Representative Cases

foreclosure / bankruptcy / creditor rights

Representative Result #1

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. assisted a local business owner with foreclosing upon and reestablishing a boating service business, by successfully litigating and resolving all issues in favor of Molosky & Co.'s client.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. successfully represented a local business owner in obtaining ownership and control over an established boating service business and all assets of the business. When amicable pre-litigation efforts to resolve payment of a half million dollar debt failed, an Action for Account Stated and Breach of Contract claim were initiated in Circuit Court. Defendants' attempts to sneak out of their substantial debt obligation through numerous counter-claims were easily overcome, with the matter being successfully resolved in favor of our client, who was able to secure valuable assets, reestablish an ongoing business operation, and monthly cash payments from its debtor.

Representative Result #2

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully assisted our client with the unpleasant foreclosure process.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. advised our client during a multimillion-dollar foreclosure process by acting as intermediary between our client and the mortgage company. Following foreclosure, the mortgage company repeatedly contacted our client in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. At our request, the mortgage company ceased all further contact with our client.

Representative Result #3

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. assists client with collecting Judgment in excess of $22,000.

Expanded Description:
Our client received an Order for Judgment for $30,000 but was only able to partially collect on the Order. With the knowledge of Molosky & Co., our client was able to pursue the appropriate party, execute on the judgment, and collect the remaining balance of over $22,000.

Representative Result #4

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully challenged a bankruptcy trustee's claim that our client received substantial preferential payments, thus preserving our client's hard-earned profits.

Expanded Description:
For years, our client, a mold manufacturer, produced molds worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for an automotive business. During the economic downturn of 2008, the automotive company filed for bankruptcy protection. Shortly thereafter, our client received a letter from the bankruptcy trustee claiming that recent payments our client received from the bankrupt company were preferential payments. The asserted preference payments were a substantial amount of money; money that our client worked hard to earn and could not afford to relinquish. Through our experienced command of the bankruptcy code and careful review of the pattern and history of payments from the bankrupt company to our client, Molosky & Co. successfully demonstrated that the payments were made in the ordinary course of business, and therefore not preferential payments. As a result,our client kept its hard-earned money.

Representative Result #5

Capsule Summary:
After identifying discrepancies in our client’s alleged signature on a mortgage, Molosky & Co. gets creditor/mortgagee to voluntarily cancel pending foreclosure proceeding.

Expanded Description:
Our client is co-owner of a million-dollar luxury property. It is undisputed that the co-owner of the property obtained a loan, providing a mortgage on the property as collateral. The co-owner defaulted on the loan and the creditor/mortgagee commenced foreclosure proceedings against our client’s property. The creditor/mortgagee also suggested that our client could be subject to debt collection measures arising from the loan (even though our client never signed any underlying loan). Within days of being retained, Molosky & Co. received verification from the creditor/mortgagee that our client was not personally liable for any amount on the loan. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. quickly discovered a suspicious discrepancy in our client’s purported notarized signature on the mortgage (our client had no recollection of ever executing this document) suggesting that our client never signed it. Of course, without a valid mortgage from our client, the creditor/mortgagee has no right to foreclose our client’s interest in the property. After notifying the creditor/mortgagee of the notary/signature issue and explaining our client’s due recourse for slandering her interest in the property, the creditor/mortgagee voluntarily agreed to cancel the foreclosure proceeding (then just days away) while it further investigated the matter.

Back to the Top