COUPLE SAYS SOSSI TURNED ON THEM IN CAHOOTS WITH THE SOUTHERN TEXAS TITLE COMPANY TO FORECLOSE THEIR LOT

By Juan Montoya
A Stell teacher and her husband say that city contract attorney Mark E. Sossi deliberately failed to prosecute their case which resulted in their losing their $39,800 property to a title company with which he was in cahoots and which then paid $10 for it  at a foreclosure sale, selling it later for $20,000.
The couple – Rogelio and Ingrid Gonzalez – originally sued Sossi for legal malpractice and now charge that he and Southern Texas Title Company of joining forces to defraud the couple and that Sossi kept them in the dark for years until they found out that their case had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Gonzalez first bought the lot in Gem Estates III, located across Military Highway from San Pedro, in June 2006 from Gustavo Montemayor and Paulita Cavazos, for $36,900 and began making monthly payments of $389.
Later that year, on September 14, Southern Texas Title Company produced a Commitment for Insurance and acquired a policy for the couple through the Title Insurance Company of America.
Then, more than a year later, the couple received a letter from a Capitol One Bank attorney that it was the successor in interest to Hibernia Bank, which it had bought. It informed the couple that it held a lien on the property they had bought from Montemayor and Cavazos.
Nevertheless, they continued to meet their monthly obligation by paying the amount due under the note.
Two months later, on Jan. 28, 2008, the couple received a "totally and completely unsolicited " letter from Sossi stating that he was representing another couple – Minerva and Marisela Guerra – who he said "may be in a similar situation as (Sossi's other two) clients" and invited them to come to his office "to speak with him about this matter."
After meeting with Sossi, the couple hired him to represent them.
Sossi then sent a demand letter on behalf of the Gonzalez couple to Southern Texas Title Company on March 17, 2008 for $39,839 plus attorneys' fees of $6,000 and damages for mental anguish which in all totalled $66,229, but upon payment of $37,400, the Gonzalez' would fully and finally releaase Southern Texas Title Company.
He sent identical demand letters to Montemayor and Cavazos offering them the same terms.
That June 28, Capitol One attorney mark Twenhafel wrote the couple informing them that he had been authorized by his client to post the balance on the property covered by its lien instruments for a foreclosure on Aug. 5. He also asked the couple if they were being represented by an attorney, to have them contact him.
In all, Sossi represented seven clients against Montemayor and Cavazos, including the Gonzalez, the Guerras, Lazaro Leal Jr., and Jose and Yolanda De la Torre. He filed a lawsuit on Dec. 17 and named as defendants Southern Texas Title Company, Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation and the First American Insurance Corporation.He charged in the lawsuit that Montemayor and Cavazos had pledged the property to Hibernia Bank, later Capitol One, in a deed of trust through a warranty deed with a vendor's lien to the property to secure the purchase price on the property. They represented to the buyers that they owned the lots and that they had the power to convey good title in fee simple. The closing occurred in trhe offices of Southern Texas Title Company, who provided the title policy, but the company failed to ensure that Capitol One was paid its lien.
Sossi wrote the attorneys for the defense on Feb. 4, 2009 t"to see if there was any interest in resolving this matter through mediation."
(Incidentally, Sossi was hired by the City of Brownsville on March 2009 as a contract city attorney for $10,000 a month and his duties included helping to draft a code of ethics for the city commission.)
Sossi then field a motion to compel mediation in the case May 5 and a hearing was held on June 2 where lawyers for the defendants told th4e court that certain parties were improperly joined and that he had not joined other appropriate parties. They argued that based on these deficiencies mediation would be premature and ineffective. The court ordered Sossi to and his pleadings and schedule mediation within 120 days.
The couple charges that about this time Sossi and Southern Texas Title Company made "certain agreements" that while pretending to be adversaries, Sossi would allow the title company to acquire the couple's lot at foreclosure even though the title company was a party-defendant in the case and would actively conceal the agreement. Sossi, the couple charges, "would interpose little to no or merely token opposition to (the company's) efforts to remove itself from the underlying litigation."
Thae following June, the 197th Court ordered Sossi to initiate a telephone conference on Aug. 25 to get a trial date. Sossi, according to their lawsuit, never scheduled the telephone conference. On Aug. 22, Ingrid Gonzlez emailed Sossi saying that she had tried repeatedly to contact him "for the past year to no avail" and asked for and update on the lawsuit adding it would only take a 1-2 minute phone call or email response.
On Aug. 24, one day before the court-ordered telephone conference was due to take place, Sossi emailed Gonzalez and said that he had been busy getting the parties together, serving them, affording them the opportunity to file answers, and...bringing them before the court for the trial setting.
Less than a month later, on Sept. 1, Southern Texas Title Company acquired at foreclosure the lot owned by the Gonzalez' for "$10 and other good and valuable consideration."
A week later, on Sept. 8, Sossi wrote the couple that he was "moving forward with initial written discovery" and that he was "aiming" for a January 2010 trial date. Sossi actively concealed from them that the title company had already purchased their lot at foreclosure.
On that very day, Southern nTexas Title Company filed a plea of abatement with the court saying more than 90 days had passed and Sossi had failed to amend his pleadings and that Sossi had cancelled two meetings with its attorneys at the last moment. The plea aslo stated that Sossi had never scheduled the telephone conference as ordered by the court.
On Oct. 14, Sossi appeared in court at the company's plea of abatement hearing and "announced in open court that (the couple) would nonsuit their claims against one of the defendants. The title company's plea in abatement was granted by agreement for 30 days. The court granted the company the plea of abatement on Oct. 15.
Sossi never informed the couple that he was nonsuiting one of the defendants despite the fact that on January 18, 2010, Ingrid Gonzales again emailed him asking for an update.
(That year, on Sept.1, the State Bar of Texas suspended Sossi's license to practice law for failure to pay dues from September 1-10.)
On Sept. 14, Southern Texas Title Company filed a motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. On Sept. 15, at a hearing and status conference of the title's motion, Sossi failed to appear. The company cited Sossi's "repeated failures to comply with the court's instructions," Sossi's announcement of nonsuit,the court's order granting plea of abatement in its favor, and his failure to amend his pleadings to correct certain deficiencies of parties" and Sossi's failure to prosecute the case with due diligence to support their motion for dismissal.
The court granted the motion for dismissal for the company and Sossi never challenged or appealed it.
Less that two weeks later, on Sept. 26, Ingrid Gonzalez emailed sossi and wrote him that "over a year has passed and we have not heard from you." Sossi never responded, the lawsuit states.
The couple later discovered that their case had been dismissed and that the title company had bought their lot for $10. On Feb. 1, 2012, Southern Texas Title Company sold the lot to a third party for $20,000.
The couple charges that Sossi and the title company engaged in a joint enterprise to harm them and that they had an agreement, common purpose, a community of common interest, and had a right to direct and control the enterprise. They also charge the company with wrongful foreclosure and say Sossi failed in each and all of his duties, specifically:
– that he failed to timely comply with court orders that he correct the defect in his pleas
– that he failed to convene the telephone conference setting trial
– that he failed to respond to the motion to dismiss
– that he failed to appear at the hearing on the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution
– that he failed to reinstate or move for a new trial following the dismissal order
– that he failed to appeal the dismissal of the case for want of prosecution
The couple claims their claims were meritorious but that Sossi's acts and omissions caused them damages.
They also charge Sossi and Southern Texas Title Company with common-law fraud by nondisclosure. They charge that the conduct of the defendants rose to malice and ask for punitive damages aside from the actual damages.
Rogelio and Ingrid Gonzalez and their attorney Peter Zavaletta declined to comment on the lawsuit against Sossi. Sossi was already served and Guy Huddleston, president of the title company, was also served.