Case Results
For over a decade, Ziegler Diamond Law has represented Florida consumers, homeowners, and small business owners against creditors, debt collectors, mortgage servicers, foreclosure mills, and corporate plaintiffs. The case results below are illustrative of the kinds of outcomes our firm has obtained — including federal appellate victories, foreclosure trial wins, FCRA and FDCPA litigation, complex bankruptcy disputes, and commercial defense.
Important — please read. Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict future outcomes. Every case is different. The case results described on this page depend on the unique facts and legal circumstances of those matters. Where specific dollar amounts are mentioned, those figures may include attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages, and represent gross results before any deductions for fees, costs, or other obligations. The mention of a defendant or opposing party should not be construed as an admission of liability by that party. Some matters settled before trial; others were resolved by verdict, dispositive ruling, or appellate decision. Our firm represents consumers, homeowners, and small businesses against creditors, debt collectors, mortgage servicers, and other parties — your case may have a different outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements or past results.
Schedule a Free Consultation — (727) 538-4188
Appellate Practice & Class Certifications
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Citation: 34 F.4th 1260 (11th Cir. 2022)
Type: Published Federal Appellate Opinion — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Holding: The Eleventh Circuit held that monthly mortgage statements can constitute debt-collection communications subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The published opinion is binding precedent within the Eleventh Circuit.
Daugherty class action (12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida)
Type: Court-Certified Class Action
Role: Michael Ziegler, Kaelyn Diamond, and Andrew Meyer (Finn Law Group) were certified and approved by the court as co-Class Counsel.
Class Actions We’ve Filed
Beyond completed appeals and settlements, our firm has drafted and prosecuted class action complaints across Florida and federal court targeting unlawful collection practices and consumer-protection violations. Representative examples:
S.M. v. Toledo Blade Weight Loss, P.A. (Pasco County)
Type: FCCPA Class Action / Deceptive Collection Packets
Allegations: Class action complaint challenging deceptive small claims collection packets that falsely represented that a judgment, wage garnishment, and property seizure (including vehicles) were a “certainty.”
S.K. v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS) and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC
Type: FDCPA / FCCPA Class Action — Zombie Debt & Overshadowing
Allegations: First Amended Class Action Complaint for FDCPA and FCCPA violations related to debt collectors overshadowing dispute rights and falsely claiming the consumer had made a “partial payment agreement” on a time-barred zombie debt.
B.G. v. The Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A. (Middle District of Florida)
Type: FDCPA / FCCPA Class Action — Collection Law Firm
Allegations: Class Action Complaint against a law firm for FDCPA and FCCPA violations related to aggressive and misleading collection letters over HOA assessments that threatened the seizure of property, including the consumer’s pets.
Learn more about our consumer-collection harassment practice →
Foreclosure Trials, Appeals & Mortgage Litigation
National Bank v. Confidential Homeowners (Pinellas County)
Case No.: 14-000356-CI (Trial) / 2D16-3081 (Appeal)
Type: Foreclosure Trial / Appellate Reversal
Result: The firm aggressively defended the clients against a foreclosure action involving complex allegations of fraudulent, blank-indorsed documents prepared by a foreclosure mill. After the trial court initially ruled in favor of the lender following a non-jury trial, the firm helped transition the matter for appeal. Outside appellate counsel then successfully prosecuted the appeal, resulting in the trial court’s judgment being reversed.
National Bank v. Confidential Homeowners (Pinellas County)
Type: Foreclosure Trial
Result: The firm took over this case specifically for the trial phase and secured a complete trial victory for the clients. The trial court agreed with the firm’s defense that the lender had failed to meet its duty to provide loss mitigation alternatives pursuant to FHA servicing regulations. The judge ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the bank’s foreclosure action.
Confidential Homeowner v. Major Mortgage Lender
Type: Wrongful Foreclosure Litigation
Result: The firm aggressively litigated a wrongful foreclosure action against a major mortgage lender. The case resulted in a highly favorable settlement: the client’s mortgage was completely satisfied (allowing them to keep their home free and clear), the client received a monetary award, and their credit reporting was fully updated and corrected.
Confidential Homeowner v. Mortgage Servicer
Type: Wrongful Foreclosure Defense / Consumer Fraud
Result: The client faced threats of wrongful foreclosure and aggressive misrepresentations regarding amounts owed following a COVID-19 forbearance plan. The firm took swift action against the servicer, securing a settlement that provided direct financial compensation to the client and successfully fixed their credit reporting.
Major Lender v. Confidential Homeowner
Type: Foreclosure Trial
Result: The firm successfully defended the client at a foreclosure trial, receiving the winning verdict. While the bank technically retained the ability to re-foreclose in the future, the firm strategically used this hard-fought trial victory as leverage to force the bank to the negotiating table — securing a highly favorable settlement rather than allowing further unnecessary litigation.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. K.K. (Non-Jury Trial)
Type: Foreclosure Non-Jury Trial — Complex Real Estate Issues
Result: The firm handled a foreclosure non-jury trial. The final judgment involved complex real estate issues, including an order to reform the mortgage instrument nunc pro tunc to correct a scrivener’s error in the legal description of the property.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. P.N. & K.N.
Type: Foreclosure Defense / Improper Service Challenge
Result: Filed a Verified Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Default arguing excusable neglect because the clients had been quarantined in Hawaii due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and were improperly served via publication. Active litigation through the non-jury trial phase.
JPMC Specialty Mortgage LLC v. C.A. (Non-Jury Trial)
Type: Foreclosure Non-Jury Trial
Result: The firm represented the defendant through a non-jury trial, securing clarity on escrow credits and allowable attorney’s fees prior to entry of the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure.
Learn more about our foreclosure defense practice →
Consumer Protection & Debt Resolution
Confidential Client v. Medical Transport Company
Type: Medical Debt Defense / Consumer Protection
Result: The client faced a $60,000 collections attempt for a single medical air transport required to save the life of her and her unborn child during a high-risk pregnancy. Despite the transport being out-of-network and the provider refusing health insurance coverage, the firm aggressively fought the collection action. The result: a complete waiver of the entire $60,000 debt, deletion of the negative credit reporting, and a statutory damages payout awarded to the client.
Confidential Client (Debt Consolidation Matter)
Type: Debt Resolution / FDCPA Violations
Result: The client originally retained the firm for debt consolidation. By meticulously reviewing the file, the firm identified significant attorney-representation violations by the creditors. Leveraging those violations, the firm secured waivers for nearly $100,000 in debt and ensured the total deletion of all associated negative credit reporting.
Confidential Consumer v. Debt Collection Agency (Pinellas County)
Type: FDCPA / FCCPA Litigation
Result: The firm sued a predatory debt collector who falsely represented themselves as a law firm. After securing a Clerk’s Default, the defendant attempted to set it aside. The firm aggressively litigated and defeated both the defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Default and their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration — preserving the default and securing the victory for the client.
L.B. v. Crescent Bank & Trust
Type: FCCPA Summary Judgment — Liability Win
Result: The firm secured an Agreed Order Granting Summary Judgment as to Liability Only. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $1,000 in statutory damages under the FCCPA and explicitly reserving the issue of actual damages to be determined by a jury at trial.
L.B. v. Allied Financial Group, LLC
Type: FDCPA / FCCPA Liability Win + Damages-Only Trial Preparation
Result: Secured a directed verdict / summary judgment on liability against the defendant for 5 distinct FCCPA violations and 9 distinct FDCPA violations. With liability decided as a matter of law, the firm drafted specialized jury instructions for a trial focused exclusively on calculating compensatory damages, emotional and mental distress, and out-of-pocket losses.
C.R. v. Internal Credit Systems, Inc. and Triumph Fit, Inc. (Middle District of Florida)
Type: FDCPA / FCCPA — Veil-Piercing & Punitive Damages Trial Preparation
Result: The firm drafted extensive Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Verdict Forms, and Trial Exhibit Lists for an evidentiary jury trial. The instructions covered complex substantive issues including piercing the veil to establish “Actual Agency” and “Apparent Agency” liability for a gym over its debt collector’s FDCPA and FCCPA violations, plus instructions for punitive damages.
Learn more about our FCRA practice →
Complex Bankruptcy Trials & Hearings
In re Confidential Debtor
Citation: 636 B.R. 909 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2022)
Type: Bankruptcy Trial / Exemption Litigation
Result: The firm successfully defended a client in a highly contested bankruptcy dispute. Opposing parties attempted to strip the filer’s homestead protection because they owned a rural farm. The firm aggressively litigated the issue at trial, and the bankruptcy court fully upheld the client’s homestead protection.
In re Confidential Debtor (Complex 341 Hearing)
Type: Complex Chapter 7/13 Hearing
Result: A highly complex bankruptcy case involving difficult non-exempt property issues and a $49,000 proposal. Through exceptional preparation by the bankruptcy team, the firm successfully navigated the 341 meeting before the Trustee, resulting in a highly favorable outcome for the client.
Learn more about our Florida bankruptcy practice →
Commercial Litigation & Post-Judgment Defense
Corporate Plaintiff v. Commercial Lodging Client (Orange County)
Type: Post-Judgment Defense / Settlement
Result: The client came to the firm with a $67,643.95 default judgment already entered against them. The firm immediately filed a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment. This aggressive post-judgment strategy forced the plaintiff’s hand, allowing the firm to settle the nearly $68,000 judgment for $20,000 — saving the client over $47,000 and securing a dismissal with prejudice.
Commercial Creditor v. Commercial Debtor & Guarantor
Type: Summary Judgment Defense / Commercial Debt
Result: The firm defended against a $34,496 commercial debt lawsuit. By aggressively opposing the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment — and uncovering hidden “Bonus Pool” funds and recourse provisions the plaintiff had failed to account for — the firm forced the plaintiff to the negotiating table and secured a favorable settlement, saving the client from an impending judgment.
Commercial Insurance Co. v. Commercial Trucking Client (Hillsborough County)
Type: Civil Litigation Defense
Result: The firm successfully defended a commercial trucking company in a civil dispute, negotiating a final Agreed Order Approving Stipulation for Settlement that resulted in a complete dismissal of the case with prejudice.
Learn more about our debt collection lawsuit defense practice →
Talk to Us About Your Case
If you’re facing a debt collection lawsuit, foreclosure, harassment by creditors or debt collectors, credit reporting errors, or a commercial dispute — we’d like to hear about it. Initial consultations are always free.
Schedule a Free Consultation — (727) 538-4188
Reminder: Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict future outcomes. Every case is different. The case results described on this page depend on the unique facts and legal circumstances of those matters. Where specific dollar amounts are mentioned, those figures may include attorneys’ fees, costs, and damages, and represent gross results before any deductions for fees, costs, or other obligations. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements or past results.
