United states of america Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff – countertop Defendant – Appellee, v. LANIER LAW, LLC, a Florida liability that is limited, d.b.a. Redstone Law Group, d.b.a. What the law states Offices Of Michael W. Lanier, https://badcreditloans4all.com/payday-loans-fl/cooper-city/ LIBERTY & TRUST LAW NUMBER OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida liability that is limited, Defendants – countertop Claimants, MICHAEL W. LANIER, independently so that as an owner, officer, manager, and/or agent for the above-mentioned entities, Defendant – countertop Claimant – Appellant, FORTRESS LAW GROUP, LLC, a Florida restricted obligation business, et al., Defendants.
This instance calls for us to think about whether or not the region court correctly awarded summary judgment to your Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on its claims that defendant Michael Lanier violated a few statutes that are federal regulations regarding the the purchase of home loan help relief services. Lanier contends that the district court must not have given summary judgment for a number of reasons, including that the region court improperly admitted proof against him, overlooked disputes of material fact, making findings that are factual the FTC’s benefit. We conclude that none of those arguments has merit and affirm the region court.
Factual Background
An attorney based in Jacksonville, Florida, offered mortgage assistance relief services to people in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. 1 Lanier and his affiliates promised homeowners that in exchange for an upfront fee, he would negotiate more affordable monthly mortgage payments, lower interest rates, and reduced principal balances on their behalf through Lanier Law, LLC, his law firm, Michael Lanier.
Lanier Law shared work place with Rogelio Robles and Edward Rennick, two of Lanier’s co-defendants, whom operated some other entities including Pinnacle Legal Services, Fortress Legal Services, while the Department of Loss Mitigation and Forensics (“DOLMF”) (collectively, the “staffing agencies”). These entities offered staffing, recommendations, along with other services to Lanier Law.
In 2012, the Florida Bar filed a grievance against Lanier regarding their foreclosure relief services. Lanier fundamentally entered a conditional accountable plea, admitting which he had improperly solicited customers and did not supervise non-lawyers, in which he ended up being suspended shortly from the training of legislation.
Ahead of Lanier’s suspension system, he became associated with three newly developed entities into 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 law offices located in the District of Columbia, nevertheless they had been in fact “virtual office[s]” for Lanier’s operations in Florida. Rennick Dep. at 33 (Doc. 271). 3 Although Lanier “transferred” his foreclosure protection cases to your D.C. companies, any mail delivered to D.C. had been forwarded straight away to Jacksonville, Florida, where Lanier Law operated. Lanier Dep. at 37 (Doc. 269). The Pinnacle and DOLMF employees that has formerly caused Lanier Law customers proceeded to the office with respect to the D.C. organizations. And also to gather re payments, the D.C. companies utilized the vendor processing portal that Lanier had employed for Lanier Law.
To ensure Lanier Law therefore the D.C. companies could attract customers nationwide, they related to “of counsel” attorneys across the united states. The “of counsel” attorneys had been compensated a month-to-month retainer of around $300 every month; the task they performed ended up being generally speaking restricted to reviewing retainer agreements for customer contact information and also to verify the agreements had been signed and dated.
Together, Lanier Law plus the D.C. organizations operated a volume company consumers that are recruiting buy home loan support relief solutions (“MARS”). The staffing agencies solicited customers through the world wide web, letters, and leaflets mortgage assistance that is offering. The ads promoted the “of counsel” community, noting that the law practice “has working arrangements with skilled and competent solicitors and attorneys in several 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 consumers that their house was “selected for the unique system by the Government Insured Institutions,” that will “bring your home re payments present at under you borrowed from or your principal balance down.” 2012 Flyer at 66 (Doc. 246-1). Other leaflets identified the transmitter as DOLMF, that was owned by Robles. Lanier denies any right part in “drafting, giving, approving, or us[ing]” the Flyer. Lanier Aff. at 9 (Doc. 253).
Customers whom taken care of immediately the adverts had been referred to Lanier Law or perhaps the D.C. companies. Throughout the enrollment procedure, situation managers told clients that the firm would get loan improvements with considerably reduced re re payments and rates of interest. The representatives guaranteed consumers that the companies had success that is extremely high in decreasing re re re payments—over 90 %. As soon as new customers enrolled, Lanier Law additionally the D.C. organizations delivered them paperwork that is similar. The customers had been necessary to spend advance costs of greater than $2,000, often payable in installments. Some consumers had been told to prevent their home loan repayments and also to pay Lanier Law or the D.C. organizations rather.
After the customers started making re payments, Lanier Law therefore the D.C. businesses stopped interacting that work was being done on their loan modifications with them or transferred them to various case managers who assured them. Some consumers discovered from their lenders that Lanier Law plus the D.C. companies had never attempted to make contact with lenders. Almost all of the customers reported that the organizations did not get any alterations with the person. Other people stated that while some adjustments had been acquired, these people were not quite as guaranteed and often needed higher payments than customers had compensated previously.