Consumer complaint received 2016-05-04 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage
Issue: Taking/threatening an illegal action — Seized/Attempted to seize property
Company: Weinstock, Friedman, & Friedman, P.A.
State: NH

Complaint narrative:
XXXX of the loans in question were originated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acquired by XXXX XXXX in a merger. XXXX XXXX decided not to renegotiate the balloon loan for our home when it matured. Additionally, they cross defaulted the other loans. All bills were paid monthly, and we had great payment history. The properties were impossible to refinance because of the economic downturn and reduced property values. XXXX XXXX was paid approximately XXXX dollars a month for these loans, which did not include escrow. The bank was going after our home and lively hood that generated the funds to pay them. 
On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, represented by XXXX XXXX of Weinstock , Friedman & Friedman, sought and were awarded a judgement by confession in the US District Court in XXXX, MD, on our home where we resided in XXXX County, MD. This action was a violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Law, which prohibits confessed judgement on principal residences. We only learned of the judgement against us in XXXX XXXX, when we were forced to seek new legal representation. 
This action was precipitated by a promissory note which was misrepresented to me as a rate renegotiation, cited incorrect addresses, modified the original note to include the confessed judgement clause and gave us two months to pay {$320000.00}. Previously, the bank had filed for confessed judgement in XXXX County Circuit Court. The bank had been made aware of the illegal nature of the use of confessed judgement on a non-commercial real estate transaction. The bank voluntarily withdrew the judgement. 
We were served with a Motion for Discovery which had a fictitious date, as there was no Thursday, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
We were then served a Show Cause Order for Contempt which was withdrawn by the bank as we had reached a global resolution of {$300000.00}. All properties, including our business, were listed for sale. Our home went under contract XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made it very difficult to settle, rescheduling several times, finally releasing the lien for settlement in XXXX of XXXX. Additionally, the sale of the second property to go under contract was finally aborted by the buyers who could no longer wait for the bank 's predatory practices and disregard for all parties involved. The bank is making it impossible to hold up our end of the global resolution by not releasing the property liens for sale. A second family went under contract for this property in XXXX of XXXX. The settlement was rescheduled several times before closing on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Two days later, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the sale was cancelled. XXXX claimed fraudulent documents were presented. All funds were redacted, our accounts frozen, the new home owners were forced to leave the home they paid for and begun to renovate. Homeland Title Company, in XXXX XXXX MD, paid XXXX Bank as the lien releases stipulated. The same couple would still like to purchase the home. However, XXXX refuses to honor the global resolution that was put in place XX/XX/XXXX. 
It appears that they are trying to get out of the global resolution. Each time we have the ability to pay them a substantial sum of money, they pull back and try another angle of attack. Presently, they are trying to foreclose on our business, before letting the property under contract settle. We suspect they would let us settle promptly if they had a successful foreclosure, because we would be left with nothing. 
I placed a call to the Maryland Attorney General and was strongly advised to file a grievance with the CFBP as Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman and XXXX XXXX violated Maryland law misrepresenting our home loan as a commercial loan product, defrauding the court into a confessed judgement. Further, our due process was violated by not having the option of mediation.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation