Stephanie is an attorney in the firm's Financial Litigation Services Department. Stephanie represents her clients in both state and federal courts.
She concentrates her practice in litigation regarding mortgage matters representing large financial institutions. Upon graduation from law school, Stephanie concentrated her practice in labor and employment law, serving in a federal government position as well as in private practice. She was also a sole labor law practitioner for five years. Stephanie has represented clients in all aspects of litigation before both state and federal administrative bodies. She is well-versed in labor and employment law, administrative law, and appellate litigation.
Received a favorable decision in a published opinion of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals which held that the previous property owner can maintain an action in eviction even after transferring its interest to a third-party purchaser, particularly where the third-party purchaser ratified the prior owner’s actions.
Recently received a favorable decision in a published opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which held that foreclosure is not a compulsory counterclaim to a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit.
Received a favorable decision in a published opinion of the Alaska Supreme Court in the case of Erkins v. Alaska Trustee which held that a party's incapacity during formation of a contract may result in a voidable — not void — obligation.
Received a favorable published decision from the Montana Supreme Court in JAS, Inc. v. Eisele. In the opinion, the Court determined that a trustee’s sale, which had not been conducted in strict compliance with the Montana Small Tract Financing Act’s notice requirements, was invalid. The court declined to adopt an actual or constructive notice exception to the Act, as urged by the appellants.
Received a favorable published opinion from the Washington Court of Appeals in Blair v. Northwest Trustee Services. The Court of Appeals echoed recent Washington Supreme Court precedent in determining that an entity’s entitlement to enforce a promissory note as a beneficiary under the Washington Deed of Trust Act is derived from its status as a “holder,” not as an “owner” of the note.
Received several favorable decisions from the California Court of Appeal and the Ohio Court of Appeals.