ILNews

Indiana AG sues Florida foreclosure firm owned by lawyer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has filed a complaint against a for-profit Florida foreclosure consultant company that Zoeller claims operated illegally in 15 Indiana counties and failed to provide refunds to customers after services were not provided.

Named as defendants in the suit are Legal Home Loan Solutions, Federal Home Loan Solutions, Matevia Law Firm, and Thomas C. Matevia, the lawyer who owns all three companies. Zoeller filed the suit Aug. 10 in Hendricks County Court.

Legal Home Loan Solutions violated Indiana's consumer protection laws when it collected thousands of dollars from Indiana homeowners before performing any services, according to the lawsuit.

Indiana law requires credit service organizations and foreclosure consultants to register a $25,000 surety bond with the attorney general's office prior to performing any services as a foreclosure consultant, including collecting money in advance. The bond acts as an insurance policy for consumers in the event the company fails to perform the services and does not provide a refund.

The company also allegedly committed other violations of the Credit Services Organization Act, the Mortgage Rescue Protection Act and Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, by failing to provide the homeowner with notice of various legal rights or of the availability of nonprofit credit counseling, among other things.

The lawsuit lists victims located in Allen, Cass, Clark, Elkhart, Floyd, Grant, Hamilton, Hendricks, Lake, Marion, Monroe, Porter, Steuben, St. Joseph, and Tippecanoe counties.

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