FTC Obtains Injunction, Asset Freeze on Alleged Mortgage Scam
The Federal Trade Commission has obtained an order from the federal court for the Central District of California for a preliminary injunction and asset freeze against all the defendants in an alleged mortgage modification scam.
The complaint was filed against California-based Sameer Lakhany and a number of related corporate entities for violating the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, now known as Regulation O. This was the first FTC complaint against a mortgage relief scheme that falsely promised to get help for homeowners who joined with other homeowners to file so-called “mass joinder” lawsuits against their lenders.
The complaint listed two separate alleged schemes that collected over $1 million in fees and used images of President Obama to urge consumers to call for modifications under the “Obama Loan Modification Programs.”
The first scheme was a loan modification plan under which the defendants allegedly promised substantial relief to unwary homeowners from unaffordable mortgages and foreclosures. Their website featured a seal indicating that it was an “NHLA accredited mortgage advocate” and that NHLA is “a regulatory body in the loan modification industry to insure only the highest standards and practices are being performed. They have an A rating with the BBB.” Unfortunately, the NHLA is not a “regulatory body” and it actually has an “F” rating with the BBB.
The defendants reinforced their sales pitch by portraying themselves as nonprofit housing counselors that received outside funding for all their operating costs, except for a “forensic loan audit” fee. According to the FTC, the defendants told consumers that these audits would uncover lender violations 90 percent of the time or more and that the violations would provide leverage over their lenders and force the lenders to grant a loan modification. The defendants typically charged consumers between $795 and $1595 for this “audit.” Also, if the “audit” did not turn up any violations, the consumers could get a 70 percent refund. Unfortunately, there were often no violations found, any “violations” did not materially change the lender’s position, and it was nearly impossible to actually get a refund for this fee.
The second alleged scheme was that the defendants created a law firm, Precision Law Center, and attempted to sell consumers legal services. Precision Law Center was supposed to be a “full service law firm”, with a wide variety of practice areas. It even claimed to “have assembled an aggressive and talented team of litigators to address the lenders in a Court of Law.” However, the FTC charged that the firm never did anything besides for filing a few complaints, which were mostly dismissed.
To assist Precision Law Center in getting new clients, the defendants sent out direct mail from their law firm that resembled a class action settlement notice. The notice “promised” consumers that if they sued their lenders along with other homeowners in a “mass joinder” lawsuit, they could obtain favorable mortgage concessions from their lenders or stop the foreclosure process. The fee to participate in this lawsuit was usually between $6,000 to $10,000. The material also allegedly claimed that 80 to 85 percent of these suits are successful and that consumers might also receive their homes free and clear and be refunded all other charges.
The defendants’ direct mail solicitation also contained an official-looking form designed to mimic a federal tax form or class action settlement notice. It had prominent markings urging the time sensitivity of the materials and it requested an immediate response.
Obviously, these defendants employed many egregious marketing techniques that crossed the FTC’s line of permissibility. However, in light of the FTC’s renewed focus on Internet marketing, even a traditional marketing campaign should be carefully crafted with legal ramifications in mind.
As a final note, it is always smart not to antagonize the FTC by proclaiming (like the defendants here did) that they are “Allowed to Accept Retainer Fees” because it was “Not covered by FTC.” We couldn’t think of a better way to get onto the FTC’s radar screen!