Usa 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, LIBERTY & TRUST LAW NUMBER OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida liability that is limited, Defendants – countertop Claimants, MICHAEL W. LANIER, separately so when an owner, officer, supervisor, and/or agent of this 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 whether or not the region court correctly granted summary judgment to your Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on its claims that defendant payday loans Roselle IL Michael Lanier violated a few federal statutes and laws associated with the purchase of mortgage help relief services. Lanier contends that the region 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 product fact, making factual findings in the FTC’s benefit. We conclude that none of those arguments has merit and affirm the region court.
Factual Background
Through Lanier Law, LLC, their law practice, Michael Lanier, a lawyer situated in Jacksonville, Florida, offered mortgage help relief solutions to individuals at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure. 1 Lanier and their affiliates promised homeowners that in return for an upfront charge, he’d negotiate more affordable month-to-month home loan 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 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 grievance against Lanier pertaining to their foreclosure relief services. Lanier ultimately joined a conditional accountable plea, admitting which he had improperly solicited customers and neglected to supervise non-lawyers, in which he was suspended quickly through the training of legislation.
Ahead of 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, offered customers with home loan help solutions. 2 These entities purported become law offices located in the District of Columbia, however they had been 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. companies, any mail provided for D.C. had been forwarded instantly 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. businesses. Also to gather re payments, the D.C. businesses used the vendor processing portal that Lanier had employed for Lanier Law.
To make certain that Lanier Law while the D.C. businesses could attract customers nationwide, they connected with “of counsel” attorneys across the united states. 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 limited by reviewing retainer agreements for customer contact information also to ensure that the agreements had been finalized and dated.
Together, Lanier Law as well as the D.C. companies operated an amount company recruiting customers to purchase home loan assistance relief solutions (“MARS”). The staffing agencies solicited customers through the online world, letters, and leaflets mortgage assistance that is offering. The ads promoted the counsel that is“of community, noting that the law practice “has working arrangements with experienced and competent solicitors and lawyers in a lot of other states.” 2013 Flyer at 56 (Doc. 246-5). One flyer, entitled the “Economic Stimulus Mortgage Notification” (the “Flyer”), which appeared as if a federal government document, informed customers that their home was in fact “selected for the program that is special the national Insured Institutions,” that will “bring home re re re payments present for under you borrowed from or your major balance down.” 2012 Flyer at 66 (Doc. 246-1). Other flyers identified the transmitter as DOLMF, that was owned by Robles. Lanier denies any right part in “drafting, delivering, approving, or us[ing]” the Flyer. Lanier Aff. at 9 (Doc. 253).
Customers who taken care of immediately the ads had been described Lanier Law or perhaps the D.C. organizations. Throughout the enrollment procedure, instance supervisors told clients that the company would get loan improvements with considerably reduced re re payments and interest levels. The representatives guaranteed consumers that the businesses had incredibly high success prices in reducing re payments—over 90 per cent. As soon as new customers enrolled, Lanier Law additionally the D.C. businesses delivered them paperwork that is similar. The customers had been needed to pay advance charges in excess of $2,000, often payable in installments. Some customers had been told to cease their home loan repayments also to pay Lanier Law or the D.C. businesses alternatively.
When the customers started making re re payments, Lanier Law additionally the D.C. companies stopped interacting using them or transferred them to different instance supervisors whom guaranteed them that really work had been done on the loan adjustments. Some consumers discovered from their lenders that Lanier Law while the D.C. companies had never attempted to get hold of lenders. All the customers reported that the businesses did not get any changes for the kids. Other people stated that while some changes had been acquired, they certainly were not quite as guaranteed and often needed higher payments than consumers had compensated formerly.