St. Petersburg, Florida – Yesner & Boss, one of Tampa Bay’s top law firms in the field of commercial and residential foreclosures, short sales and bankruptcies, is expanding into Manatee and Sarasota Counties. The firm has announced the addition to its legal team of Jo Ann M. Koontz, an experienced tax lawyer and a certified public accountant.

Koontz joins Yesner & Boss (www.YesnerBoss.com) from the Sarasota firm, Icard Merrill. She will expand the capacity at Yesner & Boss to chart for clients the tax implications of their real estate decisions.

Foreclosures nationwide continue at record or near-record rates with eight Florida cities in the top 20 in residential foreclosure statistics, according to RealtyTrac, a national real estate database. Foreclosures and short sales also are spreading to suburbs, which had been thought to be more stable.

The spread of mortgage troubles to the commercial sector last year played a role in a number of bank failures, the Wall Street Journal reported. Banks held $1.7-trillion in commercial mortgages and construction loans last fall, a debt load that continues under economic pressure.

“These problems will not be going away for several years, especially in the so-called ‘sand states,’” said Shawn Yesner, a partner in Yesner & Boss. “For several years we have been working with homeowners and business owners facings forclosures and bankruptcies in the Tampa Bay area. Adding Jo Ann Koontz to our legal team gives us the opportunity to expand our services into the Sarasota and Bradenton areas.”

The “sand states” include Florida, Arizona, Nevada and California.

Koontz, a graduate of Ohio Northern University, will focus on helping Yesner & Boss commercial and residential clients determine the impact of foreclosures, short sales and bankruptcies on their tax liabilities.

Koontz has represented clients for more than 10 years in a variety of real estate matters, including commercial and residential real-estate transactions, 1031 exchanges, S corporations, partnership and LLC formation and reorganizations, and in the tax implications of many business and real estate transactions.

Koontz joined Yesner & Boss in February.

Below is a recent article written by Candice Choi & Eileen AJ Connelly of the AP Personal Finance Writers.

NEW YORK – The new credit card law is finally here. Starting Monday, banks will need to abide by new regulations on terms and disclosures. The idea behind the landmark law was to prevent banks from using practices that often dug borrowers deeper into debt.

A look at how the credit card law affects key aspects of your account.

INTEREST RATES

THEN: Banks could raise the interest rate on an account at any time, including the rate on an existing balances, even if you weren't late on payments.

NOW: The rate cannot be raised in the first year after an account is opened unless an introductory rate has come to an end. After that, cardholders must be notified 45 days in advance of any rate change.

For existing balances, rates can't be raised unless the account is at least 60 days past due. If payments are made on time for six consecutive months, the original rate must be restored.

There's still no cap on rates.

DISCLOSURES

THEN: The fine print on cardholder agreements was often difficult to understand. Rates, fees and penalties for other services such as cash advances, for example, could be hard to find. The impact of the interest rate on paying down a balance was hard to compute.

NOW: Cardholders will see how many months it will take to pay off a balance if only minimum payments are made. Statements will also indicate how much needs to be paid each month to pay off a balance within three years.

SERVICE FEES

THEN: Banks could charge as much as they wanted. They could assess annual fees, activation fees and other fees. This was mostly a problem for subprime cards marketed to those with poor credit scores. One popular card, for example, the Premier Bankcard, charged $256 in first-year fees for a $250 credit line.

NOW: Service fees, such as activation and annual fees, will be capped at 25 percent of the credit limit during the first year of use. After that, there is no cap.

GRACE PERIODS

THEN: Some card companies sent out statements not long before payments were due, and sometimes shifted payment due dates from month to month, meaning that payments would not always have enough time to arrive and get processed before being deemed late. As a result, some cardholders ended up getting charged interest or late fees even when they thought they were sending in payments on time.

NOW: The law requires that due dates remain consistent. Statements must be sent out 21 days before the payment due date, and finance charges and fees cannot be applied before that period is up. In practice, about half of card issuers have extended grace periods to as long as 25 days.

OVER-THE-LIMIT FEES

THEN: Banks set credit limits, then routinely allowed charges to exceed those limits. When that happened, though, the customer was charged an over-the-limit fee as high as $39. These fees were often triggered by interest charges or late-payment fees that pushed a balance over the credit limit. What's more, multiple over-the-limit fees could get charged in a single billing cycle if the balance was paid down and another charge pushed the balance back over the limit.

NOW: The cardholder must specifically agree to permit transactions that exceed the credit limit. Only then can over-the-limit fees be charged. But the fees can't be triggered by other fees or interest charges. Only one over-the-limit fee may be imposed during a billing cycle. No over-the-limit fees may be charged unless the cardholder has specifically agreed to permit transactions exceeding their authorized credit limit. These fees can no longer be triggered by other fees or interest charges imposed by the card issuer, and only one such fee may be imposed during a billing cycle.

In practice, several of the largest card companies have dropped these fees. Some banks are using pop-up boxes on their Web sites or other methods to obtain consumer authorization.

UNIVERSAL DEFAULT

THEN: If you made a late payment on one credit card or loan, or even late payments for obligations like utility bills, that could trigger interest rate hikes on other credit card accounts.

NOW: Card companies cannot raise interest rates on existing credit card balances. Interest rates can't rise during the first year an account is open, unless the original agreement spelled out a promotional rate for a limited time.

Consumers with older accounts must be informed of any interest rate increase on new charges at least 45 days in advance. They must also be given a chance to opt out of the hike by canceling the account and paying down the balance at the old interest rate. If an interest rate is increased, the card company must review the account once every six months to assess whether the rate should be dropped.

STUDENTS

THEN: Students arriving on college campuses often confronted a gantlet of credit card marketers handing out T-shirts, pizza and other gifts in exchange for filling out card applications. Credit cards were frequently handed out without checking the applicant's income sources. In 2008, 84 percent of undergraduates had at least one credit card. Average balances topped $3,100.

NOW: Credit cards may no longer be issued to anyone under age 21, unless the applicant has a co-signer, or can show independent means to repay the debt. Colleges must disclose any marketing deals they make with credit card companies. Banks are not allowed to hand out gifts on or near campuses or at college-related events.

Below is a recent article written by Tony Marrero of the St. Petersburg Times.

SPRING HILL — Charlie and Maria Cardoso are among the millions of Americans who have experienced the misery and embarrassment that come with home foreclosure.

Just one problem: The Massachusetts couple paid for their future retirement home in Spring Hill with cash in 2005, five years before agents for Bank of America seized the house, removed belongings and changed the locks on the doors, according to a lawsuit the couple have filed in federal court.

Early last month, Charlie Cardoso had to drive to Florida to get his home back, the complaint filed in Massachusetts on Jan. 20 states.

The bank had an incorrect address on foreclosure documents — the house it meant to seize is across the street and about 10 doors down — but the Cardosos and a Realtor employed by Bank of America were unable to convince the company that it had the wrong house, the suit states.

"Their own real estate agent told them, and nevertheless Bank of America steamrolled right ahead," said Joseph deMello, an attorney in Taunton, Mass., who is representing the couple. "This is a nightmare for anyone, and it affected my hard-working clients a lot."

The Cardosos are seeking unspecified damages from Bank of America. The company showed negligence, trespassed and caused the couple emotional distress and financial hardship, especially because a tenant renting the home at the time got worried and left, according to the complaint. It's still unclear if the couple's credit rating has been affected, deMello said.

The suit names other defendants listed as "John Doe" who could include "employees, agents, contractors or other persons, ordered, hired, or told by BOA to trespass on the plaintiffs' property and to dispose of the plaintiff's personal possessions."

The suit also charges the company with defamation and libel. DeMello said the Cardosos are part of a Portuguese community in the area, and the foreclosure tarnished their reputation.

Charlie Cardoso is an unemployed construction worker, and his wife is disabled. They paid $139,000 for the three-bedroom pool home in the tidy neighborhood a few blocks south of Spring Hill Drive, records show. It was Charlie's life savings, the complaint says.

"We have a lot of friends there, and all the time we've been telling them the house has been paid (for)," a tearful Maria Cardoso said in an interview with WCBV-TV in Boston last month.

The couple, reached at home in New Bedford, Mass., referred a St. Petersburg Times reporter to deMello.

According to the complaint, here is what happened:

Last July, the couple's tenant called the Cardosos in a panic. The single mother of two teenagers accused the couple of lying when they told her she could rent the house as long she wanted. Three men were there to clean out the house and change the locks, she told them.

Charlie Cardoso talked to a real estate agent for Bank of America, who said he would inform the company that it had the wrong house. The couple thought that was the end of the ordeal.

It wasn't. A landscaper Bank of America hired in August to mow the grass on the property broke a fence to bring in his equipment. The tenant got spooked and moved out just before Christmas.

On Jan. 5, a friend of the Cardosos who was helping the tenant pick up belongings found men putting a lock box on the front door. The workers said the house belonged to Bank of America. The friend called the Cardosos.

When Charlie Cardoso called the bank, a representative told him there was a mistake, the problem would be fixed, and he would get a return call. The call never came. The lock box remained.

Four days later, Cardoso and his son drove to Florida, missing the homecoming of another son who was returning from Iraq for a two-week leave.

Cardoso had to prove to police that he owned the house. The next day he broke in through a back door and used bolt cutters to remove the lock box. The water and electricity had been turned off, and pipes had frozen.

The couple filed suit 10 days later.

Possessions the couple had stored at the home, including photos, clothes, tools and small appliances, had been removed and are presumably lost, the complaint states.

In September, three months after Bank of America started foreclosure on the Cordosos, it also foreclosed on the nearby home, records show.

The bank declined to comment to the Times beyond an e-mailed statement.

"We have reached out to the Cardosos' representatives and hope to have the opportunity to work with them to properly assess and address their allegations," the statement said. "We are reviewing the allegations in the lawsuit, the actual events that led to them and the causes of those events, and will consider any hardship that resulted."

Beyond financial damages, the Cardosos want something else.

"Bank of America or somebody should apologize," Charlie Cardoso said during last month's television interview.

At least one bank has acknowledged the record number of foreclosures from the mortgage meltdown has increased the likelihood of such mistakes.

Citi-Residential started the foreclosure process on a home in Kissimmee in 2008 — changing the locks and emptying the pool — even though the owner, who lives in London, didn't have a mortgage with the company, according to a report by Orlando TV station WFTV. Company officials said the high number of foreclosures they were dealing with in Central Florida contributed to the error.

DeMello said he has been fielding calls from other homeowners throughout the country with similar complaints.

As for the Cardosos, they still want to retire in Florida.

"They just don't know if they're going to be able to be in that neighborhood because of the uncomfortable feeling they have right now," deMello said. "Hopefully that will change."

-Tony Marrero - St. Petersburg Times