IN THE
Q 2 2026
NOW
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE & DEFAULT SERVICES EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE: FLORIDA ● Fla. 4th DCA: Intervenor/Non-Party Not Authorized to Stop Foreclosure Sale ● Statutory Right of Redemption Prior to Foreclosure Auction
LOUISIANA ● Understanding Louisiana Foreclosure Options
ILLINOIS ● Illinois in Limbo: State Legislator Fails to Conform Tax Sale Procedures ● Illinois Appellate Court Finds Deed Created Life Estate and Death of Mortgagor Extinguished Subject Mortgage
NEWYORK ● NYC Debt Collection Law Changes Effective Sept. 1st, 2026
EDITOR’S LETTER
WELCOME
Jason M. Vanslette Editor and Chair of Real Estate Division
Going into the third quarter of 2026, we have seen notable increases in default rates around the country. ATTOM, a leading provider of property data, AI-powered intelligence, and real estate analytics solutions, reported last month that there were a total of 40,355 foreclosure filings throughout the nation according to the May 2026 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report. Although a slight decrease from April 2026, this was a 14% increase from May of 2025. Florida had the highest foreclosure rate in the country with one out of every 2,110 housing units having a foreclosure filing. South Carolina, Maryland, Nevada and Indiana were also listed within the top five highest foreclosure rates per housing unit ratios. Notably, REOs (or lender
repossessed homes through foreclosure) also had a 6% increase from 2025 with Texas, California, Florida, Illinois and Michigan taking the top five throughout the nation. Although the statistics are alarming, they are consistent with the falling LTV ratios as homeowners have maxed out equity lines and real estate sales continue to fall due to higher interest rates and decreasing buyer sentiments. Having an experienced default firm with imminent scalability and resources to navigate the rising amounts of defaults is tantamount to mortgage servicer success. At Kelley Kronenberg, our team of highly experienced foreclosure staff and attorneys are available to meet those challenges throughout Florida, Indiana, Illinois, New York and Louisiana.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS FLORIDA FLA. 4TH DCA: INTERVENOR/NON-PARTY NOT AUTHORIZED TO STOP FORECLOSURE SALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 6 STATUTORY RIGHT OF REDEMPTION PRIOR TO FORECLOSURE AUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
LOUISIANA UNDERSTANDING LOUISIANA FORECLOSURE OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 9
ILLINOIS ILLINOIS IN LIMBO: STATE LEGISLATOR FAILS TO CONFORM TAX SALE PROCEDURES .. . . 10 - 12 ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT FINDS DEED CREATED LIFE ESTATE AND DEATH OF MORTGAGOR EXTINGUISHED SUBJECT MORTGAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 15
NEW YORK NYC DEBT COLLECTION LAW CHANGES EFFECTIVE SEPT. 1ST, 2026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 17
CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 21 FIRM OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 AWARDS AND ACCOLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 25
IN THE
NOW |
3
FLORIDA
Fla. 4th DCA: Intervenor/NonParty Not Authorized to Stop Foreclosure Sale Macana Investments, LLC v. Longridge Financial LLC, No. 4D24-0836, 418 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
By: Irina Danilyan, Partner 4 | IN THE
NOW
KK TAKEAWAY: Foreclosure plaintiffs’ counsel should remain mindful of unauthorized challenges to foreclosure sales. Although typically a foreclosure sale cannot be held while a timely motion for rehearing directed at foreclosure judgment is pending, only a party to the final judgment may stop or challenge the sale. In this issue of In The Know®, we once again turn to objections to foreclosure sales. A recent case decided by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) touches upon a unique
nuance, discussed in more detail below, in determining whether a post-lis pendens property purchaser’s objection to the foreclosure sale was proper and whether the sale should be vacated. In Macana Investments, LLC v. Longridge Financial LLC, the Fourth DCA concluded that the court below properly denied an intervenor’s objection to the foreclosure sale, as well as its motion for rehearing of that order.
standing; objected to the order setting trial as premature; objected to the evidence presented at trial; and sought to vacate the final judgment. In its response in opposition, Longridge argued Intervenor had no standing to assert its motion for rehearing and pointed out that Macana approved the language of the order on the motion to intervene and submitted the order to the court.
BACKGROUND:
The property went to sale on January 3, 2024. Notably, Intervenor did not exercise its right of redemption. On January 8, 2024, the trial court denied Intervenor’s motion for rehearing. Intervenor immediately filed an objection to the sale, which was denied. Intervenor’s motion for rehearing of the order on the objection was also denied by the trial court. The appeal ensued.
On December 3, 2021, Reverse Mortgage Funding LLC filed a complaint to foreclose a reverse mortgage and an accompanying notice of lis pendens, in the Circuit Court of Broward County. The notice of lis pendens was recorded three days later. In September 2023, Longridge Financial LLC (“Longridge”) was substituted as party Plaintiff. On September 24, 2023, two days prior to the scheduled non-jury trial, Macana Investments LLC (“Intervenor” or “Macana”), the purchaser of the property at a junior lienor’s foreclosure sale, filed an emergency motion to intervene “so it may exercise its right of redemption and clear title to said property.” Longridge properly objected, as Intervenor acquired title after the notice of lis pendens had been recorded. However, on the day of trial, the court entered an order granting Macana’s motion to intervene “for the limited purpose of exercising its right of redemption.” Despite the limited purpose of the intervention, after the entry of the final judgment of foreclosure, Macana filed a motion for rehearing of the foreclosure judgment in which it challenged the limited scope of the intervention order; argued entitlement to raise any and all affirmative defenses to foreclosure, including
Discussion: Intervenor argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying its objection to the foreclosure sale while its timely motion for rehearing of the final judgment remained pending. In a succinct opinion, the Fourth DCA initially recognized the well-established Florida decisional law on the issue. When a party to a foreclosure judgment moves for rehearing, a foreclosure sale cannot be held because the pendency of the motion prevents the judgment from being final. See, e.g., Francois v. Library Square Ass’n, Inc., 250 So. 3d 728, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). A sale must be set aside if it was conducted while borrower’s timely rehearing motion remained pending. See Prieto v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 201 So. 3d 659, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). However, the District Court distinguished the instant case from the general principle, reasoning that Macana was not a party to the final judgment because the trial court expressly IN THE
NOW |
5
limited the scope of Macana’s intervention to the ability to exercise a right of redemption. When granting intervention, the trial court “must determine the parameters of the intervention” and limit intervention “to the extent necessary to protect the interests of all parties.” Bailey v. Bailey, 310 So. 3d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting Farese v. Palm Beach Partners, Ltd., 781 So. 2d 419, 420-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Here, the trial court did precisely that, by
6 | IN THE
NOW
limiting Intervenor’s right to exercise a postjudgment right of redemption. The District Court concluded that Macana had no authority to move for rehearing of the final judgment or to contest foreclosure, which rendered its rehearing motion a legal nullity. The Fourth DCA affirmed the trial court’s denial of Intervenor’s objection to sale and denial of rehearing of that order.
Statutory Right of Redemption Prior to Foreclosure Auction
By: Jordan Wainstein, Practice Partner
§ 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2020)
KK TAKEAWAY: After the filing of a certificate of sale by the clerk of the court, or the time specified in the judgment of foreclosure, the mortgagor or the holder of any subordinate interest may cure the mortgagor’s debt and vacate a foreclosure sale by paying the amount of moneys specified in the judgment. The statute governing the right of redemption sets forth the time, manner, and circumstances in which redemptive rights must be claimed or elected, thus overriding common law in this area. Other than as provided by statute, there are no redemptive rights.
of redemption is in derogation of common law, it is strictly construed. The law favors redemption by anyone who has an interest in the mortgaged premises and would lose that interest in the foreclosure. To exercise the right of redemption, the mortgagor or his or her assignee should pay the judgment total by tendering it to the clerk of court any time before the certificate of sale is issued. A mortgagor need not obtain the trial court’s permission in order to exercise a right of redemption. There is no requirement that notice be given of the exercise of the right of redemption. Once the clerk receives the redemption funds, the clerk will issue a certificate of redemption. Once the property has been redeemed, a plaintiff may still have outstanding amounts that have accrued since the final judgment was entered. The plaintiff may collect these amounts by filing an affidavit of the additional sums along with an objection to the certificate of redemption, which states the plaintiff is still owed amounts and should be able to collect these amounts from the redeeming party.
BACKGROUND: The right of redemption originated as a common law right in equity and is codified by statute. The right of redemption allows a party to reclaim his or her estate in foreclosed property before it has been auctioned off by paying the amount of the debt, interest, and costs. Only the mortgaged property owner and holders of junior interests have the right to redeem. A mortgagor’s right of redemption is an interest in land. Because the statute governing the right IN THE
NOW |
7
LOUISIANA
Understanding Louisiana Foreclosure Options
By: Amy R. Ortis, Partner
8 | IN THE
NOW
KK TAKEAWAY: Ordinary process and executory process are judicial foreclosure processes in Louisiana. While ordinary process requires a full legal proceeding to obtain judgment, executory process is a streamlined foreclosure approach. Executory process bypasses the normal court procedure, relying on the debtor’s consent in the security instruments to seize and sell property in the event of
default. Technical requirements must be reviewed to determine the most efficient foreclosure path to pursue. Considerations include terminology and manner of execution of security agreements, as well as procedural and jurisdictional requirements.
are often challenges based on technicalities in procedure or in documentation. Executory process is generally a faster foreclosure avenue because it bypasses the normal court procedure, relying on the debtor’s prior agreement to seize the property and sell it in the event of default.
BACKGROUND:
However, there are specific requirements which must be met to proceed under executory process. A petition for executory process may be filed when:
Louisiana foreclosure avenues can differ significantly from those in other jurisdictions. An understanding of these variations is critical for lenders, servicers, investors, and counsel managing Louisiana assets. Most Louisiana foreclosures are judicial proceedings classified as either “ordinary process,” or the more streamlined “executory process.” While sometimes executory process is described as “quasi nonjudicial” because of its expedited nature, judicial oversight and authority are required. For ordinary process, the defendant is served with the citation and given time to file an answer or contest the claim. The case proceeds through the court system with hearings, motions, and potentially, discovery. The creditor must prove the case, and the debtor has the right to defend. A judgment is rendered after a full legal process. Once the judgment is rendered, the property may be seized and sold to satisfy the judgment. Because ordinary procedure may be quite lengthy, executory process is often a preferred route. Under executory process, the debtor receives a petition or notice, but the property can be seized and sold without the creditor being required to go through a full legal process or hearing to obtain judgment. Under executory process, the debtor has limited grounds to contest the action, but there
a.) the creditor holds the original or a certified copy of the note; and b.) the mortgage includes a confession of judgment, which is an agreement that the creditor can seize property without a full trial; and c.) the mortgage is an authentic act, which means it must be signed in front of a notary and two witnesses. With these technical requirements, Louisiana foreclosure practice is often document driven. Additionally, foreclosure actions are frequently challenged or delayed when there are assignment irregularities, defective note endorsements or allonges, and errors in authentic evidence. Kelley Kronenberg’s team of paralegals and attorneys are seasoned in title analysis, document review, and in their knowledge of jurisdictional requirements. Additionally, the Kelley Kronenberg team continually monitors parish specific procedures, which vary widely throughout the state. Kelley Kronenberg’s experienced team will partner with you to navigate and ensure the most efficient route for your foreclosure matters. IN THE
NOW |
9
ILLINOIS
Illinois Remains the Only State That Has Not Reformed its Tax Sales Since Tyler v. Hennepin County. Counties Are Now Being Held Liable
By: Travis P. Barry, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: Illinois counties are being left in limbo as legislators have failed to bring the State’s tax sale procedures into conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County.
BACKGROUND: In Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), the Supreme Court considered an appeal where the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The controversy arose in the State of Minnesota, where an elderly woman failed to pay her property taxes after moving into an assisted care facility. Hennepin County seized her condominium to recoup $15,000.00 in unpaid taxes and sold it for $40,000.00, after which the County kept the surplus. Under state law, homeowners had no opportunity to recover 10 | IN THE
NOW
the excess produced by these sales. Instead, the remainder was kept and split between the County, the town, and the school district. The homeowner filed a lawsuit alleging that the County had violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The unanimous Court ruled that she had stated a classic claim of financial harm sufficient to give her standing, and that the tax sales resulted in an unconstitutional taking by the County. In making its decision pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, the Court did not reach the issue of Excessive Fines under the Eighth Amendment. In the time since the Supreme Court issued its decision in 2023, every other state in the country has brought its tax sale procedures into compliance with the ruling. Illinois remains the sole state to run afoul of the Constitution, and homeowners who lost equity in their properties due to tax sales have turned their sights on the counties for payback. On May 11, 2026, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of a class of nearly 2,500 homeowners who lost their homes and equity in tax sales, finding that Cook County is liable for damages caused by their tax sale system, which showed “deliberate indifference” to the constitutional violations. Elsewhere in the state, some counties have made changes to avoid a similar fate. White County and Rock Island County altered the way their tax sales are conducted. Buyers are now required to return any surplus equity to the homeowners if they ultimately take title to the property. In addition, they must sign an agreement holding the county harmless. As a result, participation in the tax sales has
significantly decreased, down 38%. Cook County’s annual property tax debt sale is delayed until December 1, 2026.
SB3494 – Last Action: Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Assignments on May 22, 2026. •
Various solutions have been proposed by legislators downstate: HB4537 – Last Action: Passed both Houses, 561-1, on May 30, 2026. •
Establishes a six-year pilot program where Cook County could buy tax debts and allow homeowners to keep equity remaining after the property is sold at auction. Tax buyers will be required to pay a new, non-refundable 5% “surplus equity fee” in addition to the taxes and penalties purchased. The fee will help fund a pool to defray the costs of paying back individuals who lost their homes in prior tax sales.
Private investors would be allowed to request the sale of tax-delinquent properties and collect the amounts they are owed for delinquent taxes/existing tax liens plus reasonable penalties, interest, and fees. Sales would be held online in a real-time auction format. The redemption period would also be extended to 5 years under this Bill.
HB5075 – Last Action: Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee on March 27, 2026. •
Would require private investors who seize residential properties through the tax sale system to pay any “surplus” (the difference between assessed value or sales price and the amount owed to them) to the former homeowners within 30 days. IN THE
NOW |
11
SB3940 – Last Action: Assigned to Revenue on February 24, 2026. •
Tax sales as currently held would be eliminated. Counties would instead hold a lien on the property for the value of outstanding taxes and penalties and be able to request that a tax deed be issued to the county as trustee. The property would then be offered at public auction, with any surplus going to the former owner. If the sale did not produce any bids above the lien amount, that would be deemed the purchase price, and no surplus would be owed.
12 | IN THE
NOW
In summary, the State of Illinois has had three years since the ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County to find a comprehensive solution to the unconstitutional tax sale laws currently in place. Tired of waiting, aggrieved homeowners have turned to federal court and are seeing favorable rulings against the counties for their failure to stop the obvious harm resulting from the tax sales. In response, some counties have amended their procedures or halted tax sales altogether in order to avoid a similar outcome. Meanwhile, tax sale investors are lobbying to maintain a system that provides them with maximum returns.
Illinois Appellate Court Finds Deed Created Life Estate and Death of Mortgagor Extinguished Subject Mortgage
By: Johnny Dale Frevert, Jr., Attorney
KK TAKEAWAY: Under Illinois law, where a deed’s language unambiguously creates a life estate with broad powers, the life estate holder may encumber their interest with a mortgage, but both the life estate and mortgage are extinguished upon the death of the mortgagor.
BACKGROUND: In Associated Bank v. Morrison, 2026 IL App (5th) 250622, Rosa M. McShan (“McShan”) took out a loan with Associated Bank, National Association (“Associated”) secured by a mortgage on her property in 2007. In 1995, McShan had recorded a quitclaim deed which transferred her interest in the subject property to her children, one of whom was John Morrison (“Morrison”). The deed also included the following starred language: “Reserving unto the Grantor an estate for and during the term of her natural life whereby Grantor shall have the full use and control thereof during her natural life.” After McShan passed away, the mortgage went into default for non-payment and Associated filed a complaint for foreclosure. Morrison filed an answer to the complaint, asserting two
affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. The first affirmative defense alleged the 1995 deed vested Morrison and his siblings with a fee simple remainder interest in the property and McShan retained only a life estate: as such, when McShan passed away, the mortgage should have been discharged. The second affirmative defense and counterclaim alleged that Associated violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“Act”) by accepting payments on the loan from Morrison for five years after McShan passed away, and the mortgage should have been discharged 1. Associated and Morrison each brought motions for summary judgment and, with respect to both motions, the circuit court ruled in favor of Associated. It found that the language of the 1995 deed and McShan’s actions evidenced her intent that the deed act like a transfer on death instrument; McShan retained a complete interest in the subject property, encumbered that interest with the 2007 mortgage and, upon her death, her interest in the property passed to her children subject to the 2007 mortgage. A judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered, and the property was sold at auction. Associated filed a motion to confirm the sale, which was heard and granted in favor of Associated. Shortly thereafter, Morrison filed this appeal. The central issue before the court on appeal, once the court established its jurisdiction, was the intentions of McShan with respect to the 1995 deed: did McShan intend to create a life estate or not? Appellant Morrison argued that the starred language “Reserving unto the Grantor an estate for and during the term of her natural life…” in the deed was unambiguous: McShan intended to and IN THE
NOW |
13
did pass title to the property to her children in 1995 and retained only a life estate. As she only had a life estate interest in the property, that is the only interest which was subject to the 2007 mortgage. Once her life estate terminated upon her death, the mortgage was extinguished. This was further evidenced by the fact that neither Morrison nor his siblings executed the mortgage. Appellee Associated likewise argued the language of the 1995 deed was unambiguous: McShan’s intent was to retain “full use and control” of the property and to pass that complete interest, subject to the 2007 mortgage, to her children upon her death. After first establishing that a determination of the parties’ intention must be a court’s primary
14 | IN THE
NOW
concern 2 when construing a deed and, absent ambiguity, that intention should be determined by review of the language of the deed alone, the court looked to the language of the 1995 deed. The court found that the starred language (“Reserving unto the Grantor an estate for and during the term of her natural life whereby Grantor shall have the full use and control thereof during her natural life.”) unambiguously evidenced that McShan’s intent was to create a life estate 3 with the “full use and control” to encumber it as she saw fit 4. Since the language in the 1995 deed was unambiguous, it was unnecessary to consider any evidence outside the four corners of the document. The court found that the 1995 deed unambiguously conveyed immediate title to Morrison and his
siblings subject to the life estate of McShan, which she later encumbered with the 2007 mortgage. Upon the death of McShan, the 2007 mortgage was extinguished. As such, the judgment of foreclosure and all subsequent orders were vacated.
1
Accordingly, lenders and their counsel should take care to ensure title is reviewed thoroughly both at loan origination and at referral for foreclosure to ensure that all interests in the property are fully encumbered by the mortgage, because, as shown above, the death of the mortgagor could result in the mortgage being extinguished and unenforceable.
Peoria & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 206 Ill. 234 (1903) .
The circuit court found in favor of Associated with respect to
the second affirmative defense and counterclaim, finding no evidence that Associated acted with a fraudulent or deceptive intent. While this issue was also raised by Morrison on appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. 2
Estate of Jezewski v. Jaworski, 2019 IL App (1st) 170100.
3
See Walker v. Sturgis, 47 Ill. App. 2d 251 (1964) and Chicago,
4
See Frank v. Frank, 305 Ill. 181 (1922).
IN THE
NOW |
15
NEW YORK
NYC Debt Collection Law Changes Effective Sept. 1st, 2026
By: Jason D. Silver, Partner
KK TAKEAWAY: New rules coming into play in the New York City area highlight debtor-friendly changes to municipal rules and New York State laws being enacted. Lenders need to be aware of new rules in New York City starting September 1, 2026, and, possibly, new state laws impacting second mortgage creditors statewide in January 2027 16 | IN THE
NOW
BACKGROUND: The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) recently enacted the Stopping Harassment and Intimidation and Ensuring Lawful Debt (SHIELD) Rule. It creates one of the most aggressive and strict borrower-friendly municipally enforced consumer protections laws in the country. It goes into effect on September 1, 2026. Pursuant to the City’s own press release, the “New SHIELD Rule Institutes a Strong Communications Restriction, Expands Consumers’ Dispute and Verification Rights, and Offers First-of-its-kind Protections for Collection of Medical Debt,” and “…goes above and beyond federal law to protect consumers from aggressive debt collection tactics.”
Per the city’s announcement, the new rules are a result of increases in the costs of living and a decrease in federal consumer protections. The new rule broadly defines a debt collector and covers any natural person or organization, including a “debt collection agency.” First, it limits collector communications and prevents debt collectors from making more than three communications or attempted communications to a consumer within a sevenday period. Debt collectors also may not contact the consumer again during that period once the consumer has responded. Next, the new rule allows a debtor to dispute a debt or request verification at any point during the collection process and through any communication medium used by the debt collector. A collector with a debt that has statute of limitations issues must also be aware it must send a Notice of Time-Barred Debt discussing that the time to sue has expired, that consumers need not admit or promise to pay, and that payment may, for some types of debt, restart the period of limitations. Additionally, the new rules require debt collectors to provide documentation substantiating the debt within 60 days after a dispute of the debt is received.
While the rules themselves do not create a new private right of action, the DCWP will likely be attempting to enforce the new rules aggressively. This is another example of new administrative or legal hurdles for lenders and other debt collectors that work in a large metro area such as New York City as well as states generally more strict on creditors such as New York. On that note, this firm is also monitoring the New York General Assembly proposed bill A07546 and the related New York Senate version, proposed bill S6971, which are proposals targeting second-position mortgages. The goals are to shorten the Statute of Limitations for filing a complaint to three years from six years and to limit the amount a debt purchaser can recover in a foreclosure action to the amount it paid for the defaulted loan plus interest, among other things. They are targeted to be effective on January 1, 2027, and both are currently in respective committee review as of the time of publishing this article. Never hesitate to reach out to Kelley Kronenberg for updates on new rules and laws in New York State that could impact lenders and other creditors.
Lastly, the new rules require a debt collector to maintain detailed records related to the debtor’s file collection communication efforts, and policies related to time-barred debt and verification practices. There are also strict rules related to the collection of medical debts.
IN THE
NOW |
17
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Jason M. Vanslette
Jason began his legal career as an Assistant Public
Editor and Chair of Real Estate Division
Defender for the Office of the Public Defender – 9th
Email Jason M. Vanslette
Judicial Circuit in Orlando, FL. During that time, he provided criminal defense representation to more than 200 clients simultaneously and served as Lead Chair on more than 15 jury trials. Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Attorney
Jason Vanslette is an “AV” rated Partner and Business
for a firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL, where he provided
Unit Leader, focusing his practice on Real Estate, and
legal representation to major financial institutions and
Mortgage Foreclosure & Default Services. In his practice,
mortgage servicers in various counties throughout the
he represents mortgage servicers, mortgage lenders,
state, while focusing on non-jury trials and contested
and other financial service providers with foreclosure,
litigation.
bankruptcy, evictions, and title litigation matters. Jason overseas and manages the Real Estate and Mortgage Default and Lender Representation Divisions at Kelley Kronenberg, which has recently expanded to include Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and New York. Jason is rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, which indicates a demonstration of the highest professional and ethical standards and is the highest rating a lawyer can receive.
Jason earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Florida State University. He went on to earn a Juris Doctorate degree from Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center where he earned a spot on the Dean’s List for three consecutive years and received the Pro Bono Honors Award. While attending law school, he served as an executive board member for Law Student Advisor, Chief Executive and Host of WLAW Radio and member of the Nova Trial Association.
18 | IN THE
NOW
Irina Danilyan Partner Email Irina Danilyan
experience
handling
contested
and
uncontested
foreclosure litigation. She handled pre-judgment and post-judgment foreclosure matters, including protection of creditors’ rights in condominium termination, probate, and criminal forfeiture matters. Irina earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Management, cum laude, from Long Island University.
Irina Danilyan is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where
She then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from
she specializes in mortgage foreclosure & default
Nova Southeastern University College of Law. During law
services and the representation of creditors in bankruptcy
school, Irina received a CALI Book Award in recognition
matters incident to mortgage foreclosures.
of achieving the highest score in her Legal Research &
Irina previously focused her practice on mortgage
Writing course and served as a Professor’s Research
foreclosure litigation and assisting banks and other
Assistant.
financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement,
Irina is fluent in Russian.
transactional and litigation matters. Irina has extensive
Jordan E. Wainstein Practice Partner Email Jordan E. Wainstein
of Business Law Students and the Transactional Law Practice Group President. She gained legal experience while earning her J.D. by attending the Trial Advocacy Summer Institute, being a pupil in the Craig S. Barnard Inn of Court, and working as a Teaching Assistant to Adjunct Professor Gary Brown. While in school, Jordan worked at Kelley Kronenberg as
Jordan Wainstein is a Practice Partner at Kelley
a Summer Associate and Law Clerk, where she worked
Kronenberg, where she handles real estate and mortgage
directly with our construction department. Jordan
foreclosure & default services. She also assists banks
gained experience by summarizing discovery reports,
and other financial service providers with regulatory,
trial records, briefs, and other documents. She drafted
enforcement, transactional, and litigation matters.
deposition reports, pleadings, letters to insurance
Jordan earned her Bachelor of Arts degree from the
adjusters, and tender letters to carriers. She also served
University of Florida, where she majored in English.
as a Judicial Intern to Judge Marcia Cooke for the United
During her time at the University of Florida, Jordan was a
States District Court, Southern District of Florida.
member of the Pre-Legal Honors Society.
Jordan is an active member of the American Legal &
Jordan then went on to earn her Juris Doctor degree from
Financial Network Junior Professionals & Executive
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of
Group and volunteers regularly at SOS Children’s Villages
Law, where she was an associate Editor for the ILSA Law
Florida, showcasing a commitment to both professional
Journal, as well as a member of the Moot Court Society.
development and community service.
Jordan was the Vice President of her School’s Association IN THE
NOW |
19
MEET THE CONTRIBUTORS
Amy R. Ortis Partner Email Amy R. Ortis
metrics, while also engaging in legal research, pleading development, and providing legal counsel. She brings experience including serving as an attorney and branch manager for an affiliate of a Fortune 500 corporation, where she directed a team of professionals, coordinated corporate activities, led title review, and facilitated real estate transactions. She has also served as the
Amy Ortis is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg in the Real
managing attorney for a branch office, overseeing daily
Estate Division, focusing her practice on mortgage
operations and issuing title insurance, and has practiced
foreclosure and default services. She brings nearly three
as an attorney specializing in corporate and commercial
decades of comprehensive experience in corporate and
litigation. She began her career as a judicial law clerk in
commercial law, creditor’s rights, real estate transactions,
the Twenty-First Judicial District Court of Louisiana.
and title insurance.
Amy earned her Bachelor of Arts in English and Sociology
Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Amy served as
from Louisiana State University. She received her Juris
Managing Attorney for a financial services law firm,
Doctor from Mississippi College School of Law.
where she managed and mentored a team of attorneys
Amy is a licensed title insurance producer in Louisiana
and support staff specializing in foreclosures, evictions,
and possesses exceptional experience in establishing and
bankruptcy, and collections. She oversaw daily operations
enforcing corporate compliance, resolving title defects,
including budgeting, resource allocation, and performance
and managing complex real estate transactions.
Travis P. Barry Partner Email Travis P. Barry
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Travis worked at a national law firm, where he represented lenders in real estate matters, including title actions and foreclosure litigation.
Travis P. Barry is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where he handles matters related to real estate and mortgage foreclosure litigation. He also assists banks and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional, and litigation matters.
Travis received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from DePaul University College of Law, where he was awarded the Benjamin Hooks Distinguished Public Service Award for completing over 200 hours of pro bono work. He was also a Dean’s Merit Scholarship recipient and served as a 1L Student Mentor.
20 | IN THE
NOW
Johnny Dale Frevert, Jr.
departments. His background includes extensive
Attorney
experience in document review and coordinating with
Email Johnny D. Frevert Jr.
support staff to ensure efficient case management. Johnny received his Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Missouri. He began his legal education at Barry University School of Law, where
Johnny Frevert is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg
he participated on the Trial Team and served as Vice
who focuses his practice on real estate and
Justice for the American Association of Justice.
mortgage foreclosure litigation. He brings significant
Johnny completed his Juris Doctor at Valparaiso
experience managing default foreclosure filings and
University School of Law, where he served as the 3L
handling litigation matters for financial institutions.
Class Representative for the Student Bar Association
Johnny has worked in various legal settings
and as a Student Representative for the Chicago Bar
throughout his career, including law firms specializing
Association.
in mortgage foreclosure and municipal legal
in the areas of banking and consumer finance. He also
Jason D. Silver
practiced bankruptcy and general litigation as well as
Partner
municipal and government law, having presided as the
Email Jason D. Silver
Deputy Municipal Attorney for the Village of El Portal, Florida. Jason received his Bachelor of Science in Public Relations with a minor in History from the University of Florida where Jason Silver is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where
he was elected to the Florida Blue Key Honor Society and
he concentrates on matters related to all aspects of
awarded the Honorable Mention for the Outstanding
mortgage foreclosure & default services, assisting banks
Leadership and Service Award.
and other financial service providers with regulatory, enforcement, transactional and litigation matters, and representing commercial property owners and property managers with tenant lease compliance and breach issues.
He then went on to earn his Juris Doctor degree from St. Thomas University School of Law. While in law school, Jason received a Book Award in Appellate Advocacy. Jason also worked as a legal intern for the Office of the City Attorney at the City of Miami in the Land Use, Zoning,
Jason has close to a decade of experience in contested
and Quality of Life Division and interned for the Hon. Judge
foreclosure
David Gersten (ret.) at the Third District Court of Appeal.
litigation,
guiding
creditors
from
the
beginning to completion of a court action.
Jason is an avid runner and successfully completed the
Prior to joining the firm, Jason worked as an Associate
ING Miami Half Marathon and 13.1 races in 2011 and the
Attorney at an AmLaw 200 firm focusing his practice
Hollywood Beach Half Marathon in 2020.
IN THE
NOW |
21
with over
507
Employees
more than
the convenience of
Attorneys
Locations
224
19
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 507 employees, 224 attorneys, and 19 locations throughout Florida and the United States. We are privileged to represent large public and private companies, small businesses, and individuals nationwide. With more than 40 practice areas, and growth on the horizon, we offer a comprehensive catalog of legal services to protect your legal interests in business and at home. Our firm is progressive and technologically advanced, while remaining true to our customer service heritage: integrity, ingenuity, and sincerity. Ever mindful of our history, but intensely committed to our future, we offer our clients a small firm feel with large firm resources.
22 | IN THE
NOW
OUR
LOCATIONS FORT LAUDERDALE
NEW YORK CITY
MIAMI
WEST PALM BEACH
ORLANDO
CHICAGO
NEW ORLEANS
INDIANAPOLIS
TAMPA
JACKSONVILLE
TALLAHASSEE
NAPLES
DAYTONA
MERRILLVILLE
DALLAS
SHORT HILLS
10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Phone: (754) 888-5437
111 Broadway, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (845) 306-7867
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 216-8828
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (904) 549-7700
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200 Merrillville, IN 46410 Phone: (317) 731-6243
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 503-0850
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504) 208-9055
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301
5956 Sherry Lane, 20th Floor Dallas, TX 75225 Phone: (983) 999-4640
1501 Belvedere Road, Suite 500-504 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 684-5956
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 731-6243
3080 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 322 Naples, FL 34112 Phone: (239) 990-6490
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (908) 403-8174
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY BUFFALO
Regus Key Center Downtown 50 Fountain Plaza Buffalo, NY 14202
ALBANY
401 New Karner Road. Suite 301 Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (845) 306-7867
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972
IN THE
NOW |
23
AWARDS AND
ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
2021 – 2026 Top Workplaces USA Energage
2020 – 2026 Top Workplaces Sun Sentinel
2019 – 2026 Best Law Firms U.S. News - Best Lawyers
2024 Top Performer Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2025 NLJ 500 The National Law Journal
2016 – 2026 Largest Law Firms Tampa Bay Business Journal
2025 Women Scorecard Law.com
2020 – 2022, 2024 Compass Award Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2012 – 2026 Top Law Firms South Florida Business Journal
2022 – 2023 Best Places To Work New Orleans CityBusiness
2016 – 2026 Largest Central Florida Law Firms Orlando Business Journal
2021 Diversity Team Award Profiles in Diversity Journal
2017 – 2024 400 Largest Law Firms Law360
24 | IN THE
NOW
REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY AWARDS
South Florida Business and Wealth: Real Estate Awards Top Lawyer
Jason M. Vanslette
Jason M. Vanslette Jason D. Silver
Broward County Bar Association, “Top 40 Under 40”, 2021 Marc A. Marra
Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rating American Legal & Financial Network, JPEG Picture the Future Award
Jason M. Vanslette Marc A. Marra
Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch Marc A. Marra Jason D. Silver
Jason M. Vanslette
South Florida Legal Guide “Top Lawyers” Jason M. Vanslette Fort Lauderdale Illustrated “Top Lawyer”
Florida Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” Jason M. Vanslette, Marc A. Marra, Jason D. Silver, Bryan S. Jones
Jason M. Vanslette Legal Elite “Up and Comer” Marc A. Marra
IN THE
NOW |
25
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381