|
|
CONSUMER NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters Spanish |
|
|
![]() |
Foreclosure 'Rescue' Firm To Pay $1.2 Million To Arizona VictimsHomeowners lost their homes thanks to firm's 'help' |
|||||
|
May 30, 2008
In 2005, the Arizona Attorney General's Office filed a consumer protection lawsuit against VRF after receiving multiple consumer complaints. The company advertised that it could help homeowners who were behind in their mortgage payments avoid losing their homes. In fact, state said the transactions offered by VRF were structured so that homeowners would transfer title to VRF or sell the home to a business associate of the company. "This case represents the worst in our community," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said. "This company took advantage of homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure and deceived them into turning over their homes." "The Department of Financial Institutions applauds this court's order," said DFI Superintendent Felecia Rotellini said. "The message is clear: Obey the law or you will be held responsible." According to court documents, although neither VRF nor Perkins were licensed by the Department of Financial Institutions as mortgage brokers or bankers, VRF lent money to more than 60 homeowners facing foreclosure or in need of money. It designed the loans, which it called reverse sales, to evade laws protecting mortgage borrowers by structuring them as an outright sale of the property by the borrower, who then rented back the home with an option to repurchase it. The reverse sale agreements required homeowners to rent back their homes from VRF for a monthly amount equal to the monthly mortgage payment plus an additional charge. In the case of one homeowner, the monthly mortgage payment was $613 and the additional charge was $157, making a monthly rental payment of $770. In return for "helping" the homeowners keep their homes, VRF agreed to transfer title back to the homeowner through a warranty deed if the homeowner met specific conditions. Those conditions included the payment of all rent on time (and prior to a specified date, payment to VRF for bringing the mortgage current), unspecified escrow fees and a "funding fee," which was at times as high as $9,000. If homeowners were late on a rental payment or unable to repay the loan and funding fee within two years, they could lose their homes and any equity in them. Report Your Experience
|
|||||
Back to the top | |
||||||
Advertisement
|
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|