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
TD Bank Pleads Guilty To Enabling Money Laundering For Criminal Organizations

'TD Bank chose profits over compliance in order to keep its costs down,' said U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

LoanSnap Officially Loses Connecticut License

The AI mortgage startup formerly faced a cease and desist and a consent order from the State of Connecticut.

Oct 09, 2024
Wishing Regulations Away

What mortgage leaders want to see revised in the wake of Supreme Court undoing of government favoritism

False Moves, Real Consequences

Don’t let missteps mortgage your future

Navigating New Norms

Unpacking changing issues in loan servicing

Congress Fits Trigger Lead Ban Into The 2025 Budget

Senate Amendment 2358, banning 'abusive' trigger leads, was added to the Senate's Fiscal Year 2025 NDAA