Mortgage Daily Logo
mortgage news from industry experts

Modifications Lawsuits Third Quarter 2009 Mortgage Litigation Report

Modifications Lawsuits
Third Quarter 2009 Mortgage Litigation Report

Actions tied to loan modifications and modification firms.

Defendant
Plaintiff
Court
Amount
Overview
Case Title
Case Number
Date Filed Link to Story
United Home Savers, LLP, Stephanie Dietschy, Darin Dietschy Federal Trade Commission United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida na Defendants allegedly charged up-front fees for loan modification services and workouts that are either subsequently not performed or are ineffective despite UHS assurances to consumers that they would avoid foreclsoure. Federal Trade Commission v. United Home Savers, LLP 8:08-cv-01735-vcm-tbm Sept. 8, 2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ForeclosureLitigation090409.asp
Best Interest Rate Mortgage Company, LLC New Jersey Attorney General Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division- Essex County na State alleges Best Interest Rate Mortgage Company LLC of violations of Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act in relation modification services. Best operated without a state license, offered misleading solicitations that the firm represented a government agency, and charged excessive up-front fees. Milgram v. Best Interest Rate Mortgage Company, LLC na 7/10/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
FHA Allday.com, Safety Financial Services, Inc., Housing Assistance Law Center, PA, Housing Assistance Now, Inc., Jason Vitulano Florida Attorney General Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida 15th Judicial Circuit na Firm allegedly charged excessive up-front fees for loan modification services in addition to illegally using Barack Obama’s voice in marketing phone calls and claiming to have an in-house staff of attorneys when no such staff existed. Also alleged are violations of the Foreclosure Fraud Prevention Act. State of Florida v. FHA Allday.com, Inc. et. al. 2009CA024341 7/20/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Home Relief Services, LLC, The Diener Law Firm, Golden State Funding, Inc., Payment Relief Services, Inc., Christopher Diener, Kathleen Marrero-Davis, Terence Green Sr, Stefano Marrero, Maya Burrell Marrero, Ronald C. Specter, Kenneth Buhler, Does 1-100 California Attorney General Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange $10 million Firm is alleged to have charged excessive up-fron fees for loan modifications and failed to provide services to clients. The People of the State of California v. Home Relief Services, LLC et al na na www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Hope for Homeowners Now, LLC, Matthew Castaneda and Jane Doe Castaneda, Michael Winding and Jane Doe Winding Arizona Attorney General Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County $155,000 Defendants allegedly charged excessive up-front fees for loan modification services. Default judgment entered against defendants for failure to appear on Sept. 28, 2009 State of Arizona v. Hope for Homeowners Now, LLC, et. Al CV2009-022275 Sept. 28, 2009. www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Loan Modification of America LLC, Kardakh Natto, John Saro Arizona Attorney General Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County na Defendant is alleged to have falsely advertised a 90% success rate in modifying clients mortgages and falsely offering a 100% money back guarantee State of Arizona v. Loan Modification of America LLC CV2009-022274 7/14/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Loan Modification Professional Services Arizona Attorney General Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County na Defendant is accused of collecting between $1,500 and $3,500 from eight customers who claim they never received the services they were promised. na na na www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
RMR Group Loss Mitigation, LLC, Living Water Lending, Inc., Shippey & Associates, PC, Michael Scott Armendariz, Ruben Curiel, Ricardo Haag, Karla Shippey, Arthur Aldridge, Does 1-100 California Attorney General California Superior Court, Orange County na Firm is charged with falsely advertising a 98% success rate and a money-back guarantee while charging excessive up-front fees. The People of the State of California v. RMR Group Loss Mitigation, LLC, et al. No. 30-2009-00125952 7/13/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Santoya Financial Company LLC, Thomas J. Montoya, Robert Sanchez Arizona Attorney General Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County na Santoya is alleged to have falsely advertised that the HUD endorsed the firm’s services and that modification fees were refundable in the event loan modification attempts are unsuccessful. State of Arizona v. Santoya Financial Company CV2009-022369 7/13/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Sean Cantkier; Scot Lady; Jeffrey Altmire; Michael Haller; Lisa Roye; Alan Lestourgeon; Kean Lee Lim; Greg Rivera; Neil Sperry. Federal Trade Commission U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia n/a Defendants allegedly attempted to divert homeowners searching for www.MakingHomeAffordable.gov, a government endorsed Web site, to Web sites that charge fees for the same services. At the Federal Trade Commission’s request, the Court entered orders barring eight of the defendants from engaging in the allegedly illegal conduct. FTC v. Cantkier. [Formerly FTC v. One or More Unknown Parties Misrepresenting Their Affiliation with the Making Home Affordable Loan Program] 09-CV-00894, FTC File No. 092 3147 5/14/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/Modifications072409.asp
Statewide Financial Group, Inc d/b/a/ US Homeowners Assistance, US Homeowners Preservation Center, Inc., US Homeowners Preservation Center of America, Hakimullah Sarpas, Zulmai Nazarai, Sharon Fasela, Rasha Yehia Melek California Attorney General California Superior Court, Orange County na Firm is charged with falsely advertising a 98% success rate and implying it was a government agency, and charging up-front fees while not providing services to the clients The People of the State of California v. Statewide Financial Group, Inc. et al na 7/13/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
US Homeowners Asstistance Ohio Attorney General, Ohio Department of Commerce Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, State of Ohio na Alleged violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Telephone Solicitation Sales Act, Debt Adjusters Act, and Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Customers were charged $1,800 for responding to automated solicitation phone calls, and the State alleges failure to provide services to clients. NA na na www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Foreclosure Solutions, LLC, and Timothy A. Buckley Federal Trade Commission United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern District n/a The FTC reported a Stipulated Final Judgment against defendants who were accused of falsely claming years of experience in loan modifications, falsely touting high success rates and violation the FTC’s Do Not Call Rule by calling borrowers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Federal Trade Commission v. Foreclosure Solutions, LLC et al. No. 1:08-cv-01075 4/28/2008 www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitsForeclosure071509.asp
Loss Mitigation Services, Inc., Synergy Financial Management Corporation, also d/b/a Direct Lender and DirectLender.com, Dean Shafer, Bernadette Carr-Perry, and Marion Anthony (a.k.a. “Tony”) Perry Federal Trade Commission United States District Court Central District of California n/a The FTC asked the court for consumer redress and a permanent ban on deceptive practices alleging defendants charged up to $5,500 in advance, misrepresented its relationship with servicers and falsely promised to obtain a modification. Federal Trade Commission v. Loss Mitigation Services Inc. et al. No. 09-CV-800 7/13/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitsForeclosure071509.asp
LucusLawCenter “Incorporated”, a corporation, also d/b/a Lucas Law Center, Future Financial Services, LLC, a limited liability company, also d/b/a Lucas Law Center, Paul Jeffrey Lucas, an individual, Christopher Francis Betts, an individual, and Frank Sullivan, an individual Federal Trade Commission United States District Court Central District of California Southern Division n/a The FTC asked the court for consumer redress and a permanent ban on deceptive practices alleging defendants charged advanced fees up to $3,995 and told borrowers to stop making their payments to demonstrate consumers’ hardship to the lender in order to obtain a home loan modification. In numerous instances, defendants failed to obtain mortgage loan modifications. Defendants have also failed to give promised refunds to consumers when they could not in fact obtain home loan modifications. Federal Trade Commission v. Lucaslawcenter “Incorporated” a corporation et al. No. 09-CV-770 7/7/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitsForeclosure071509.asp
US Foreclosure Relief Corp., a corporation, also, d/b/a U.S. Foreclosure Relief, Inc., Lighthouse Services, and California Foreclosure Specialists, George Escalante, individually and as an officer of US Foreclosure Relief Corp., Cesar Lopez, individually and doing business as H.E. Service Company, and Adrian Pomery, Esq., individually and also trading and doing business as Pomery & Associates Federal Trade Commission, The People of the State of California, and the State of Missouri United States District Court Central District of California n/a The FTC asked the court for consumer redress and a permanent ban on deceptive practices alleging defendants falsely claimed they could obtain home loan modifications, falsely claiming years of experience and success in obtaining modificiations, and violating the telemarketing sales rule and the National Do Not Call Registry. Federal Trade Commission et al. v. US Foreclosure Relief No. 09-CV-768 7/7/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitsForeclosure071509.asp
Apply2Save, Inc. a corporation, Sleeping Giant Media Works, Inc., a corporation, and Derek R. Oberholtzer, individually and as an officer of Apply2Save, Inc., and Sleeping Giant Media Works, Inc. Federal Trade Commission United States District Court for the District of Idaho n/a The FTC asked the court for consumer redress and a permanent ban on deceptive practices alleging defendants promised loan modifications in 30 to 90 days for advanced fees up to $995, however, defendants failed to obtain those modifications and for most consumers, were unable to stop foreclosure. Federal Trade Commission v. Apply2Save, Inc. et al. FTC File No. 092 3117 July 14, 1009 www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitsForeclosure071509.asp
ABS Saveco State of Kansas ex. rel., Steve Six, Attorney General Shawnee County, Kansas District Court n/a Civil case alleging violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Defendant allegedly ran loan modification scams. State of Kansas v. ABS Saveco, LLC No. 09C1055 7/2/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/Modifications070809.asp
Capital Foreclosure Solutions, Inc., Katen Pabley, SGM Mortgage Inc., Scott Kotalik, United Home Solutions Inc., The Mack Financial Group Inc. Illinois Attorney General Cook County Circuit Court na Alleged violations of Illinois Mortgage Rescue Fruad Act through up-front payments for loan modifications, failure to provide services. State of Illinois v. Capital Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. et al na 7/15/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Federal Loan Modification Law Center LLP, Venture Legal Support PLC, Federal Loan Modifications, SBSC Corp. and Steven Oscherowitz Federal Trade Commission U.S. District Court for the Central District of California New defendants added in case where defendants allegedly charged between $1,000 and $3,000 in upfront fees but often failed to obtain the promised modifications Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Federal Loan Modification Law Center, LLP, et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. SACV09-401CJC (MLGx), FTC File No. 092 3070 4/3/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/Modifications070809.asp
G Services Group d/b/a/ Guardian Services Group Washington Attorney General King County Superior Court na G Capital is alleged to have charged $1,500 to $3,000 in up front fees for loan modification services while failing to offer these services to homeowners. State of Washington v. G Services Group LLC 7/15/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Helping Hands Support Services State of Kansas ex. rel., Steve Six, Attorney General Shawnee County, Kansas District Court n/a Civil case alleging violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Defendant allegedly ran loan modification scams. “State of Kansas v. Helping Hands Support Services, Inc. No.09C1057 7/2/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/Modifications070809.asp
Kirkland Young LLC State of Kansas ex. rel., Steve Six, Attorney General Shawnee County, Kansas District Court n/a Civil case alleging violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Defendant allegedly ran loan modification scams. State of Kansas v. Kirkland Young, LLC No. 09C1056 7/2/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/Modifications070809.asp
Loan Modification Inc, Edward J. Galowitch Illinois Attorney General Cook County Circuit Court na Alleged violations of Illinois Mortgage Rescue Fruad Act through up-front payments for loan modifications, failure to provide services. State of Illinois v. Loan Modification Inc. na 7/15/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Mason Capital Corp. LLC Washington Attorney General Snohomish County Superior Court na Mason Capital is alleged to have charged $2,000 to $3,000 in up front fees for loan modification services while failing to offer these services to homeowners. State of Washington v. Mason Capital Group, LLC 7/15/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Midwest Foreclosure Solutions, Judel James Robert, Maria C. Scaradicchio Illinois Attorney General Cook County Circuit Court na Alleged violations of Illinois Mortgage Rescue Fruad Act through up-front payments for loan modifications, failure to provide services. State of Illinois v. Midwest Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. na 7/15/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
New Day Financial Solutions, Inc, American Credit Debt Repair and Debt Settlement, LLC, Paramount Debt Settlement USA, LLC, Uzor Financial Solutions LLC, Uzor and Associates, Stephen Pasch, Ejike N. Uzor, Jane and John Does 1-10 New Jersey Attorney General Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division- Essex County na State AG alleges collection of up-front fees for bogus loan modification services, improperly advising clients to stop mortgage payments, and improper guarantees. Milgram v. New Day Financial Services, SA, NDROA, Inc. ESX-C-190-09 7/10/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
People’s First Financial, Inc. Illinois Attorney General Cook County Circuit Court na Alleged violations of Illinois Mortgage Rescue Fruad Act through up-front payments for loan modifications, failure to provide services. State of Illinois v. People’s First Financial, Inc. na 7/15/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
US Foreclosure Relief Corp., George Escalante, Cesar Lopez, Adrian Pomery California Attorney General California Superior Court, Orange County na Up-front fees of up to $2,800 allegedly charged. na na na www.mortgagedaily.com/ModificationLitigation081209.asp
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC Ohio Attorney General, Ohio Department of Commerce Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio na Purchasor or of servicing operations out of bankruptcy failed to offer loan modifications and workout options to borrowers. Offfering the modifications and workouts was a condition of the purchase of the assets out of bankruptcy of New Century Financial. Also alleged are violations of Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. State of Ohio v. Carrington Mortgage Services LLC Case No. 09 CVH 7 11433 7/31/2009 www.mortgagedaily.com/LawsuitCarrington080309.asp

Popular posts

How Long Does It Take to Refinance a Mortgage
How Long Does It Take to Refinance a Mortgage

So, you’re interested in refinancing your mortgage. Maybe you want some extra capital to do that home project you’ve always dreamed of, interest rates are nearing record lows, or you want to start consolidating debt. Regardless of the motivation behind the refinance,...

How Does Refinancing a Mortgage Work
How Does Refinancing a Mortgage Work

A home purchase is considered an investment, and a robust one at that. Savvy owners are constantly looking for new ways to reduce debt, save money, pay less in interest, and ultimately build equity. Refinancing is one way to leverage your investment and do just that....

What Does It Mean to Refinance Your Home
What Does It Mean to Refinance Your Home

You can think of refinancing your mortgage as a debt redo. Essentially, you’ll swap out the existing loan for a new one - ideally with better terms and conditions. Only this time it could help you save money on high mortgage payments, rather than just borrow it....

Setting up the Utilities in My New House
Setting up the Utilities in My New House

All the tedious, time-consuming home closing documents have been signed, sealed, and delivered. Your belongings are packed into what seems like a million boxes and you have a solid plan to haul all your existing furniture to the new place. Just as your boxes and...

When Is My First Mortgage Payment Due?
When Is My First Mortgage Payment Due?

Navigating your way through a brand new mortgage loan can be a difficult task, especially for first time homeowners. After handing over a large sum of money for the down payment and closing costs, it’s important to pay attention to the timing of your first mortgage...

Newsletter

Don’t worry, we don’t spam

calculate your monthly mortgage payment

Related Topics

Helpful Links

Daily mortgage rate trends

Best mortgage lenders

First-time homebuyers programs by state

Loan limits by state

Types of mortgages

APR vs interest rate

Understanding PMI

Related Posts

THE TRUSTED PROVIDER OF ACCURATE RATES AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION