here is a single shot dispute for the g b and it's because when they were saying was you didn't credit my payments correctly and here's why it's a single shot dispute it's because there was a four berenson greenman that the plaintiff entered into that document was the one is is your argument that what the alleged the government entered into a consent decree which did not admit of course but which was of the air that all that had to do with things which were sufficiently yes your honor it is my argument and in fact in the district court so hell but on what basis well you judge two things st in the state court proceeding they lost on their g p l client ok now they lost on that but the well they did that for any number of reasons agreed the dispute here was how the how we administer this forbearance agreement the judge in looking at the motion eliminate said it's not relevant to that there was never any evidence put up linking the two of this paint there's  consent decree out there that to create change to make the claims that i have against you more probative or not they have the ability if they wanted to to do that response back they were free to try to get that in they were represented by counsel at trial to use any of the evidence that came in there below in the state court proceeding whether it been admission whether it would have been testimony that was never profer and in fact at one point plaintiff's counsel said the forbearance agreements is not admissible and the judge said why would you say that it's relevant to this whole case is your whole claim is fair banks did not properly allocate your payments according to that forbearance agreement that's why it's a single shot dispute your honor it's that forbearance or agreement of how you made those payments and how those payments were allocated pursuant to it they were onto racked plaintiffs said well i don't understand why i had to pay on the certified loan under certified payment my print my payment should have gone to principal it should have gone to interest and i think that if you're going to go look at the f maybe if that were the case maybe you can link it that's not what happened here the trial judge actually said a warm point am i the only person who didn't realize the payments were covered by this forbearance agreement and in i've read the last i think six months of this court's decisions on applying spokeo trubel this court has not issued a percent a rule and we do not and judge chen to not say a percent rule of the standing issue in light of through all but i think the judge my answer is no and the reason why is the judge performed and i put in my brief the analysis that struble asked for a two step analysis the court did not say because plans canceled mid it was a bare procedural violation that it's dismissed the court went on to look at the statute and parit to what was that issue and spokeo and didn't analysis of the respa claim that was being made here so judge the court did not stop and i actually argued in my brief the court conducted a struble analysis if if that transcript it's not here so you talk about the state court proceeding does not refer to and judge chen is about i think four decision says we were not a party to that they argued when i argued for essentially race judicata saying you've been made whole you've been made whole you took your case you teed it up you want good for you what damage do you have against me in this federal case they argued successfully you were not a party to it and these are different claims so they said there's different case different claims that was their position judge so you may be troubled by saying that but they said this is a different claim and the judge looked at it said hey it's my client's free do sure you duties was an issue of how did we administer the contract that we entered into that gets me back to my single shot so i could see a one since you could read the decision and i could explain i understand how that happens and that under  analysis wrestled with and gave a very long analysis of here's the respa statute here's the claims that they're making in this case and i go back to we always try just a case but they had limited claims here and they took the affirmative position of you are not a party in the state court we have different claims against you and we want to take you to trial ok and we did it and the judge said and it's in the record i've given you every break possible it's a point that's in the record it's on my brief i could read you other statements of they said you're a different party you weren't in the state case we've got different claims in the state case we want to take you to trial and we did and they got every break from the judge they can ask for  transferred from central islip to prop one and after ten years of this position change from party to not being a party and so on which is in the brief mr kramer reversed and said that they were a party that course the court to say we want to get a pro bono we're turning to help you they appoint an attorney he's on the case for less than ninety days an he misreads the case he follows what was just he made he made an inadvertent mistake and he went the wrong way he he explains later that it was he should have argued issue percussion and for years she tried to get that reversed and we couldn't that's also all explained but the other things i want to touch on too is and so that's a that's a valid point but it was a mistake it was inadvertent and we tried repeatedly to to go back to what it conclusionary compulsory counterclaims so the whole thing is a mess and the point is that again the counterclaims were not applied they and they should have been applied in the federal case because that's what new york allow you to do but on that alone let i just want to i just want to touch on that real quick to go share this now oh boy another time love the whole lot of the st communication received by a new service or it notifies the homeowner from the new service or the notifies the homeowner of the proper boarding of the mortgage has been done and information related transferred to the new service to the new service or it's a hand off the homeowners assured congress and i believe congress intended the snow is to make sure that that was done properly and i and i say this without  humbly but the notice that their banks want to argue is that it's just really like a neighborhood welcome wagon love letter and it's not it's very important and the failure of boarding when this is not done properly the failure to properly boarding and transferring all related information open the door into this immediate abuse which we experienced immediately which is again all detailed in the well and and basically decision so i just wanted to mention that real quick the last part is on three hundred and forty nine if i can because again the public is that this went when a mortgage is when a homeowner is abused by predatory loan service and so was the investors and that's the public