Mortgage Relief Scheme Violated New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

This posting was written by Jody Coultas, Editor of CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law.

A real estate lawyer and his client engaged in a fraudulent mortgage relief scheme that violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by misleading mortgage holders, according to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Trenton, New Jersey.

The mortgage holders filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in an attempt to save their home from foreclosure. They then entered into an agreement with the real estate lawyer’s client, Frederick Cleveland, to sell the house for $555,000. Cleveland was to pay off $510,000 on the two existing mortgages on the house and another $46,000 to the mortgage holders to pay for the Chapter 13 plan.

Instead, Cleveland borrowed $646,400 and took $100,000 for himself. The mortgage holders were unaware that the monthly payments they made to Cleveland were not being used to service the financing and did not understand that if Cleveland failed to pay the new lender, they could lose their home.

Misrepresentations

In preparing the closing documents, the real estate lawyer misrepresented the sale price and falsely told the mortgage holders that Cleveland was investing his own cash.

Although the mortgage holders were not going to receive any money, the real estate lawyer told them they would receive payments from a trust account. Cleveland eventually defaulted on the new loan and the lender initiated foreclosure proceedings.

The real estate lawyer and Cleveland violated the CFA by making false and misleading statements regarding a mortgage relief plan, according to the court. The CFA prohibits the use of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, or fraud.

Sophisticated Consumer Exception

Although Cleveland argued that the mortgage holders could not avail themselves of the CFA because they were sophisticated parties and could not be misled, the court found that there was no statutory exception for sophisticated consumers.

Even if a business practice was not fraudulent or deceptive, that practice could nevertheless violate the CFA if it was unconscionable. Here, Cleveland found the mortgage holders in a very vulnerable position and took advantage of them for personal gain.

Damages, Attorney’s Fees

An award of actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and other appropriate equitable relief was available to the mortgage holders. The mortgage holders suffered an ascertainable loss because the new mortgage was $646,400, even though they had owed only $529,608. Thus, the damage award was over $350,000, treble the difference between the loss and what the mortgage holders actually received.

The court noted that the mortgage holders could submit proof of their attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as seek other equitable remedies. The real estate lawyer was held jointly liable for the damages, costs, and fees because he conspired with his client to violate the CFA.

The mortgage holders' lawyer stated that this was the first reported case in New Jersey concerning mortgage foreclosure rescue schemes.

The decision is In re O'Brien, CCH State Unfair Trade Practices Law ¶32,012.