FTC action stops Florida foreclosure "rescue" operation – NMP Skip to main content

FTC action stops Florida foreclosure "rescue" operation

Aug 31, 2009

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has put a stop to a deceptive foreclosure "rescue" operation that charged homeowners $1,200 based on the false promise that it could save them from losing their homes. The operators of the business are barred from any further deceptive practices under a settlement with the FTC. The agency charged them with violating the FTC Act by falsely claiming that they would prevent homes from being foreclosed in virtually all instances or refund most of the $1,200 fee. In most cases the defendants neither stopped foreclosure nor provided promised refunds. The settlement prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting any fact material to a consumer’s decision to purchase a foreclosure rescue service, including that they can prevent or postpone any foreclosure; the likelihood that their foreclosure rescue will succeed; the degree of past success of any foreclosure rescue efforts; the likelihood that a consumer will get a refund if the rescue effort fails; that they can help all consumers, regardless of their individual circumstances; the number of satisfied customers or customer complaints; the terms of any refund or guarantee; any endorsement or rating by the Better Business Bureau or any other consumer association. The order imposes a $4.1 million judgment, which will be suspended upon transfer of $21,694 in bank account funds that were frozen by the court. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. The settlement bars them from selling or otherwise disclosing personal information about anyone whose information they obtained during their operation. The settlement also contains record-keeping and reporting provisions to monitor their compliance. The defendants are Stephanie Dietschy, Darin Dietschy, and United Home Savers LLC, all based in Florida. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 4-0. The document was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and was entered by the court on Aug. 19, 2009. Stipulated final orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order requires approval by the court and has the force of law when signed by the judge. For a copy of the settlement, click here. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov.
About the author
Published
Aug 31, 2009
Regulators Propose Risk-Based Vendor Oversight For Community Lenders

Plan could ease reviews of lower-risk mortgage technology while preserving lender responsibility for vendor failures

FHA Sets Jan. 1 Start For FICO 10T And VantageScore 4.0

Lenders will gain competing modern scoring options, but borrowers may not see both offered everywhere

Sep 11, 2026
FHFA Studies Credit-Report Changes To Cut Mortgage Costs

Pulte’s comments could signal either fewer bureau reports or a portable report borrowers could share among lenders, but FHFA has not clarified which approach it is studying

AI Errors Leave Mortgage Trustee Without Brief In Foreclosure Appeal

Outside counsel’s fabricated citations expose a third-party oversight risk for mortgage servicers, trustees, and investors

Sep 10, 2026
CHLA Wants Ginnie Mae Liquidity Backstop Ready Before Next Crisis

Proposed G-TALF facility could help prevent a servicing cash crunch from constraining FHA, VA, and USDA lending

FHFA Opens VantageScore To All GSE Lenders, Eyes Credit Report Overhaul

Pulte removes 50-lender cap while considering bi-merge and single-bureau reports as additional ways to reduce mortgage costs