Arizona AG charges loan mod company with deceptive practices – NMP Skip to main content

Arizona AG charges loan mod company with deceptive practices

Jan 14, 2010

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has filed a lawsuit against a Phoenix-based mortgage loan modification company, Asset Creation LLC, and its owner, Marvin Williamson, for engaging in allegedly deceptive practices. This lawsuit is the latest action in the Attorney General’s crackdown on mortgage loan modification businesses that use misleading advertising or engage in other fraudulent practices. More than 2,500 consumers have contracted with Asset Creation for loan modification services in the past two years. “I am committed to fighting deceptive practices targeted at homeowners who are struggling to make their payments,” Goddard said. “Instead of providing assistance, too many loan modification companies pocket large upfront fees and fail to obtain any kind of mortgage relief.” The lawsuit alleges that since January of 2008, Asset Creation falsely represented its loan modification services to consumers throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area on its Web sites and in local Spanish language media. According to court documents, Asset Creation charged consumers upfront fees ranging from $1,680 to $3,430 for loan modification services, after representing in newspaper ads that it could obtain a 50 percent reduction in the homeowners’ mortgage payments and stating on its Web sites that it could help any homeowner, regardless of their situation. In addition, the company provided all potential applicants a "Client Proposal" that highlighted a new mortgage payment that was approximately 20 percent lower than the consumer's current payment. The lawsuit also alleged that Asset Creation falsely represented that it would refund consumers’ money if it could not obtain a loan modification for them and that it had been performing loan modification services for consumers since 2003. The lawsuit alleges that Asset Creation’s actions violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act by: ► Misrepresenting to consumers that it could obtain specific results. ► Falsely representing to consumers that they would receive a refund of their fees if Asset Creation was unable to obtain a loan modification on the consumers’ behalf. ► Misrepresenting that Asset Creation has been providing loan modification services to consumers since 2003. In the lawsuit, Goddard requests that the court order Asset Creation and Marvin Williamson to: ► Refrain from violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. ► Pay full restitution to all homeowners who paid Asset Creation for loan modification services. ► Pay the State of Arizona a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. ► Reimburse the Attorney General’s Office for its costs of investigation and legal fees incurred in this matter. Click here for a copy of the lawsuit. For more information, visit www.azag.gov.
About the author
Published
Jan 14, 2010
CHLA Backs Bank Capital Proposal, Questions Impact On Mortgage Lending

Trade group supports lower mortgage risk weights but says broader market forces — not capital rules — drove banks' retreat from the market

Senate Passes 21st Century ROAD To Housing Act In 85-5 Vote

Sweeping housing package heads back to House after Senate clears final version with broad bipartisan support

MISMO Updates Business Glossary To Support AI, eMortgages

New definitions covering eHELOCs, remote online notarization, valuation modernization, and compliance initiatives aim to improve consistency

Underwriters Don’t Slow Down Loans. They Eliminate Uncertainty.

ndustry’s biggest bottleneck is not underwriting itself — it is the uncertainty that reaches underwriting too late in the process. When validation happens upstream, speed follows naturally.

MISMO Launches AI Governance Framework For Mortgage Lenders

New FRAME toolkit gives lenders, servicers, and technology providers a roadmap for managing AI risk while supporting innovation

CFPB Tells Lenders Immigration Status Can Factor Into ATR Analysis

CFPB frames immigration status as a potential ability-to-repay factor when future U.S.-based income is at risk