Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Foreclosure Consultant and Lawyer Sued for Phony Lawsuit Scam
Paul Noe Jr., a foreclosure consultant, and Mitchell Roth, an attorney, have been sued for allegedly conneing 2,000 desperate homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for "phony lawsuits" to forestall foreclosure proceedings.
These lawsuits were filed and abandoned, even though homeowners were charged $1,800 in upfront fees, at least $1,200 per month and contingency fees of up to 80 percent of their home's value.
Beginning in mid-2008, Noe promised homeowners facing foreclosure or default he could help them lower or eliminate their mortgage debt.
He convinced more than 2,000 homeowners to sign "joint venture" agreements with his company, United First, and hire Roth to file suits claiming that the borrower's loan was invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it. Similar suits in other states have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower's mortgage debt.
After filing the lawsuits, Roth did virtually nothing to advance the cases. He often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines, or appear at court hearings. Instead, Roth's firm simply tried to extend the lawsuits as long as possible in order to collect additional monthly fees.
Under the terms of the agreement, United First charged homeowners approximately $1,800 in upfront fees, plus at least $1,200 per month. If the case was settled, homeowners were required to pay 50 percent of the cash value of the settlement. For example, if United First won a $100,000 reduction of the mortgage debt, the homeowner would have to pay United First a fee of $50,000. If United First completely eliminated the homeowner's debt, the homeowner would be required to pay the company 80 percent of the value of the home.
"Noe and Roth ripped off homeowners desperate for help by charging unconscionable fees for phony lawsuits," said Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, who brough the suit against Noe and Roth. "Instead of aggressively pursuing the lawsuits, Noe and Roth strung them along so they could continue to rake in fees."
Brown's lawsuit contends that Noe, Roth and United First:
- Violated California's credit counseling and foreclosure consultant laws, Civil Code sections 1789 and 2945;
- Inserted unconscionable terms in contracts;
- Engaged in improper running and capping, meaning that Roth improperly partnered with United First, Inc. and Noe, who were not lawyers, to generate business for his law firm violating California Business and Professions Code 6150;
- Violated 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Brown's office is seeking $2 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.
Paul Noe Jr. was convicted of wire fraud in 1989 and the subject of a California Department of Insurance Cease and Desist Order in 2004. Mitchell Roth resigned for the California State Bar in late May 2009, after the State Bar closed his law firm.
mortgage fraud
this woman is still conducting busines under different business names. she is smart and knows the system and has been scamming people out of money for years She is claiming she can get people out of foreclosure and putting their homes in a trust She needs to be stopped and put into jail immediately.
Posted by on 07/15 at 09:26 AM
Post a Comment
The trackback URL for this entry is:
Trackbacks:
|
Some Sources require Registration.
Mortgage Fraud Risk Index Jumps 11 Percent, According to Verisk Analytics Subsidiary Interthinx
CNNMoney.com
The report...indicates that the overall Interthinx Mortgage Fraud Risk Index surged more than 11 percent from the previous quarter...
Mortgage Fraud Case Appears Headed to Jury in Jackson County Circuit Court
The Jackson Citizen Patriot - MLive.com
The prosecution and defense rested Thursday in the mortgage fraud cases against Teresa Marie WIlson and Angelo Surveo Williams.
Wyoming Woman Charged with Mortgage Fraud After Allegedly Stealing Sister's Identity
MLive.com
A Wyoming woman is facing felony charges accusing her of stealing her sister's identity to obtain a mortgage...then defaulting on that mortgage, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
U.S. Attorney Targets White-Collar Crime
Wall Street Journal
In San Francisco, Mr. Russoniello said he is trying to crack down on cases like mortgage fraud, though he doesn't have the budget to hire additional white-collar prosecutors.
Arrests Made in Orlando Mortgage Fraud Roundup
MyFoxOrlando.com
During the real estate boom two years ago, some units were going for a half million dollars. Now some are short selling for just 50 grand.
10 Accused of Mortgage Fraud at PR Coastal Resort
Forbes
A developer and nine other people, including a former salsa singer, have been charged in an alleged $14 million mortgage fraud in Puerto Rico...
Strodtman Jury Selected in Mortgage Fraud Trial
Greeley Tribune
Attorneys will deliver opening statements this morning in the trial of Mark Strodtman, who is accused of bilking homeowners in a mortgage scheme years ago.
FHA Digging Out After Loans Sour
Wall Street Journal
Most banks rejected Ms. DeForte because her debt level was too high and her credit score too low. But Lend America put Ms. DeForte into a $402,000 loan backed by the Federal Housing Administration...
Mortgage Fraud Probe Nets 105 Across State
Bradenton Herald
At least one local man is among 105 people arrested across the state following a nine-month investigation into organized mortgage fraud.
Mortgage Fraud Increases
MortgageRates.co.nz
The number of frauds involving professional advisors, such as accountants and lawyers, has increased from two to four since March 2008.
Previous Articles
|
Trial coverage provided by Anne Mitchell, Crazy Fish Realty.
F. Jeffrey Miller Update - October 20, 2009
A hearing was held in Topeka, Kansas in front of Judge Julie Robinson. Miller is currently being held pending his sentencing which is set for December 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.. Steve Vanatta and Hallie Irvin, Miller's codefendants, will be sentenced at that time also.
Several motions were heard this week. One was a motion for Miller to be released pending his sentencing. Miller's attorney, Jeff Morris, argued that the court had dismmissed with predjudice the matter involving Miller's purchase of a commercial lawnmower, violating the court ordered monitoring agreement. He also argued that Miller was not a flight risk and should be released. This motion was denied.
Another motion heard by Judge Robinson was that of an escrow account containing proceeds from the sale of Miller's forfeited assets. This account has a balance of $143,000. Attorney Morris argued that his firm was due $100,000 for work done in the Miller matter, to date. The government argued that his 'un-itemized fees' were 'exhorbitant'. The balance of the funds, Morris argued, should be released to the Miller family to help pay for mounting household expenses.
The government argued that the 'Asset Forfeiture Provision' applies down to 'the last penny' and that 'the rights of the victims to made whole are of paramount immportance' and that no routine household expenses like Visa bills, are allowed.
Attorney Morris argues that there is more than enough assets to satisfy the jury's judgement of $2.65 million dollars. The government argues that the estimated value of his assets are only $1.4 million.
The government also stated that Miller has been paid dividends from a company Miller has an ownership interest in; Boreflex. From July, 2008 to present, Miller has been paid $330,509.30 from Boreflex, unbeknownst to the court appointed monitor.
Present in the courtroom was Todd Earnshaw. Earnshaw was indicted along with Miller and others in what is commonly referred to as 'Miller I'. That trial is scheduled to begin on January 11, 2010 in Topeka, Kansas.
More Trial Coverage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|