The term “litigation” describes a dispute between two parties before a court. Mortgage litigation arises from a dispute between lender and borrower, usually over matters of payment, debt, money owed, etc. When a lender refuses to assist a borrower or when a lender commits an act of fraud against the borrower, the borrower is more than justified in pursuing mortgage litigation as a way to settle the dispute. By taking a dispute before a court, both parties are able to present their case, ask questions of the other party, present evidence in support of their argument, and allow a neutral third party (the judge) to make a determination as to which party should be awarded the damages they seek in accordance with the law.
Supplying evidence in support of one’s argument is paramount to making a successful case. This means that a lender or borrower can’t show up in court and offer accusations without supporting evidence to validate their claims. Evidence in a mortgage litigation case is often offered in the form of documents and contract agreements. This is why it is so important for borrowers to maintain copies of mortgage related documents for as long as they can. Most mortgage litigation cases are taken to court years after a mortgage deal closes, not within days of closing, when documents are still fresh off the printer.
The most important part about presenting a mortgage litigation case for borrowers is being able to appoint a qualified and experienced mortgage litigation attorney. Mortgage litigation is a specialized niche within the practice of law, so not just any attorney will do. If you think you can save a few bucks by hiring your sister’s kid who is fresh out of law school and working for a motorcycle accident firm, think again. The attorney the borrower appoints to represent them will act on behalf of the borrower to save their home. This is not a task to be gambled with. Go to your nephew when you crash and burn on your bike, not when your house if facing foreclosure.
Mortgage litigation trials are non-criminal in nature, so neither party is at risk of being locked up. The trial is simply a vehicle to settle the dispute in question between the two parties. This means that, in most cases, the principal parties (lender and borrower) will not always be required to be present in court. This can be a huge blessing to the borrower who would rather hand off all of the documents and evidence in their possession to their lawyer so that their lawyer can fight on their behalf. Many borrowers facing financial uncertainty have more important things to do with their time than listen to two lawyers argue back and forth. This is not to say that the presence of a party will never be required, only that their presence will not always be required. Borrowers anxious about the outcome of their case are free to be present at every day of trial should they so choose.