AmeriTrust Mortgage Corp. is seeking approximately $14.1 million in a federal lawsuit alleging that investors, a mortgage broker, appraisers, title companies, and related entities participated in a fraud scheme involving more than 90 Baltimore-area investment-property loans.
The Flower Mound, Texas-based lender alleges properties were acquired at substantially lower prices and resold to connected entities at sharply higher values, supported by appraisals and title reports that omitted recent transactions. AmeriTrust says the loans defaulted within their first few payments, triggering repurchase demands from secondary-market investors.
The lawsuit was filed Sept. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The allegations have not been adjudicated, and the case remains in its early stages.
One Broker, Repeated Counterparties
AmeriTrust operates a wholesale channel through which brokers submit loans for underwriting and funding. According to the federal complaint, FirstLoans Inc. entered into a business-purpose broker agreement with AmeriTrust in March 2024.
AmeriTrust alleges FirstLoans subsequently submitted more than 90 application packages tied to limited liability companies associated with investor Eluzer Gold.
NMP’s analysis of AmeriTrust’s court-filed exhibit found that the listed transactions involved six purchasing LLCs, all purchaser settlement statements were signed by Gold, and every transaction used REXTAR Title Services. Jason Taylor or Christopher Actie was identified on every appraisal.
The exhibit contains 91 rows with combined original principal of exactly $14.076 million. One property appears twice with identical transaction details, however, leaving what appears to be 90 unique addresses. The complaint itself variously refers to approximately 90 loans, more than 90 loans, and 91 applications.
Properties Allegedly Resold At Higher Values
AmeriTrust alleges an LLC associated with investor Shraga Chaim Lerner or Benjamin Eidlisz would acquire a property for approximately $40,000 to $50,000. The property would then be sold to an affiliated purchasing entity for approximately $200,000, sometimes only months later and without improvements sufficient to support the increase, according to the complaint.
The purchaser would obtain financing from AmeriTrust for approximately 75% to 80% of the higher price. NMP’s review found 69 of the 91 listed transactions were financed at exactly 75% of the stated purchase price, while 18 were financed at exactly 80%.
AmeriTrust alleges some funds represented as down payments were returned to purchasers or affiliates through sham renovation invoices, improper settlement disbursements, or other diversions. The lender says the purchasing entities represented that they contributed more than $4.7 million in combined down payments.
Those allegations have not been proven, and the complaint does not include a transaction-level accounting tracing the disputed funds.
Appraisals And Title Reports Under Scrutiny
The complaint details three transactions in which AmeriTrust funded loans ranging from $172,000 to $174,000 based on values between $215,000 and $218,000.
After the loans defaulted, the lender says it discovered that the properties had previously sold for between $35,000 and $57,000.
AmeriTrust alleges the corresponding appraisals stated that the properties had not transferred or been listed for sale during the previous 36 months. It claims the appraisers either deliberately omitted the transactions or failed to conduct adequate research.
The appraisals were initially ordered by FirstLoans through an unidentified appraisal management company, prepared in FirstLoans’ name, and later transferred to AmeriTrust, according to the lawsuit.
Maryland regulators separately disciplined Taylor in 2025, imposing a $1,000 civil penalty and 30 hours of remedial education for statutory and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice violations, according to the Maryland Department of Labor.
The state’s public summary does not identify the appraisal involved, and NMP could not determine whether the disciplinary action was connected to the AmeriTrust transactions.
AmeriTrust also alleges REXTAR omitted recent lower-priced sales from its title reports. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., which allegedly issued title policies and closing-protection letters covering the transactions, is also named as a defendant.
Early Defaults Triggered Repurchase Demands
AmeriTrust says it sold the loans to secondary-market investors shortly after funding them. When borrowers allegedly missed their first few payments, those investors issued repurchase demands under early-payment-default provisions.
The lender says it has repurchased and currently holds “one or more” of the loans while attempting to resolve other demands. It also claims weak investor demand has left the distressed loans with few potential buyers.
The complaint does not identify how many loans AmeriTrust has repurchased, the amount paid to repurchase them, the current value of the underlying properties, or recoveries received through payments and foreclosures.
The $14.076 million AmeriTrust seeks in compensatory damages equals the combined original principal listed in its exhibit. The figure therefore represents the lender’s damages claim, not a publicly documented net loss after recoveries.
Baltimore Risks Were Already Circulating
The lawsuit provides more detail behind concerns that had already spread through the Non-QM market.
NMP reported in July 2025 that some lenders were excluding certain borrowers, entities, and appraisers while applying heightened scrutiny to Baltimore-area investment-property loans.
Warning signs included recent deed transfers, LLCs appearing on both sides of transactions, unexplained valuation increases, questionable leases, and title discrepancies.
The Pattern Was Bigger Than One File
AmeriTrust portrays itself as the victim of coordinated deception. Nothing in the available court record establishes otherwise.
But its exhibit shows why fraud controls cannot stop with a review of each individual loan.
More than 90 transactions came through one broker and involved the same purchaser signatory, six borrower LLCs, one title agency, and two appraisers. The appraisals also were transferred from the submitting broker rather than originally prepared for AmeriTrust.
The nominal leverage did not appear extreme. Most loans were made at 75% of the stated purchase price. But if the underlying value and borrower contribution were unreliable, the apparent equity cushion could disappear.
For wholesale and Non-QM lenders, the operational lesson is to monitor relationships across the full pipeline: repeated LLC principals, connected buyers and sellers, rapid resales, concentrated appraisal and title providers, transferred appraisals, valuation jumps, and clusters of loans submitted by one broker.
The AmeriTrust case shows how those risks can move quickly from origination into the secondary market, where an early default can return the entire exposure to the lender through a repurchase demand.
