Risk Solutions for Carriers
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff – countertop Defendant – Appellee, v. LANIER LAW, LLC, a Florida restricted liability business, d.b.a. Redstone Law Group, d.b.a. Regulations Offices Of Michael W. Lanier, LIBERTY & TRUST LAW NUMBER OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida liability that is limited, Defendants – countertop Claimants, MICHAEL W. LANIER, separately so that as an owner, officer, supervisor, and/or agent regarding the above-mentioned entities, Defendant – countertop Claimant – Appellant, FORTRESS LAW GROUP, LLC, a Florida restricted obligation business, et al., Defendants.
This situation calls for us to think about if the region court correctly awarded summary judgment to your Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on its claims that defendant Michael Lanier violated several statutes that are federal laws regarding the the purchase of home loan help relief solutions. Lanier argues that the region court must not have awarded summary judgment for many reasons, including that the region court improperly admitted proof against him, overlooked disputes of product fact, making findings that are factual the FTC’s benefit. We conclude that none of those arguments has merit and affirm the region court.
Through Lanier Law, LLC, their law practice, Michael Lanier, a lawyer located in Jacksonville, Florida, offered mortgage help relief solutions to individuals vulnerable to losing their homes to foreclosure. 1 Lanier and his affiliates promised homeowners that in return for an upfront cost, he’d negotiate less expensive month-to-month mortgage repayments, reduced rates of interest, and paid off major balances with the person.
Lanier Law shared a workplace with Rogelio Robles and Edward Rennick, two of Lanier’s co-defendants, whom operated various other entities including Pinnacle Legal Services, Fortress Legal Services, while the Department of Loss Mitigation and Forensics (“DOLMF”) (collectively, the “staffing agencies”). These entities supplied staffing, recommendations, as well as other solutions to Lanier Law.
In 2012, the Florida Bar filed a problem against Lanier pertaining to their foreclosure relief services. Lanier fundamentally joined a conditional responsible plea, admitting he had improperly solicited customers and neglected to supervise non-lawyers, and then he ended up being suspended quickly through the training of legislation.
Ahead of Lanier’s suspension, he became involved in three newly developed entities within the District of Columbia: Fortress Law Group, LLP; Redstone Law Group, LLP; and Surety Law Group, LLP (collectively, the “D.C. firms”), which, like Lanier Law, supplied customers with home loan help solutions. 2 These entities purported to be lawyers located in the District of Columbia, however they had been http://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-il/maywood in fact office[s that are“virtual” for Lanier’s operations in Florida. Rennick Dep. at 33 (Doc. 271). 3 Although Lanier “transferred” their foreclosure protection cases to your D.C. organizations, any mail provided for D.C. ended up being forwarded straight away to Jacksonville, Florida, where Lanier Law operated. Lanier Dep. at 37 (Doc. 269). The Pinnacle and DOLMF employees who’d formerly caused Lanier Law consumers continued to get results with respect to the D.C. businesses. And also to gather re payments, the D.C. organizations utilized the vendor processing portal that Lanier had employed for Lanier Law.
To ensure Lanier Law plus the D.C. businesses could attract consumers nationwide, they related to “of counsel” attorneys across the nation. The “of counsel” solicitors had been compensated a month-to-month retainer of around $300 each month; the task they performed had been generally speaking restricted to reviewing retainer agreements for client contact information also to ensure that the agreements had been finalized and dated.
Together, Lanier Law together with D.C. organizations operated an amount company consumers that are recruiting buy home loan support relief solutions (“MARS”). The staffing agencies solicited consumers over the internet, letters, and leaflets mortgage assistance that is offering. The ads promoted the “of counsel” network, noting that the law practice “has working arrangements with skilled and competent attorneys and lawyers in lots of other states.” 2013 Flyer at 56 (Doc. 246-5). One flyer, entitled the “Economic Stimulus Mortgage Notification” (the “Flyer”), which seemed to be a federal federal government document, informed customers that their house have been “selected for a unique system by the national Insured Institutions,” that will “bring your property re payments present at under your debt or your major balance down.” 2012 Flyer at 66 (Doc. 246-1). Other leaflets identified the transmitter as DOLMF, that has been owned by Robles. Lanier denies any right part in “drafting, giving, approving, or us[ing]” the Flyer. Lanier Aff. at 9 (Doc. 253).
Consumers whom taken care of immediately the ads had been described Lanier Law or the D.C. companies. Through the enrollment procedure, instance supervisors told clients that the company would get loan changes with dramatically reduced re re payments and interest levels. The representatives guaranteed consumers that the organizations had success that is extremely high in decreasing re re payments—over 90 per cent. When new business enrolled, Lanier Law and also the D.C. organizations delivered them paperwork that is similar. The customers had been necessary to spend advance fees greater than $2,000, often payable in installments. Some customers had been told to end their mortgage repayments and to pay Lanier Law or the D.C. organizations rather.
Once the customers started making re re payments, Lanier Law while the D.C. businesses stopped interacting using them or transferred them to various instance supervisors who guaranteed them that really work was being done on the loan improvements. Some consumers learned from their lenders that Lanier Law while the D.C. businesses had never tried to make contact with lenders. The majority of the customers reported that the companies did not get any alterations on their behalf. Other people stated that however some adjustments had been acquired, they certainly were never as guaranteed and often needed higher payments than customers had compensated formerly.