ILNews

Attorney general sues home loan modification companies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has filed five lawsuits against companies around the country he claims have scammed Hoosiers trying to keep their homes. Since 2006, the AG’s office has filed 110 suits against foreclosure consultant companies.

The companies – Freedom Equity Savings of Ohio; Integrity Mortgage and Credit Solutions of Florida; Provident Law Group Inc. of California; Nationwide Mediation Services of California; and Global Equity Solutions, also know as Peachtree Consultants of Georgia – are accused of violating Indiana’s consumer protection laws and taking more than $11,300 from six customers living in Hamilton, Lake, Marion, Parke and Union counties. The companies promised to reduce the homeowners’ interest rates or monthly payments in exchange for an upfront fee.

Some customers paid as much as $3,000 before realizing there were no changes to their home loans.

The suit claims the companies violated the Credit Services Organization Act, the Mortgage Rescue Protection Fraud Act, the Home Loan Practices Act, and Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The companies didn’t register a $25,000 surety bond with the AG’s office to conduct business as foreclosure consultants in Indiana.

Because default judgments against these types of companies often don’t end up with the victims receiving any payments for their financial losses, the Consumer Protection Assistance Fund was created by the Indiana Legislature. In April, the fund, which is administered by the AG’s office, paid $22,571 to victims of foreclosure-rescue and/or consumer mortgage fraud. More than 70 victims received payments totaling $60,000 from the fund in December 2011.

The fund is made up of money recovered from those sued by the AG’s office for violating consumer protection laws.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT