United states of america Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff – countertop Defendant – Appellee, v. LANIER LAW, LLC, a Florida restricted obligation business, d.b.a. Redstone Law Group, d.b.a. What the law states Offices Of Michael W. Lanier, LIBERTY & TRUST LAW BAND OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida restricted obligation business, Defendants – countertop Claimants, MICHAEL W. LANIER, independently so when an owner, officer, supervisor, and/or representative associated with 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 take into account whether or not the region court correctly awarded summary https://badcreditloans4all.com/payday-loans-wv/elkins/ judgment to your Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on its claims that defendant Michael Lanier violated a few federal statutes and laws regarding the the purchase of home loan help relief solutions. Lanier argues that the region court must not have awarded summary judgment for a couple of reasons, including that the region court improperly admitted proof against him, overlooked disputes of product reality, making factual findings in the FTC’s favor. We conclude that none among these 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 Pinnacle that is including Legal, Fortress Legal Services, additionally the Department of Loss Mitigation and Forensics (“DOLMF”) (collectively, the “staffing agencies”). These entities supplied staffing, recommendations, along with 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 was suspended briefly from the practice of law that he had improperly solicited clients and failed to supervise non-lawyers, and.
Just before Lanier’s suspension system, he became a part of three newly produced 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 support solutions. 2 These entities purported to be attorneys situated in the District of Columbia, however they had been in fact “virtual office[s]” for Lanier’s operations in Florida. Rennick Dep. at 33 (Doc. 271). 3 Although Lanier “transferred” their foreclosure defense cases to your D.C. organizations, 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 consumers proceeded to your workplace with respect to the D.C. businesses. And also to gather re re payments, the D.C. businesses utilized the vendor processing portal that Lanier had employed for Lanier Law.
To ensure that Lanier Law therefore the D.C. organizations 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 each month; the job they performed had been generally speaking restricted to reviewing retainer agreements for customer contact information also to ensure that the agreements were finalized and dated.
Together, Lanier Law as well as the D.C. organizations operated an amount company consumers that are recruiting purchase home loan help relief solutions (“MARS”). The staffing agencies solicited customers through online, 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 law offices 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 government document, informed customers that their house was indeed “selected for a unique system by the national Insured Institutions,” that will “bring your property re payments present for under your debt or your major 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 who responded to the ads were described Lanier Law or perhaps the D.C. businesses. Throughout the enrollment procedure, instance supervisors told clients that the company would get loan improvements with somewhat reduced re re re payments and rates of interest. The representatives guaranteed consumers that the businesses had very high success rates in bringing down payments—over 90 %. As soon as new business enrolled, Lanier Law therefore the D.C. businesses delivered them paperwork that is similar. The customers had been needed to pay advance costs in excess of $2,000, sometimes payable in installments. Some customers had been told to end their mortgage repayments also to pay Lanier Law or the D.C. organizations rather.
After the customers started making re payments, Lanier Law together with D.C. organizations stopped interacting using them or transferred them to different situation supervisors whom guaranteed them that work had been done to their loan alterations. Some consumers discovered from their lenders that Lanier Law plus the D.C. companies had never tried to make contact with lenders. All the customers reported that the organizations neglected to get any changes with the person. Others stated that even though some alterations had been acquired, they certainly were much less guaranteed and often needed higher payments than customers had compensated formerly.
