Complaint Review: Property Solutions Specialists Inc.

We welcome this opportunity to respond to this complaint and to provide further explanation of the status of this matter and Property Solutions Specialists, Inc.'s attempts to resolve or otherwise deal with this consumer's complaints.

First, we will provide a brief description of the business practices of Property Solutions Specialists, Inc. ("PSS"). The sole business activity of PSS is to perform the duties of managing member for the (non-profit) firm Mortgage Crisis Solutions Association, LLC ("MCSA"). PSS ensures that the members of MCSA are provided the membership benefits which are made available to them and such benefits are described in detail on MCSA's website at mcrisis.com.

At the time a consumer applies for membership in MCSA the consumer signs a contract agreement in which the consumer agrees to pay an initial application and activity fee and then pay monthly activity fees which consist of that consumer's share of the management fees charged by PSS for managing MCSA and ensuring that benefits are provided all members. Our current contract documents have evolved since Patricia became a MCSA member, and more benefits are provided to all MCSA members than when she was granted membership. At the time she first contracted with PSS in January, 2008, there was already a foreclosure case against her home for unpaid mortgage installments under way which had started in 2007.

Patricia elected to have her legal assistance benefit paid for by PSS to her paralegal service provider, named Loss Mitigation Associates. This paralegal firm assisted her in defending against a foreclosure lawsuit pending against her home, both in the state courts and in US Bankruptcy Court. PSS does not provide legal advice or representation to anyone, nor does MCSA. PSS and her paralegal firm are not affiliated, other than the paralegal's agreement to assist MCSA members for reduced rates.

Patricia fell behind with her monthly contract payments to PSS. It became necessary to inform her that her membership was at risk of termination. Patricia paid $800.00 cash to avoid termination of her membership.

Patricia apparently did not keep her required US Trustee's payments and paperwork with the US Bankruptcy court current, because her bankruptcy case was dismissed, and the state court entered another order rescheduling her home for foreclosure sale, which was to occur on June 30. We understand that her paralegal firm scheduled a hearing that morning before the bankruptcy court so that she could argue for cancellation of the foreclosure sale. That morning she telephoned MCSA's office and stated that the bankruptcy hearing was not going her way and that she was unhappy with her paralegal's work. The hearing had not been concluded, and MCSA's staff person told her this was a matter to discuss with her paralegal, not MCSA, but to keep us informed.

In the afternoon of June 30, 2008, Patricia showed up without advance contact at the business offices of PSS in Miami-Dade County. In the reception area, she began demanding in a loud voice to see the Vice-President of Operations to cancel her contract; and demanded the return of her $800.00 payment. Thereafter, she then pushed past an employee into the business offices, and created a disturbance which forced us to call the police

In the course of the heated conversation, Patricia stated that her home's sale had not been halted by the Bankruptcy judge, but that she had spoken to someone in the state courthouse and was told that the sale held that morning was to be set aside by the court. We have no idea whether that ever occurred, we only know what she stated. However, it is of course not the responsibility of PSS or MCSA to insure outcome of MCSA members' court cases. PSS's president, in an effort to resolve the situation, offered Patricia the return of the $800.00 as she requested. By then she stated she wanted to speak with the police about her money. While the policemen were present, we drafted a release form for her signature and upon execution, would have given her the $800.00, but she told the police that she wasn't going to sign anything that said she couldn't sue PSS and left the offices.

On July 8, we prepared another letter offering a return of $800.00 to resolve her displeasure with our firm, and sent it to her with a release form. There was no response to this offer.

More recently, The officers of PSS encountered Patricia in downtown Miami, not in PSS's business offices. It appeared she was stalking us and knew where we were going, and she stated (in Spanish) that she would not rest until we had been turned into pork rinds (chichirones). No verbal responses to her occurred at that time.

Contrary to her complaint the contract accurately explains the financial obligations and nature of the business of MCSA and PSS. Many hundreds of satisfied MCSA members exist, and we have provided copies of a dozen testimonials which are viewable on our website under the heading "Success Stories." While it is always sad if a member is unable to retain ownership of their property, no fraud or other liability exists if they can't manage to find a financial solution which works for them. Patricia did, however, stretch her occupancy in her home for at least 6 months without making mortgage payments after contracting with PSS, and the quality of her paralegal's work was the real issue of her complaint.

We welcome this opportunity to respond to this complaint and to provide further explanation of the status of this matter and Property Solutions Specialists, Inc.'s attempts to resolve or otherwise deal with this consumer's complaints.

First, we will provide a brief description of the business practices of Property Solutions Specialists, Inc. ("PSS"). The sole business activity of PSS is to perform the duties of managing member for the (non-profit) firm Mortgage Crisis Solutions Association, LLC ("MCSA"). PSS ensures that the members of MCSA are provided the membership benefits which are made available to them and such benefits are described in detail on MCSA's website at mcrisis.com.

At the time a consumer applies for membership in MCSA the consumer signs a contract agreement in which the consumer agrees to pay an initial application and activity fee and then pay monthly activity fees which consist of that consumer's share of the management fees charged by PSS for managing MCSA and ensuring that benefits are provided all members. Our current contract documents have evolved since Patricia became a MCSA member, and more benefits are provided to all MCSA members than when she was granted membership. At the time she first contracted with PSS in January, 2008, there was already a foreclosure case against her home for unpaid mortgage installments under way which had started in 2007.

Patricia elected to have her legal assistance benefit paid for by PSS to her paralegal service provider, named Loss Mitigation Associates. This paralegal firm assisted her in defending against a foreclosure lawsuit pending against her home, both in the state courts and in US Bankruptcy Court. PSS does not provide legal advice or representation to anyone, nor does MCSA. PSS and her paralegal firm are not affiliated, other than the paralegal's agreement to assist MCSA members for reduced rates.

Patricia fell behind with her monthly contract payments to PSS. It became necessary to inform her that her membership was at risk of termination. Patricia paid $800.00 cash to avoid termination of her membership.

Patricia apparently did not keep her required US Trustee's payments and paperwork with the US Bankruptcy court current, because her bankruptcy case was dismissed, and the state court entered another order rescheduling her home for foreclosure sale, which was to occur on June 30. We understand that her paralegal firm scheduled a hearing that morning before the bankruptcy court so that she could argue for cancellation of the foreclosure sale. That morning she telephoned MCSA's office and stated that the bankruptcy hearing was not going her way and that she was unhappy with her paralegal's work. The hearing had not been concluded, and MCSA's staff person told her this was a matter to discuss with her paralegal, not MCSA, but to keep us informed.

In the afternoon of June 30, 2008, Patricia showed up without advance contact at the business offices of PSS in Miami-Dade County. In the reception area, she began demanding in a loud voice to see the Vice-President of Operations to cancel her contract; and demanded the return of her $800.00 payment. Thereafter, she then pushed past an employee into the business offices, and created a disturbance which forced us to call the police

In the course of the heated conversation, Patricia stated that her home's sale had not been halted by the Bankruptcy judge, but that she had spoken to someone in the state courthouse and was told that the sale held that morning was to be set aside by the court. We have no idea whether that ever occurred, we only know what she stated. However, it is of course not the responsibility of PSS or MCSA to insure outcome of MCSA members' court cases. PSS's president, in an effort to resolve the situation, offered Patricia the return of the $800.00 as she requested. By then she stated she wanted to speak with the police about her money. While the policemen were present, we drafted a release form for her signature and upon execution, would have given her the $800.00, but she told the police that she wasn't going to sign anything that said she couldn't sue PSS and left the offices.

On July 8, we prepared another letter offering a return of $800.00 to resolve her displeasure with our firm, and sent it to her with a release form. There was no response to this offer.

More recently, The officers of PSS encountered Patricia in downtown Miami, not in PSS's business offices. It appeared she was stalking us and knew where we were going, and she stated (in Spanish) that she would not rest until we had been turned into pork rinds (chichirones). No verbal responses to her occurred at that time.

Contrary to her complaint the contract accurately explains the financial obligations and nature of the business of MCSA and PSS. Many hundreds of satisfied MCSA members exist, and we have provided copies of a dozen testimonials which are viewable on our website under the heading "Success Stories." While it is always sad if a member is unable to retain ownership of their property, no fraud or other liability exists if they can't manage to find a financial solution which works for them. Patricia did, however, stretch her occupancy in her home for at least 6 months without making mortgage payments after contracting with PSS, and the quality of her paralegal's work was the real issue of her complaint.

We welcome this opportunity to respond to this complaint and to provide further explanation of the status of this matter and Property Solutions Specialists, Inc.'s attempts to resolve or otherwise deal with this consumer's complaints.

First, we will provide a brief description of the business practices of Property Solutions Specialists, Inc. ("PSS"). The sole business activity of PSS is to perform the duties of managing member for the (non-profit) firm Mortgage Crisis Solutions Association, LLC ("MCSA"). PSS ensures that the members of MCSA are provided the membership benefits which are made available to them and such benefits are described in detail on MCSA's website at mcrisis.com.

At the time a consumer applies for membership in MCSA the consumer signs a contract agreement in which the consumer agrees to pay an initial application and activity fee and then pay monthly activity fees which consist of that consumer's share of the management fees charged by PSS for managing MCSA and ensuring that benefits are provided all members. Our current contract documents have evolved since Patricia became a MCSA member, and more benefits are provided to all MCSA members than when she was granted membership. At the time she first contracted with PSS in January, 2008, there was already a foreclosure case against her home for unpaid mortgage installments under way which had started in 2007.

Patricia elected to have her legal assistance benefit paid for by PSS to her paralegal service provider, named Loss Mitigation Associates. This paralegal firm assisted her in defending against a foreclosure lawsuit pending against her home, both in the state courts and in US Bankruptcy Court. PSS does not provide legal advice or representation to anyone, nor does MCSA. PSS and her paralegal firm are not affiliated, other than the paralegal's agreement to assist MCSA members for reduced rates.

Patricia fell behind with her monthly contract payments to PSS. It became necessary to inform her that her membership was at risk of termination. Patricia paid $800.00 cash to avoid termination of her membership.

Patricia apparently did not keep her required US Trustee's payments and paperwork with the US Bankruptcy court current, because her bankruptcy case was dismissed, and the state court entered another order rescheduling her home for foreclosure sale, which was to occur on June 30. We understand that her paralegal firm scheduled a hearing that morning before the bankruptcy court so that she could argue for cancellation of the foreclosure sale. That morning she telephoned MCSA's office and stated that the bankruptcy hearing was not going her way and that she was unhappy with her paralegal's work. The hearing had not been concluded, and MCSA's staff person told her this was a matter to discuss with her paralegal, not MCSA, but to keep us informed.

In the afternoon of June 30, 2008, Patricia showed up without advance contact at the business offices of PSS in Miami-Dade County. In the reception area, she began demanding in a loud voice to see the Vice-President of Operations to cancel her contract; and demanded the return of her $800.00 payment. Thereafter, she then pushed past an employee into the business offices, and created a disturbance which forced us to call the police

In the course of the heated conversation, Patricia stated that her home's sale had not been halted by the Bankruptcy judge, but that she had spoken to someone in the state courthouse and was told that the sale held that morning was to be set aside by the court. We have no idea whether that ever occurred, we only know what she stated. However, it is of course not the responsibility of PSS or MCSA to insure outcome of MCSA members' court cases. PSS's president, in an effort to resolve the situation, offered Patricia the return of the $800.00 as she requested. By then she stated she wanted to speak with the police about her money. While the policemen were present, we drafted a release form for her signature and upon execution, would have given her the $800.00, but she told the police that she wasn't going to sign anything that said she couldn't sue PSS and left the offices.

On July 8, we prepared another letter offering a return of $800.00 to resolve her displeasure with our firm, and sent it to her with a release form. There was no response to this offer.

More recently, The officers of PSS encountered Patricia in downtown Miami, not in PSS's business offices. It appeared she was stalking us and knew where we were going, and she stated (in Spanish) that she would not rest until we had been turned into pork rinds (chichirones). No verbal responses to her occurred at that time.

Contrary to her complaint the contract accurately explains the financial obligations and nature of the business of MCSA and PSS. Many hundreds of satisfied MCSA members exist, and we have provided copies of a dozen testimonials which are viewable on our website under the heading "Success Stories." While it is always sad if a member is unable to retain ownership of their property, no fraud or other liability exists if they can't manage to find a financial solution which works for them. Patricia did, however, stretch her occupancy in her home for at least 6 months without making mortgage payments after contracting with PSS, and the quality of her paralegal's work was the real issue of her complaint.

We welcome this opportunity to respond to this complaint and to provide further explanation of the status of this matter and Property Solutions Specialists, Inc.'s attempts to resolve or otherwise deal with this consumer's complaints.

First, we will provide a brief description of the business practices of Property Solutions Specialists, Inc. ("PSS"). The sole business activity of PSS is to perform the duties of managing member for the (non-profit) firm Mortgage Crisis Solutions Association, LLC ("MCSA"). PSS ensures that the members of MCSA are provided the membership benefits which are made available to them and such benefits are described in detail on MCSA's website at mcrisis.com.

At the time a consumer applies for membership in MCSA the consumer signs a contract agreement in which the consumer agrees to pay an initial application and activity fee and then pay monthly activity fees which consist of that consumer's share of the management fees charged by PSS for managing MCSA and ensuring that benefits are provided all members. Our current contract documents have evolved since Patricia became a MCSA member, and more benefits are provided to all MCSA members than when she was granted membership. At the time she first contracted with PSS in January, 2008, there was already a foreclosure case against her home for unpaid mortgage installments under way which had started in 2007.

Patricia elected to have her legal assistance benefit paid for by PSS to her paralegal service provider, named Loss Mitigation Associates. This paralegal firm assisted her in defending against a foreclosure lawsuit pending against her home, both in the state courts and in US Bankruptcy Court. PSS does not provide legal advice or representation to anyone, nor does MCSA. PSS and her paralegal firm are not affiliated, other than the paralegal's agreement to assist MCSA members for reduced rates.

Patricia fell behind with her monthly contract payments to PSS. It became necessary to inform her that her membership was at risk of termination. Patricia paid $800.00 cash to avoid termination of her membership.

Patricia apparently did not keep her required US Trustee's payments and paperwork with the US Bankruptcy court current, because her bankruptcy case was dismissed, and the state court entered another order rescheduling her home for foreclosure sale, which was to occur on June 30. We understand that her paralegal firm scheduled a hearing that morning before the bankruptcy court so that she could argue for cancellation of the foreclosure sale. That morning she telephoned MCSA's office and stated that the bankruptcy hearing was not going her way and that she was unhappy with her paralegal's work. The hearing had not been concluded, and MCSA's staff person told her this was a matter to discuss with her paralegal, not MCSA, but to keep us informed.

In the afternoon of June 30, 2008, Patricia showed up without advance contact at the business offices of PSS in Miami-Dade County. In the reception area, she began demanding in a loud voice to see the Vice-President of Operations to cancel her contract; and demanded the return of her $800.00 payment. Thereafter, she then pushed past an employee into the business offices, and created a disturbance which forced us to call the police

In the course of the heated conversation, Patricia stated that her home's sale had not been halted by the Bankruptcy judge, but that she had spoken to someone in the state courthouse and was told that the sale held that morning was to be set aside by the court. We have no idea whether that ever occurred, we only know what she stated. However, it is of course not the responsibility of PSS or MCSA to insure outcome of MCSA members' court cases. PSS's president, in an effort to resolve the situation, offered Patricia the return of the $800.00 as she requested. By then she stated she wanted to speak with the police about her money. While the policemen were present, we drafted a release form for her signature and upon execution, would have given her the $800.00, but she told the police that she wasn't going to sign anything that said she couldn't sue PSS and left the offices.

On July 8, we prepared another letter offering a return of $800.00 to resolve her displeasure with our firm, and sent it to her with a release form. There was no response to this offer.

More recently, The officers of PSS encountered Patricia in downtown Miami, not in PSS's business offices. It appeared she was stalking us and knew where we were going, and she stated (in Spanish) that she would not rest until we had been turned into pork rinds (chichirones). No verbal responses to her occurred at that time.

Contrary to her complaint the contract accurately explains the financial obligations and nature of the business of MCSA and PSS. Many hundreds of satisfied MCSA members exist, and we have provided copies of a dozen testimonials which are viewable on our website under the heading "Success Stories." While it is always sad if a member is unable to retain ownership of their property, no fraud or other liability exists if they can't manage to find a financial solution which works for them. Patricia did, however, stretch her occupancy in her home for at least 6 months without making mortgage payments after contracting with PSS, and the quality of her paralegal's work was the real issue of her complaint.