ILNews

Complaint: Wabash realtor faked court papers, intimidated renters

Dave Stafford
August 12, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northern Indiana realtor faked court papers in an attempt to intimidate renters and collect from them, according to a complaint from the attorney general’s office filed Thursday.

Gregory A. Blatz of Wabash “resorted to falsifying court documents for the impermissible purpose of creating fear, duress, and undue influence upon tenants, which amounts to lewd or immoral conduct,” according to the complaint submitted to the Indiana Real Estate Commission.

The complaint follows notice from Grant Superior Judge Warren Haas claiming that Blatz forged court documents titled “Notice of Claim to the Defendant(s),” misrepresenting that the defendants were required to attend a hearing and could be facing eviction from an apartment building managed by Blatz Realty.

When tenants appeared at the courthouse in Marion, clerks found no cases existed under the cause numbers cited in the documents. The complaint from the office of Attorney General Greg Zoeller seeks disciplinary sanctions against Blatz for three counts of fraud or material deception in violation of various professional licensing standards under sections of I.C. 25-1-11-5. The complaint also notes a criminal investigation is pending.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT