Interplay Between Anti-Housing Discrimination Laws, Massachusetts Anti-Lead Paint Poisoning Statute Results In $9,500 Fair Housing 'Tester-Initiated' Squeeze Against Real Estate Brokerage, Landlords; Property Owners Also Agree To Remediate Lead Hazards In 'Pre-1978 Built' Rental Homes

In Northampton, Massachusetts, the Daily Hampshire Gazette reports:

• A local real estate agency has agreed to settle allegations that the company and its agents violated the federal Fair Housing Act by discouraging families with children from renting over concerns that units might contain lead-based paint hazards, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced [].
  
  Delap Real Estate LLC, [] and two area property owners will pay a combined $9,500 to the Housing Discrimination Project(1) in Holyoke. Delap also has agreed to use the phrases “children welcome” or “family friendly” in all rental advertisements for the next year and to help develop a public service campaign about fair housing for radio broadcast, according to two settlement agreements approved by HUD.
  
  The agreements do not “constitute an admission by Respondents of any violation of any statute or regulation,” according to the documents, which also state that the agreements do not represent a finding of liability. Reached by the Gazette [], a co-owner of the agency and one property owner each said they had not engaged in any discriminatory practices.
  
  Under the Fair Housing Act, it is unlawful to deny or limit housing because a family has children under the age of 18, and to make statements that discriminate against families with children. Children may be excluded, however, under the Fair Housing Act’s exemption for housing for older persons.
  
  In a statement emailed to the Gazette, Delap Real Estate broker and co-owner Carla Ness wrote that the real estate agency fully agrees with a HUD official’s statement that “families with children have a right to the same housing choices as other families.”
  
  “Although we do not believe that Delap discriminated in any way when we responded to inquiries by HDP (Housing Discrimination Project) testers concerning renting properties built prior to 1978, we decided it was in everyone’s best interest, especially the public we serve, to reach a settlement with HUD and HDP,” Ness wrote. “As part of that settlement, Delap is happy to help HDP with its public service ad campaign because we feel it will help more families to be informed about the Fair Housing Act and their right to live in a healthy home. We believe that it is our job as Realtors to inform and help everyone with their real estate needs.”(2)
  
  The agreements are the result of complaints filed with HUD by the Housing Discrimination Project on July 24 and Aug. 11. The organization alleged that when it responded to online ads placed on Craigslist, Delap imposed a “preference or limitation based on familial status” — a claim the real estate agency denied, according to HUD. The agreements name Jessica Lapinski and Meghan McCormick as the real estate agents involved.
  
  The properties were in Florence and Holyoke, and Delap agreed to settle the allegations to avoid further litigation, according to the agreements.
  
  HUD spokeswoman Shantae M. Goodloe told the Gazette that the allegations were slightly different in each case and that the Housing Discrimination Project and property owners agreed to resolve the matter during the investigation. HUD made no determination on the merits of the allegations.
  
  The Florence property, a single-family home on Liberty Street, is owned by Debra Bercuvitz and Kris Thomson, who have agreed to pay a $3,000 penalty within 30 days. The Holyoke property is owned by Mary F. Reynolds.
  
  Kris Thomson said he and his wife, Debra, are “completely and fully innocent” and that they have a history of renting to families with children at their Liberty Street property.
  
  “We in fact did not discriminate; we didn’t have the opportunity to discriminate because nobody ever applied,” Thomson said. “Not that we would have. We had no idea any of this was going on.”
  
  The property owners in both cases have agreed to eliminate lead at the properties in question by hiring a state-licensed lead remover, according to the agreements.

Source: Delap Real Estate of Northampton, landlords agree to settle fair housing discrimination allegations.

--------------------------------

(1) The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center (also known as the Housing Discrimination Project, Inc.) is a fair housing center in Massachusetts, serving Berkshire, Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester Counties. MFHC provides free legal services and accepts housing discrimination complaints based on race, national origin, color, ancestry, religion, sex, disability, presence of minor children, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, marital status, military or veteran status, receipt of public assistance, including Section 8 housing assistance, receipt of housing subsidies or rental assistance, and genetic information.

MFHC also preserves homeownership, by advocating for distressed homeowners in mortgage lending cases, and by assisting victims of foreclosure rescue scams.

MFHC accepts over 300 housing discrimination complaints per year from the general pubic, and has obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars for victims of housing discrimination. MFHC has also successfully advocated for affordable loan modifications allowing homeowners to remain in their home and avoid foreclosure. In addition to this legal work, MFHC provides extensive education and outreach services to community groups, service providers, landlords, realtors, newspapers and others.

(2) Delap also agreed to include language in its contracts with property owners stating that the owners must comply with the Massachusetts Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control Act, according to HUD.

Civil Rights, Brooklyn Feds Slam 1,100+ Unit Co-Op w/ Fair Housing Suit Alleging Refusal To Make Reasonable Accommodations To Allow Four Residents To Live w/ Emotional Support Dogs; Defendants Also Accused Of Attempting To Boot Residents In Violation Of Earlier Conciliation Agreement w/ HUD

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Brooklyn, New York):

• Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, announced the filing [] of a federal Fair Housing Act complaint against Coney Island, New York cooperative Trump Village Section IV Inc. and Igor Oberman, a former President of its Board of Directors, for violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(f) and 3617.
  
  Trump Village Section IV Inc. is a 1,144-unit cooperative apartment complex in Brooklyn, New York. The owners of the complex are shareholders in the cooperative, and have proprietary leases for their residential units. The complaint alleges that between May 2012 and March 2015, defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by denying Trump Village residents with disabilities emotional support animals.
  
  According to the government’s complaint, defendants refused to allow four residents of the cooperative to live with emotional support dogs and commenced eviction proceedings against three of them when they refused to give up their animals.
  
  As further set forth in the complaint, defendants took some of these actions even after they entered into a conciliation agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in which they agreed that Trump Village would permit individuals to live with emotional support animals. The complaint seeks monetary damages for the victims of the discrimination as well as injunctive relief barring defendants from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.
  
  “The law is clear that reasonable accommodations must be granted to individuals with disabilities when those accommodations are necessary to afford them the equal opportunity to use and enjoy their homes. This includes the right to live with an emotional support animal. Those responsible for refusing to grant such accommodations or retaliating against individuals with disabilities who try to enforce their rights under the Fair Housing Act will be held accountable,” stated United States Attorney Capers. Mr. Capers extended his appreciation to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity for its assistance with the investigation.
  
  “Emotional support animals provide critical care and therapeutic aid for people with disabilities,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “The department will continue to enforce fair housing laws to ensure that housing providers make reasonable accommodations for individuals who rely on assistance animals in their homes.”

Source: United States Files Suit Against Brooklyn Cooperative Apartment Building Trump Village For Fair Housing Act Violations.

Recent HUD Fair Housing Actions Involving Disabilities Discrimination - Emotional Support Animals

In Washington, D.C., the Department of Housing & Urban Development recently announced the commencement of the following administrative actions against landlords for alleged conduct in connection with requests for reasonable accommodations (ie. use of support animals) by people with disabilities:

• HUD Charges South Dakota Property Owners w/ Discriminating Against Resident w/ Disabilities (charging the owners and landlords of a 36-unit complex in Sioux Falls, South Dakota with violating the Fair Housing Act by initially refusing to allow a resident with disabilities to have an emotional support animal. HUD’s charge alleges that even after the resident obtained a support dog, the owners placed overly burdensome requirements on the resident’s use of the dog. Read HUD’s administrative complaint):
  
  The case came to HUD’s attention when the woman, who has a mental disability, filed a complaint alleging that the apartment owners initially refused to allow her to have a support animal and asked her to give 60-days’ notice to vacate the apartment if she insisted on getting one.
  
  When she obtained a dog and requested a reasonable accommodation to keep the animal, the owners requested verification of the animal’s proper inoculations and licensure with the city before responding to her request. Upon granting her request, they also required her to sign a “Companion Animal/Pet Policy Agreement” that included discriminatory provisions that (1) allowed the landlords to revoke approval of the animal at their “sole discretion;” (2) imposed size, weight, and breed limitations on assistance animals; (3) required that assistance animals be more than six months old at the time they are acquired; (4) allowed the landlord to enter the apartment to inspect for damage suspected to have been caused by the assistance animal; and (5) allowed the landlord to evict her for failure to comply with any of the agreement’s provisions.
  
  Eventually the woman moved out for fear of losing her housing because of her support animal.
  
  ---------------------------------------
• New York City Landlords With Discriminating Against Resident With Disabilities (charging the owners and landlords of a high-rise complex in New York City with violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow a resident with disabilities to have an emotional support animal. HUD’s charge alleges that the owners and managers refused to accept that the resident required a dog to cope with the symptoms of his disability. Read HUD’s administrative complaint):
  
  The case came to HUD’s attention after the resident, who has a psychiatric disability, filed a complaint with HUD alleging that his right to have an emotional support animal was denied. The man lives in a two-bedroom apartment at The Dorothy Ross Friedman Residence, a 30-story supportive housing residence for senior citizens, working professionals and persons living with HIV/AIDS that is sponsored by the Actors’ Fund, a New York nonprofit for performing arts and entertainment professionals.
  
  When the tenant moved into Friedman Residence in 2004 he did not have a support animal. However, in 2010 the resident began being treated by a licensed clinical psychologist and a year later bought a small dog. After recognizing an improvement in the man’s condition, his doctor recommended that he register the animal as an official emotional support animal.
  
  In February 2013, the landlords initiated eviction procedures against the man due to the presence of the dog. The man subsequently provided the property management director with documents from his doctor and the National Service Animal Registry showing that the dog was an emotional support animal, but instead of accepting the documentation, the landlords sent the man a final “Notice of Termination,” stating that he had not sufficiently demonstrated his need for the animal.
  
  Legal proceedings between the resident and the landlords in New York County Civil Court were stayed while this charge was investigated.
  
  -----------------------------------

Read HUD’s notice regarding service or companion animals for people with disabilities.

Homeowner, City Battle Over Right To Keep Emotional Support Animal; Issue Revolves Around Medically Prescribed 900-Pound Quarterhorse Claimed To Be Essential For Autistic Daughter's Mental Health

In Kenai, Alaska, the Peninsula Clarion reports:

• An unpermitted horse in a tight residential area of Kenai is lowering property values according to neighbors, but is essential for an autistic woman’s emotional health, according to its owner.
  
  Kim Garretson said Major, the black 35-year-old quarterhorse she keeps on her land in Kenai’s McCann subdivision, keeps her autistic daughter, Cristal Barton, well.
  
  “The only reason we consider that she’s stable is because of him,” Garretson said of the horse.
  
  Kenai Municipal code prohibits keeping livestock on property smaller than 40,000 square feet — an area little less than an acre. Garretson lives with Barton on 10,000 square feet near 4th Street’s dead-end at the boundary fence of the Kenai Airport, a property bounded on two sides by closely-spaced neighboring houses. To legally keep Major here, Garretson must be granted a conditional use permit from the Kenai Planning and Zoning Commission, which denied the permit in a meeting on Oct. 14. Garretson will appeal their decision before the Kenai City Council in a hearing on Dec. 8. She said that if the permit is denied again, she will bring the question to court.
  
  “I’m going to continue the fight,” Garretson said. “He is an emotional support animal, and because of that, if they say no again, it’s discrimination because of what he is. Cristal has a right to enjoy her dwelling where she lives with her animal.”
  
  Because Major has been medically prescribed to Barton for her mental health, not permitting the horse to be kept on the property could be a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, which prohibits “a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford (disabled people) equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.”(1)
  
  ***
  Garretson said Major was a rescue horse whom she found on Craigslist and brought from Kasilof in December 2010. Major was underfed when he arrived, weighing between 300 and 400 pounds, with ribs showing. After eight weeks of feeding, Garretson said, he had begun to approach his breed’s healthy weight of around 900 pounds.

For more, see Disabled Kenai resident, neighbors, city fight over horse kept in neighborhood yard.

----------------------------

(1) In a recent case favorable to the party requesting the reasonable accommodation, a federal appeals court reinstated a lawsuit that a trial court dismissed involving a miniature horse used as an emotional support animal. Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, No. 14-3754 (6th Cir. August 14, 2015). From that ruling:

• While protecting public health and property values are central to the City's interests, Anderson has produced evidence that the presence of one miniature horse at her house will not create unsanitary conditions or devalue her neighbors' property, supported not only by her own testimony but by signed letters of support from her current neighbors. She also testified that she has retained a service to clean up animal waste, and ensure that unsanitary conditions will not reappear.
  
  As for the district court's assertion that, because Anderson lives in a residential area, "[a]llowing farm animals, such as miniature horses . . . in these areas fundamentally alters the zoning scheme," we have long since rejected the notion that making an exception to a zoning scheme to permit something that would normally be forbidden automatically amounts to a fundamental alteration. [...] Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA [Fair Housing Amendments Act] does. The fact that the City banned horses from residential property does not mean that any modification permitting a horse necessarily amounts to a fundamental alteration.

I wonder whether a court would apply the reasoning in a case involving a miniature horse to a situation involving a 900-pound quarterhorse.

See also, Big Win for Ohio Family’s Fight to Keep Little Horse.

Arizona Family Gets OK To Keep Pot-Bellied Pig For Emotional Support Needs Of 9-Year Old Son w/ Asperger's Syndrome; City Changed Initial Position After Family Attorney Submitted Written Request For A "Reasonable Accomodation" Pursuant To Fair Housing Law

In Chandler, Arizona, KPHO-TV Channel 5 reports:

• On Thursday, the Gil family learned their son Julian's therapy pig Maggie would be allowed to remain in their Chandler-area home. The family was not available for an interview Thursday but their attorney said they are ecstatic.
  
  The decision came after months of back and forth.
  
  Maggie is a pot-bellied pig. In August, the city notified the Gils that they were in violation of city code because pigs are not allowed in residential neighborhoods. A neighbor had filed a complaint.
  
  The family argued Maggie is not livestock; she's an emotional support animal. Their 9-year-old son Julian has Asperger's syndrome, and Maggie, they say, has been instrumental in his progress. "When I'm sad she goes near me and makes me happy," Julian told our crew last month.
  
  With the help of attorney John Schill, the family filed a reasonable accommodation request under the Fair Housing Amendment Act. On Thursday that request was approved, meaning Maggie can stay.
  
  "It was very good news to say, 'Hey, we won. Maggie gets to stay with Julian,' because there was a point in time when they first contacted me that I didn't know if we could win this case. I didn't know if Maggie was going to be able to stay with Julian," Schill said.
  
  Now, that angst and uncertainty has been put to rest for all involved.

Source: Chandler family allowed to keep emotional support pig.

Landlord's Refusal To Fix Up Blighted Building Leads To Vacate Order & Post-Holiday Boot For Three Families; City To Clip Owner For Relocation Fees Thru Real Estate Lien

In Bristol, Connecticut, The Bristol Press reports:

• The Taillon Street tenants confronted with eviction after the city’s blight crackdown hit home are facing a worrisome Christmas.
  
  Although city officials have said the tenants can stay through the holiday — despite a condemnation order to get out this week — the three families who live in Mohammad Aljanaby’s house are looking ahead to an uncertain new year.
  
  Initially, the city will put them up in a hotel while a social worker works to find them new apartments. City employees will also pack up and store their belongings — with Aljanaby picking up the tab for all of it through a lien officials will place on the property.
  
  “We could be in a hotel for days, weeks, months,” said Shyra Heyward, one of the tenants who has to move out because her landlord refused to obey city orders to fix up the mold-ridden, cluttered house.
  
  “We are not OK and will never be until we find another home,” said tenant Lori Bokanoski, also facing eviction, with her 3-year-old granddaughter, son, niece and husband.
  
  The tenant in the largest unit, who pays $1,100 monthly, said he’s especially frustrated because he offered to buy the property from Aljanaby several times so he could make repairs and stay there permanently.

For more, see Blight Christmas: Tenants will celebrate holiday in condemned home.

City Vacate Order Due To Boiler Breakdown During Foreclosure Process Leads To Holiday Boot For Five Chicago Families; Sudden Pre-Foreclosure Eviction Disqualifies Victims From $10,600 In Relocation Assistance As Delinquent Landlord, Court-Appointed Receiver, 'Scrooge' Bankster Fail To Make Needed Repairs

From a recent post from Chicago, Illinois-based Metropolitan Tenants Organization:

• In a blatant attempt to beat the clock on Chicago’s Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance (KRCO), BMO Harris Bank has caused the eviction of five families from their homes in the 7200 block of South Lowe in Englewood just as they were preparing for the Holidays. The tenants unfortunately – and by no fault of their own – lived in a building being foreclosed on by BMO.
  
  When the boiler in the building went out, neither the bank nor the owner would step in to get it fixed. As a direct result of that decision, the City ordered the building vacated due to “dangerous and hazardous conditions.”
  
  By not acting on the repair work, BMO’s court-appointed Receiver, Steven Spinell, caused the building to become vacant before the foreclosure process was final, thereby preventing residents from qualifying for the $10,600 in relocation assistance they would be entitled to under the Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance (KCRO) – in effect, punishing the tenants for the financial woes of their landlord. The law was passed by the City Council at the height of the foreclosure crisis precisely to prevent such actions.
  
  John Bartlett, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization (MTO) reacted strongly to BMO’s actions saying, “This is an outrage. The law needs to be tightened and enforced to prevent such travesties.”

For more, see BMO Harris Bank skirts city foreclosure law, plays Scrooge in Englewood.

Jury Convicts Builder Of Using Bogus Invoices, Forged Lien Waivers To Fraudulently Pocket Advances From Construction Loan Purportedly To Build His $1.6 Million Personal Residence; Foreclosure Ensued After Work Stopped, Leaving Lender w/ $780K+ Loss On Sale Of Partially Finished House

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Springfield, Missouri):

• [A] Bois D’Arc, Mo., business owner was convicted [] at trial of a bank fraud scheme related to the construction of his $1.6 million residence.
  
  Michael R. Ussery, 58, of Bois D’Arc, was found guilty of 12 counts of bank fraud in a Dec. 14, 2011, federal indictment.
  
  Ussery was the owner/operator of two businesses in 2007, USS Properties and Villa Properties, both of which purchased real estate for residential development. During this time, Ussery also was building a $1.6 million home for himself in Bois D’Arc. Mid-Missouri Bank agreed to provide a $1.6 million construction loan to build the residence; $1.15 million was used to pay off the previous bank which had financed the construction of the residence up to that point, and the remaining $450,000 was supposed to have gone to completing the construction of the residence. When persons worked on the house, Ussery was supposed to obtain an invoice and a lien waiver from the contractors and submit these documents to Mid-Missouri Bank, which would then make a disbursement of the amount owed to Ussery’s personal bank account.
  
  A dozen invoices and lien waivers totaling $315,417 were submitted to Mid-Missouri Bank from May 29 to June 25, 2007, purportedly from persons or companies building the residence, to draw money from the $1.6 million loan amount for construction of the residence. In fact, each invoice and lien waiver was false, faked or forged. They were either created by, or caused to be submitted by, Ussery, and contained materially false or fraudulent, representations. The companies or persons who were indicated on the fraudulent invoices and lien waivers did not prepare or submit the invoices and lien waivers, did not perform the work on the property as indicated in the invoices, did not agree to waive any lien on the residence for work actually done on the property, and did not receive any payments for work done as indicated in the invoices.
  
  Auditors at the bank visited the construction site in June and July of 2007 and saw nothing that would indicate that this amount had been spent on the construction of the residence, apart from the hanging of drywall. Mid-Missouri Bank actually deposited $315,417 into the defendant’s personal account based upon the fraudulent representations contained in the lien waiver and invoice documents. It appears that the money, which had been meant for building the house, was used instead for business relating to USS Properties or Villa Properties.
  
  Ussery eventually stopped construction on the Bois D’Arc property and the bank had to foreclose on the loan. The bank took a $782,349 loss after the sale of the property with its partially finished house. Ussery filed for bankruptcy relief in 2011.
  
  Although not charged in the indictment, evidence introduced during the trial indicated that Ussery also committed similar fraudulent activity against a husband and wife who hired him to build a personal residence in Greene County, Mo. Ussery started construction of the house in 2007, but did not complete the project. The victim clients discovered that Ussery was providing false lien waivers to Great Southern Bank to obtain loan draws from the construction loan.
  
  Evidence introduced during the trial also indicated that Ussery or his company submitted false lien waivers to obtain construction loan draws in 2005 from First Midwest Bank in Jackson, Mo., which would also be considered relevant conduct that was not charged in the indictment.

Source: Jury Convicts Bois D'Arc Man of Bank Fraud Related to $1.6 Million Home.

Section 8 Tenant Gets 6-23 Months In Jail For Scoring Housing Subsidy While Doing 2 To 5 Year Stint In State Prison For An Unrelated Crime & Failed To Tell Local Housing Authority

In Norristown, Pennsylvania, The Mercury reports:

• A Pottstown woman has admitted to stealing nearly $15,000 in federal housing and utility assistance funds by continuing to improperly collect the assistance even though she was in prison and no longer living at her residence.
  
  Alisha Latrece Harmon, 28, [...], was sentenced [] in Montgomery County Court to six to 23 months in the county jail after she pleaded guilty to a felony charge of theft by deception in connection with the fraud that occurred between November 2012 and September 2014. Judge Steven T. O’Neill, who accepted a plea agreement in the case, also ordered Harmon to complete two years’ probation for a total of four years of court supervision.
  
  With the charges, authorities alleged Harmon fraudulently collected 17 housing assistance payments, totaling $13,252, and nine utility assistance payments, totaling $1,665, by deceiving officials that she was still living at [her] Queen Street residence when in fact she was in state prison on a 2012 conviction for intimidating a witness.
  
  ***
  The judge ordered Harmon to pay a total of $14,917 in restitution to the Montgomery County Housing Authority.
  
  The theft could represent a violation of the prison sentence Harmon received in September 2012 in the intimidation case and Harmon will remain detained until she has a hearing before the state parole board.
  
  Harmon, according to court papers, was granted rental housing assistance in August 2008, while living at [her] Queen Street residence with her toddler daughter, through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, also known as Section 8. Under the program, Harmon was required to notify the housing authority of any change of address or composition of her home.
  
  In September 2012, Harmon, then 24, was sentenced to 2 to 5 years in state prison for using Facebook to intimidate a witness to an attempted murder and shooting that was committed by her onetime boyfriend. While Harmon went to prison another relative moved in to the home to care for Harmon’s daughter and Harmon never reported the situation to housing assistance officials, court papers indicate.

For more, see Pottstown woman jailed for $15K theft of HUD funds.

Ohio Attorney Ripoff Reimbursement Fund To Shell Out $36K+ To 13 Ex-Clients Of Attorney Who Failed To Refund Unearned Fees For Unperformed Legal Services

In Columbus, Ohio, The Columbus Dispatch reports:

• Thirteen former clients of a Dublin lawyer serving a federal prison sentence for a kickback scheme involving the state treasurer’s office will be reimbursed $36,420 for legal services they failed to receive.
  
  The Board of Commissioners of the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection(1) voted to award the money to former clients of Mohammed Noure Alo at a meeting on Friday, court officials announced on Tuesday.
  
  ***
  Alo did not provide adequate services to some former clients and failed to return unearned fees largely connected to immigration cases, court disciplinary officials said. His law license was indefinitely suspended on Aug. 17.
  
  ***
  The board also awarded $2,500 in compensation to a former client of suspended Columbus lawyer Javier H. Armengau for failure to provide services for which he was paid. The money comes from attorney registration fees.

Source: Dublin lawyer’s victims to be reimbursed $36,420.

---------------------------------

(1) For similar "attorney ripoff reimbursement funds" that sometimes help cover the financial mess created by the dishonest conduct of lawyers licensed in other states and Canada, see:

• Directory Of Lawyers' Funds For Client Protection (now includes Canadian recovery funds, courtesy of the American Bar Association);
• Check the USA Client Protection Funds Map;
• Check the Canada Client Protection Funds Map.

Maps available courtesy of The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.

See generally:

• N.Y. fund for cheated clients wants thieving lawyers disbarred, a July, 2015 Associated Press story on this Fund reporting that the Fund's executive director, among other things, is calling for prompt referral to the local district attorney when the disciplinary committee has uncontested evidence of theft by a lawyer injuring a client or an admission of culpability;
  
  When Lawyers Steal the Escrow, a June, 2005 New York Times story describing some cases of client reimbursements ("With real estate business surging and down-payment amounts rising with home prices, the temptation for a lawyer to filch money from a bulging escrow account and later repay it with other clients' money has never been greater, said lawyers who monitor the thefts."),
  
  Thieving Lawyers Draining Client Security Funds, a December, 1991 New York Times story that gives some-real life examples of how client security funds deal with claims and the pressures the administrators of those funds may feel when left insufficiently financed as a result of the misconduct of a handful of lawyer/scoundrels.

Connecticut Fair Housing Group Shakes $65K Out Of Landlord, Real Estate Agent, Brokerage To Settle Allegations (Without Admitting Liability) That They Refused To Rent To Family w/ Children

In Hartford, Connecticut, The Norwich Bulletin reports:

• The Connecticut Fair Housing Center(1) has settled a housing discrimination complaint brought against a Montville landlord accused of refusing to rent to a family with children.
  
  The complaint against ERA Realty Pros and one of its independent contractor real estate agents was recently settled for $65,000, according to the fair housing center.
  
  The Connecticut Fair Housing Center represented Christina Zielenski and Todd Browne, who were searching for housing in Montville. Zielenski has a 14-year-old daughter.
  
  Zielenski reportedly reached out to the real estate agent and requested more information, and was told that the landlord did not allow children, according to the center.
  
  The Connecticut Fair Housing Center, representing Zielenski and Browne, brought complaints against the landlord, real estate sales associate and real estate brokerage firm, alleging discrimination against them on the basis of family status, which is illegal under state law.
  
  The complaints, filed with the state's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleged that the landlord illegally maintained a policy against renting to families with children, that the real estate agent illegally refused to rent to Zielenski and Browne because of the child in their household, and that the brokerage firm failed to adequately train and supervise its independent contractor sales associates to prevent them from refusing to rent to families with children.
  
  The three respondents agreed to settle the complaints without admitting liability, the center said.

For more, see Montville housing discrimination case involving family with child settled for $65K.

-----------------------------------

(1) The Connecticut Fair Housing Center is a private, non-profit organization providing various services free of charge to Connecticut residents that deal with fair housing matters, including investigating housing discrimination complaints, providing advocacy and representation; referring victims of housing discrimination to attorneys and researching and giving technical assistance on issues related to fair housing. In addition, the Center has been working to ensure that homeowners in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure receive advice and, possibly, referrals to attorneys who are willing to take their foreclosure cases free of charge.

Persons can call the Fair Housing Center if they have been a victim of housing discrimination for any reason including, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex, religion, family status, disability, marital status, age, sexual orientation or lawful source of income. Center staff solicits information from callers on the details of the alleged discrimination and may take the following actions: investigate the complaint, offer advice and counseling about fair housing laws, provide free legal representation or make referrals to legal representatives.

Hunting Season For Discriminating Landlords Continues As DOJ Fair Housing Testers Bag SW Florida Mobile Home Park Owner/Operator For $60K Lawsuit Settlement, Resolving Allegations That Blacks Seeking To Rent RV Lots Were Stiffed & Discouraged From Making Further Inquiries

From the U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, D.C.):

• The Justice Department announced [ that Southwind Village LLC, the owner and operator of Southwind Village Mobile Home Park in North Fort Myers, Florida, has agreed to pay $60,000 to resolve allegations that it discriminated against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The settlement was approved [] by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
  
  The government’s complaint, filed on Sept. 30, 2015, alleges that Southwind Village’s then-manager, Carl Bruckler, refused to rent recreational vehicle lots to African Americans. According to the complaint, Bruckler falsely told African Americans who inquired about residing in the park that no lots were available or that there was a waiting list, and discouraged African Americans from making future inquiries at the park.
  
  The lawsuit is based on the results of testing conducted by the department’s Fair Housing Testing Program, in which individuals pose as renters to gather information about possible discriminatory practices.
  
  “Discrimination on the basis of race or color in housing will not be tolerated,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. “We appreciate Southwind Village’s willingness to resolve these serious allegations promptly.”
  
  “All citizens, regardless of their race or color, have the right to equal and fair treatment when choosing where to live,” said U.S. Attorney A. Lee Bentley III of the Middle District of Florida. “We will continue to fight illegal discrimination, wherever it might exist.”
  
  Under the terms of the agreement, which is in the form of a consent order, Southwind Village will establish a settlement fund in the amount of $35,000 to compensate victims of their discriminatory practices and pay a civil penalty of $25,000 to the United States. The agreement further requires Southwind Village to take steps to ensure that African Americans are no longer restricted from renting recreational vehicle lots at Southwind Village Mobile Home Park, located at 1269 River Road in North Fort Myers, and to provide periodic reports to the government. The settlement does not resolve the government’s lawsuit against Carl Bruckler.
  
  Individuals who have information about, or who believe they may have been harmed by, the defendants’ conduct should contact the Justice Department toll-free at 1-800-896-7743, option 9992, or e-mail the Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin and disability. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at www.justice.gov/crt.

Source: Justice Department Settles Housing Discrimination Lawsuit Against Owner of North Fort Myers, Florida, Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Park.

Fair Housing Feds Squeeze $100K Out Of Wisconsin Mobile Home Park Landlord For Allegedly Refusing To Approve Residency For Single Mom w/ 2-Year Old Kid In Area Of Park Where It Did Not Allow Children

From the U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, D.C.):

• The Justice Department announced [] that the owners and operators of Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park in Whitewater, Wisconsin, have agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a Justice Department lawsuit alleging that they unlawfully excluded families with children from significant portions of their 230-lot mobile home park. The settlement must still be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
  
  
  ***
  The lawsuit, filed in October 2014, arose as a result of a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by a single mother and a former resident who had tried to complete the sale of a mobile home in the park.
  
  The defendants refused to approve the application for residency of the single mother who planned to purchase the mobile home and live there with her then-two-year-old child because the home was located in an area of the park where they did not allow children. After conducting an investigation, HUD found that the defendants had violated the Fair Housing Act and referred the matter to the Department of Justice. The defendants in the case include Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park Inc.; Merrill Eugene Gutzmer, the owner of the park; and Dennis Hansen, the resident manager. After the lawsuit was filed, the defendants approved the residency of the single mother who had filed the HUD complaint and she was able to purchase the mobile home.
  
  “Unless a mobile home park meets the very specific requirements to be designated housing for older persons, the owner cannot refuse to sell or rent a home to a family because they have a child,” said Gustavo Velasquez, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “Today’s settlement reaffirms HUD’s determination to work with the Justice Department to ensure that occupancy standards established by housing providers do not violate the Fair Housing Act.”
  
  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants will pay $45,000 in damages and rent credits to the two persons who filed HUD complaints,(1) $45,000 to other persons who are identified later through a claims process established in the decree and $10,000 in a civil penalty. The settlement also requires the defendants to change their policies to allow families with children throughout the park. Anyone who believes that they have been discriminated against by Twin Oaks because they have children should call the Justice Department at 1-800-896-7743, mailbox number 9997 or email the department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov.

Source: Justice Department Obtains $100,000 Settlement in Lawsuit Against Wisconsin Mobile Home Park for Discriminating Against Families with Children.

------------------------------------

(1) According to the consent decree, both the single mom who was rejected for residency (by the landlord who rented the lots in the mobile home/RV park) after agreeing to buy a mobile home from a private seller, as well as the private seller, together filed a HUD complaint, and each get to split $45,000 in damages.

Nebraska AG Jumps Into Fair Housing Enforcement; Tags Lexington Landlords With Lawsuit For Allegedly Discriminating Against Somalian, African-American, And/Or Muslim Tenants

In Lexington, Nebraska, the Lexington Clipper-Herald reports:

• Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson’s office filed a suit against Cottonwood Apartments in Dawson County District Court. The suit alleges multiple violations of the Nebraska Fair Housing Act. Cottonwood owners Gerald and Sharon Rich and property manager Lori Reinick were named as defendants.
  
  The complaint, filed Nov. 16, alleged that the defendants discriminated against Somalian, African-American, and/or Muslim tenants.

For more, see NE Attorney General files Fair Housing lawsuit against Lexington landlords.

New Orleans Civil Rights Group Tags Local Landlord w/ Discrimination Lawsuit After Alleged Use Of Fair Housing Testers Showed That Prospective Black Renters Were Being Turned Away While Prospective White Renters Were Shown Apartments

In New Orleans, Louisiana, the Louisiana Record reports:

• A civil rights group says Dorian Apartments is violating the Fair Housing Act by discouraging black renters from leasing its apartments.
  
  Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center Inc., Shawn Bates and Hoyt Baugh filed a [federal] lawsuit Dec. 1 [...] against The Dorian Apartments LLC, doing business as Dorian Apartments; John Centanni; Joni Centanni Gravolet; Katherine Daigle; and an unnamed insurance company, citing violations of the federal Fair Housing Act.
  
  According to the complaint, the defendants have repeatedly steered African-American renters away from Dorian Apartments, while incentivizing white tenants. Baugh claims that he witnessed the defendants turn away other perspective black tenants, specifically Bates. The action center sent testers and found that black testers were told no vacancies were available, but white testers were shown vacant apartments, the claim states.
  
  The plaintiffs seek damages to be proven at trial, reimbursement for litigation costs and discontinuation of the alleged disrimination. They are represented by attorneys John Adcock and Alexander “Sascha” Bollag of the Fair Housing Action Center(1) in New Orleans.

Source: Black renters kept from leasing Dorian Apartments, investigators claim.

***

(1) The Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center (GNOFHAC) is a private, non-profit civil rights organization that, among other things, conducts investigations into fair housing violations. When necessary, the GNOFHAC helps its clients through the process of filing a complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, or filing a lawsuit in state or federal court.

NYC Trio Convicted In Title Hijacking Scam Involving $1.19 Million Harlem Brownstone Sentenced To State Prison

From the Office of the New York County (Manhattan) District Attorney:

• Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the sentencing of three individuals for engaging in a scheme to fraudulently sell a residential home in Harlem, without the knowledge of the legitimate property owner.
  
  KAJETAN BELZA, 38 [4 to 12 years], CHRISTOPHER CABLE, 39 [3 to 9 years], and CARRIE STEVENS, 61 [1 to 3 years], were each sentenced to state prison after pleading guilty to stealing the identity of a Manhattan residential property owner and then accepting a $525,000 check for the sale of her property, located at 79 West 118th Street – a property that was worth approximately $1.19 million. Four additional co-conspirators, and two other individuals, have also been charged in separate New York State Supreme Court indictments for the fraudulent sale of the Harlem property, or other properties located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.
  
  “This type of criminal conduct – which defrauds not only legitimate property owners, but unsuspecting buyers as well – is reaching unprecedented levels in New York and across the country,” said District Attorney Vance. “My Office, along with our partners, will continue our efforts to root out scammers before they are able to profit from their illegality, and I urge anyone who believes they have been the victim of this type of real estate scheme to please call my Office’s Financial Frauds Bureau at 212-335-8900.”
  
  According to court documents and the defendants’ guilty pleas, BELZA, CABLE, and STEVENS, along with co-conspirators, developed a scheme in which they would target vacant properties, many of which were in a dilapidated condition and which had owners who either were absent or did not use the property as their primary residence. Often these properties were being held for investment purposes.
  
  The defendants would then forge personal identification and real estate documents in order to steal the identity of the true property owner, retain an attorney, and attend the closing for the sale of the property to a new, unsuspecting owner. [more]

For more, see DA Vance Announces Sentencing Of Three Individuals In Fraudulent Residential Real Estate Scam (Defendants Engaged in a Scheme to Sell a Residential Home in Harlem Without the Knowledge of the Legitimate Owner; DA Vance Also Announces the Indictment of Six Other Individuals for the Fraudulent Sale of Additional Properties Throughout New York City).

Queens DA Hauls Disbarred Brooklyn Lawyer Into Court, Accusing Him Of Essentially Using Client Trust Account In Mini-Ponzi Scheme; Defendant Allegedly Used Funds Collected On Behalf Of Two Clients In Seperate Home Sales To Satisfy Escrow Obligation On A Home Sale Involving 3rd Client

From the Office of the Queens County, New York District Attorney:

• Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown [] announced that a Brooklyn attorney has been charged with stealing thousands of dollars from clients between July and November 2013.
  
  District Attorney Brown said, “The defendant is alleged to have violated his fiduciary duty by stealing from his clients rather than helping them. In one instance, for example, the defendant is accused of using funds collected on behalf of two of his clients to pay a third client. The defendant has since been disbarred and cannot practice law, but now he must answer for his alleged actions in a court of law.”
  
  The District Attorney identified the defendant as Ira Seplow, 62, of East 85 Street in Brooklyn. Seplow was arraigned yesterday before Queens Criminal Court Judge Ernest Hart on a complaint charging him with third-degree grand larceny and first-degree scheme to defraud. The defendant was released on his own recognizance and ordered to return to court on January 21, 2016. If convicted, Seplow faces up to seven years in prison.
  
  District Attorney Brown said that, according to the criminal complaint, Seplow was retained in July 2013 to handle the estate of a client’s aunt, including the sale of her Rockaway Park bungalow on 109 Street. On July 12, 2015, a contract of sale was signed and a ten percent down payment of $15,000 was paid. The funds, which were to be held in escrow for the client, were allegedly deposited into Seplow’s Capital One bank account. At the time of the closing on the bungalow, the client allegedly did not receive the $15,000 down payment being held by Seplow for him.
  
  It is additionally alleged that Seplow was hired by a Queens couple in August 2013 to sell their Shore Front Parkway condominium in Rockaway, Queens. A contract was signed in August 2013 and a ten percent down payment of $39,200 was allegedly paid by the prospective owner and deposited in Seplow’s account on August 14, 2013, to be held in escrow for his clients. It is further alleged that the clients were given a check for $35,750 and told by Seplow not to deposit the check for several days.
  
  When the clients did deposit the check it was returned for insufficient funds by the bank. However, on the same day as the closing on the couple’s condominium, Seplow allegedly wrote a check payable to another client in the amount of $35,750 from his account.
  
  Finally, it is alleged that this client was owed $51,500 in escrow funds being held by Seplow and which he obtained as a ten percent deposit from the buyers of her Queens home. Seplow allegedly paid her $50,750 in August 2013; $35,750 of which allegedly came from the down payment for the Queens couple’s condo and $15,000 from the sale of bungalow belonging to other client’s aunt.
  

Source: Attorney Charged With Stealing Thousands Of Dollars From Clients (Defendant, Since Disbarred, Faces Seven Years in Prison If Convicted).

-----------------------------

(1) Clients found to have been victimized by a theft by a New York attorney may be able to seek some reimbursement for being screwed over by turning to the The Lawyers’ Fund For Client Protection Of the State of New York, which manages and distribute money collected from annual dues paid by members of the state bar to members of the public who have sustained a financial loss caused by the dishonest conduct of a member of the bar acting as an attorney or a fiduciary.

See generally:

• N.Y. fund for cheated clients wants thieving lawyers disbarred, a July, 2015 Associated Press story on this Fund reporting that the Fund's executive director, among other things, is calling for prompt referral to the local district attorney when the disciplinary committee has uncontested evidence of theft by a lawyer injuring a client or an admission of culpability;
  
  When Lawyers Steal the Escrow, a June, 2005 New York Times story describing some cases of client reimbursements ("With real estate business surging and down-payment amounts rising with home prices, the temptation for a lawyer to filch money from a bulging escrow account and later repay it with other clients' money has never been greater, said lawyers who monitor the thefts."),
  
  Thieving Lawyers Draining Client Security Funds, a December, 1991 New York Times story that gives some-real life examples of how client security funds deal with claims and the pressures the administrators of those funds may feel when left insufficiently financed as a result of the misconduct of a handful of lawyer/scoundrels.

For similar "attorney ripoff reimbursement funds" that attempt to clean up the financial mess created by the dishonest conduct of lawyers licensed in other states and Canada, see:

• Directory Of Lawyers' Funds For Client Protection (now includes a listing for Canadian client protection funds, courtesy of the American Bar Association);
• Check the USA Client Protection Funds Map;
• Check the Canada Client Protection Funds Map.

Maps available courtesy of The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.

More On The Republican Presidential Frontrunner

In New York City, The Daily Beast reports:

• When an African American showed up to rent an apartment owned by a young real-estate scion named Donald Trump and his family, the building superintendent did what he claimed he’d been told to do. He allegedly attached a separate sheet of paper to the application, marked with the letter “C.”
  
  “C” for “Colored.”
  
  According to the Department of Justice, that was the crude code that ensured the rental would be denied.
  
  Details of this secret system, as well as other practices that the Trump organization allegedly used to exclude black residents from its buildings in Brooklyn, Queens, and Norfolk, Virginia, in the 1970s, were recorded in a lawsuit brought by the DOJ against Trump and his father, Fred, in 1973 for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act.(1)
  
  The Trumps responded to the Department of Justice with characteristic combativeness. They counter-sued the federal government for $100 million, while the family’s infamous lawyer—the Joe McCarthy aide turned mafia counsel Roy Cohn—attacked a prosecutor for being a “hot-tempered white female” while slamming the investigation as “Gestapo-like.” Extensive court documents, unearthed by The Daily Beast, provide a window not only into alleged discriminatory practices at the heart of Trump’s early real estate empire, but also into the family’s attack mode, which echoes Trump’s current slash-and-burn campaign for the White House.
  
  A Secret Racist Code
  
  The lawsuit—which Trump Management settled in 1975 with a consent decree, and which they noted at the time did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing—detailed numerous instances of a racial code that Trump-owned buildings allegedly used to indicate if an applicant was black or otherwise “undesirable.”

For more, see DOJ: Trump’s Early Businesses Blocked Blacks (A 1973 suit against Trump and the Trump Organization claimed that superintendents at Trump properties would mark African American’s applications with a ‘C’ for ‘Colored’ and other racial codes).

--------------------------------

(1) See Major Landlord Accused Of Antiblack Bias In City

Florida Appeals Courts Spent A Busy 2015 Reversing Trial Court Screw-ups In Foreclosure Cases

Anyone paying attention to the foreclosure litigation going on in the Florida courts knows that the appeals courts have been kept busy having to reverse incorrect rulings issued by the trial courts which have been unfavorable to homeowners (by my rough count, we're looking at around 150-175 reversals in 2015 alone (and counting) - possibly even a little more).

The following list (not necessarily all-inclusive, and in no particular order) represents what appears to be most of the reversals of homeowner-unfavorable trial court rulings (37 in total to date) by only one of Florida's five appellate courts - the 4th District Court of Appeal - in 2015.

Included in the list is the case caption, appellate court case number (those looking for the official citation are left on their own to locate it - sorry), and the guilty trial judge issuing the incorrect ruling. In addition, while most of the cases involved homeowners represented by attorneys, six involved homeowners who represented themselves (ie. pro se) - at least in the appellate phase of the litigation, and are noted accordingly.

Finally, in each case, the appeals court reversal was unanimous (3-0 rulings).

One can only imagine, through extrapolation, how many screwed-over homeowners lost their homes due to incorrect trial judge rulings who, because they (or their attorneys) lacked the knowledge and/or wherewithal, failed to appeal the outcomes of their cases in the lower courts (dozens for every one reversal? maybe 100 or more per reversal?).

• Murray v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 4D13-4316 (4th DCA, January 21, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Howard Harrison);
  
  Jelic v. LaSalle Bank, Nat'l. Ass'n, No. 4D13-4040 (4th DCA, March 25, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Kenneth Stern);
  
  Farkas v. US Bank National Association, No. 4D13-3006 (4th DCA, May 27, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Diana Lewis) (pro se homeowner);
  
  Fiorito v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, No. 4D13-2813 (4th DCA, August 26, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Janis Brustares Keyser);
  
  Perez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 4D13-4812 (4th DCA, August 19, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Cynthia G. Imperato);
  
  Snyder v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n., No. 4D13-4036 (4th DCA, July 29, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Jeffrey E. Streitfeld) (Editor's Note: This judge bent over backwards to help the bankster - allowing it to reopen its case three times - and in the end, the court ruled incorrectly);
  
  Guzman v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 4D14-2509 (4th DCA, November 25, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Senior Judge Mark E. Polen);
  
  Matthews v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n, 160 So. 3d 131 (4th DCA, March 25, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Howard Harrison) (pro se homeowner);
  
  Assil v Aurora Loan Services, LLC, No. 4D14-2257 (4th DCA, August 12, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Howard H. Harrison);
  
  Citibank, NA v. Villanueva, No. 4D15-239 (4th DCA September 9, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Cynthia G. Imperato);
  
  Peoples v. Sami II Trust 2006-AR6, No. 4D14-2757 (4th DCA, October 14, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge John B. Bowman);
  
  Tremblay v. US Bank, NA, No. 4D13-2402 (4th DCA, May 6, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Miette K. Burnstein);
  
  Joseph v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 4D12-4137 (4th DCA, January 7, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Diana Lewis);
  
  Tilus v. As Michai LLC, No. 4D13-3616 (4th DCA, April 8, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Kenneth Stern);
  
  Balch v. LaSalle Bank NA, No. 4D14-2057 (4th DCA, August 5, 2015) (unanimously reversing Martin County Judge James W. McCann) (pro se homeowner);
  
  Henderson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 4D13-1780 (4th DCA, February 11, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Howard Harrison);
  
  Fanelli v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 4D13-4111 (4th DCA, June 3, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Susan R. Lubitz) (entitlement to homeowner's attorney fees);
  
  Donado v. PENNYMAC Corp., No. 4D14-1383 (4th DCA, August 19, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Cynthia G. Imperato);
  
  Jarvis v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., No. 4D14-991 (4th DCA, June 17, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge William R. Slaughter, II);
  
  Lloyd v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 4D13-3799 (4th DCA, March 25, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Kenneth D. Stern);
  
  Kenney v. HSBC USA, National Association, 4D13-4165 (4th DCA, September 24, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Judy P. Biebel);
  
  Lamb v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 4D13-3125, (4th DCA, August 19, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Roger B. Colton) (pro se homeowner);
  
  Harris v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 4D14-54 (4th DCA, September 9, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Cynthia G. Imperato);
  
  Schindler v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, 4D13-4825 (4th DCA, April 8, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Howard H. Harrison) (pro se homeowner);
  
  Ensler v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 4D14-351 (4th DCA, October 28, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Roger B. Colton);
  
  Salmon v. Foreclosed Asset Sales And Transfer Partnership, 4D13-4618 (4th DCA, April 22, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Howard H. Harrison);
  
  Jelic v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 4D14-516 (4th DCA, November 4, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Richard L. Oftedal);
  
  Sanchez v. SunTrust Bank, 4D14-2457 (4th DCA, November 25, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Jack Schramm Cox);
  
  Cardona v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 4D14-1609 (4th DCA, August 19, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge John J. Hoy);
  
  Rodriguez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 4D14-100 (4th DCA, October 14, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Senior Judge Howard Harrison) (special concurrence by Judge Connor may be of some interest regarding the establishment of standing to foreclose);
  
  Blum v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company, 4D13-4271 (4th DCA, March 4, 2015) (unanimously reversing St. Lucie County Senior Judge James W. Midelis);
  
  D'Alessandro v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust, 4D13-3387 (4th DCA, January 7, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Lucy Chernow Brown) (pro se homeowner) (quiet title suit);
  
  Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 4D13-2101 (4th DCA, January 28, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Joel T. Lazarus);
  
  Vera v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 4D14-2672 (4th DCA, November 4, 2015) (unanimously reversing Palm Beach County Judge Roger B. Colton);
  
  Wilson v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 4D14-3747 (4th DCA, October 21, 2015) (unanimously reversing Martin County Judge James W. Midelis);
  
  Wright v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 4D13-3221 (4th DCA, January 7, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Joel Lazarus);
  
  Osorio v. U.S. Bank N.A., 4D14-934 (4th DCA, March 25, 2015) (unanimously reversing Broward County Judge Cynthia G. Imperato).

New England Man Gets 27 Months For Recording Forged Paperwork That Purportedly Discharged Lien Of Existing Home Mortgage, Then Used Home As Collateral For Another Loan

In Concord, New Hampshire, The Associated Press reports:

• A former Lowell businessman, [...] has been sentenced to 27 months in federal prison for a separate mortgage fraud case.
  
  According to the U.S. Attorney's Office of New Hampshire, Kurt Sanborn, 48, formerly of Dracut, Mass., received wire, mail and bank fraud charges associated with a mortgage fraud scheme over the course of 2003 and 2004. He pleaded guilty to the charges in May 2014.
  
  According to a [] statement from Acting U.S. Attorney Donald Feith, Sanborn used a $500,000 private loan to buy a home in Manchester in May 2003. In exchange, the private lenders received a first mortgage on the property, recorded at the Hillsboro County Registry of Deeds.
  
  In October of that year, Sanborn sought a $685,000 loan to buy a second home in Gilford. The mortgage company agreed to finance the transaction if it received first mortgages on both properties.
  
  Sanborn deceived the mortgage company by filing a mortgage discharge with the private lenders' forged signatures with the Hillsboro County Registry of Deeds.
  
  He was charged with wire and mail fraud for interstate wire communication and documents delivered by the U.S. Postal Service as part of this scheme.

For more, see Former Lowell businessman given jail term for mortgage fraud.

Long Island Elder Law Attorney Gets 4 To 12 Years For Embezzling $797K From Clients; Among Vulnerable Victims: Mentally Incapacitated 77-Year Old Man Over Whom Lawyer Acted As Court-Appointed Guardian, Disabled Woman Whose Money Was To Fund Special Needs Trust

From the Office of the Queens County, New York District Attorney:

• Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown, acting as a special prosecutor, [] announced that a Great Neck, Long Island, attorney has been sentenced to four to twelve years in prison for stealing more than $797,000 in funds that belonged to clients over a four-year period [...].
  
  
  ***
  The District Attorney was appointed a special prosecutor [] at the request of the Nassau [] County District Attorney[] Office[], who requested the appointment of a special prosecutor to handle the matters in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
  
  In the Long Island case, Martha Brosius, 52, of Great Neck, New York, [...] signed a confession of judgment for $797,000 before being sentenced to four to twelve years in prison. Brosius, an Elder Law attorney who maintained offices in Great Neck and Manhattan, pleaded guilty on June 22, 2015, to two counts of second-degree grand larceny and one count of scheme to defraud.
  
  District Attorney Brown said that, in pleading guilty, Brosius admitted to stealing more than $797,000 in funds from clients – including a 77-year-old man deemed incapacitated under the Mental Hygiene Law and for whom Brosius had been appointed as a guardian and two brothers who hired Brosius to handle their father’s estate and sell his residence in order to set up a Special Needs or Supplemental Needs Trust for their disabled sister, who was the sole inheritor of their father’s estate.
  

Source: Long Island Attorney Sentenced To Up To 12 Years In Prison For Embezzling $797,000 In Funds From Clients. guardianship elderly

-----------------------------

(1) Clients found to have been victimized by a theft by a New York attorney may be able to seek some reimbursement for being screwed over by turning to the The Lawyers’ Fund For Client Protection Of the State of New York, which manages and distribute money collected from annual dues paid by members of the state bar to members of the public who have sustained a financial loss caused by the dishonest conduct of a member of the bar acting as an attorney or a fiduciary.

See generally:

• N.Y. fund for cheated clients wants thieving lawyers disbarred, a July, 2015 Associated Press story on this Fund reporting that the Fund's executive director, among other things, is calling for prompt referral to the local district attorney when the disciplinary committee has uncontested evidence of theft by a lawyer injuring a client or an admission of culpability;
  
  When Lawyers Steal the Escrow, a June, 2005 New York Times story describing some cases of client reimbursements ("With real estate business surging and down-payment amounts rising with home prices, the temptation for a lawyer to filch money from a bulging escrow account and later repay it with other clients' money has never been greater, said lawyers who monitor the thefts."),
  
  Thieving Lawyers Draining Client Security Funds, a December, 1991 New York Times story that gives some-real life examples of how client security funds deal with claims and the pressures the administrators of those funds may feel when left insufficiently financed as a result of the misconduct of a handful of lawyer/scoundrels.

For similar "attorney ripoff reimbursement funds" that attempt to clean up the financial mess created by the dishonest conduct of lawyers licensed in other states and Canada, see:

• Directory Of Lawyers' Funds For Client Protection (now includes a listing for Canadian client protection funds, courtesy of the American Bar Association);
• Check the USA Client Protection Funds Map;
• Check the Canada Client Protection Funds Map.

Maps available courtesy of The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.

Nevada Supremes Begin Serious Effort To End Guardianship-Driven 'Granny Snatching' Rackets, Using Court Orders To Open Door To Drain Vulnerable Seniors, Disabled Of Their Money, Property

In Las Vegas, Nevada, KTNV-TV Channel 13 reports:

• Amid tears and calls for criminal prosecutions, the Nevada Supreme Court Guardianship Commission took substantial action [].
  
  Chief investigator Darcy Spears was there to see the unprecedented steps in fixing a broken system.
  
  When it comes to your civil rights, being put under guardianship is worse than being sent to prison. Those words from a judge who sits on the commission.
  
  Plus, the state Supreme Court's chief justice called some of what's been going on in our guardianship system just plain crazy.
  
  One of those crazy things is how people can be deemed incompetent by a physician's assistant. The same physician's assistant whose name appears on case after case handled by private guardian April Parks.
  
  "Later my aunt was examined by a neurologist who determined she was competent," Brenda Ralphs told the commission, through tears. "My aunt was victimized based on a defective document and incorrect diagnosis by an unqualified person!"
  
  Brenda Ralphs found our Contact 13 investigation online, then flew in from Seattle to share her aunt's story with the guardianship commission.
  
  She told commission members she fought to free her 92-year-old aunt, Barbara Lasco, from an unnecessary guardianship, but succeeded only after Parks and her lawyer drained nearly $20,000 from Lasco's accounts.
  
  "This whole mess was unnecessary and expensive and it was emotionally devastating for my aunt--a proud and competent woman who was reduced to asking for her own money to go to the hairdresser, like a child asking for an allowance!"
  
  After hearing that, Chief Justice Hardesty addressed what we've been asking about for months--what's being done to hold private guardians accountable for exploiting the people they're supposed to protect?
  
  The commission unanimously voted to send a letter to all sheriffs and district attorneys in the state, as well as the Attorney General, asking them to prosecute misconduct and seek restitution for people subject to unjust guardianships.
  
  The commission also voted to establish a bill of rights for people under guardianship and to ensure they have legal counsel.
  
  They will also create a permanent guardianship commission to keep tabs on reform.

Source: Guardianship Commission to ask for criminal investigations.

---------------------------

(1) Go here for other horror stories on the use of the guardianship process to 'kidnap, hijack, granny-snatch' the elderly, infirm and vulnerable, usually as part of a money grab by relatives, professional guardians, government agencies, and other assorted lowlifes seeking an easy payday. granny-snatching

Maryland Appeals Court: Section 8 Tenant Under Automatically Renewing HUD "Model Lease" For Project-Based Federally Subsidized Housing Cannot Be Booted For Alleged Lease Violations Without First Receiving Requested Jury Trial

From a client alert from the law firm Pessin Katz Law, P.A.:

• In Kirk v. Hilltop Apartments, L.P., the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (No. 2054, September 30, 2015, Krauser, C.J.) was called upon to decide a novel question. If a lease has no expiration date and a tenant sues a landlord for a breach of lease, how does one determine if the case is properly in the Maryland District Court’s jurisdiction or that of the Circuit Court?
  
  The issue is not a minor one, because if the “value of the right to possession” (or the “amount in controversy”) to the tenant exceeds $15,000 then the tenant is entitled to a jury trial in the Circuit Court. If not, the case remains within the District Court’s jurisdiction. In this case, the Circuit Court denied its jurisdiction and struck a demand to jury trial by Kirk and she appealed that decision.
  
  Kirk was a longtime tenant in a federally subsidized housing complex. Due to lease violations the landlord, Hilltop, sought termination of her lease and repossession of the premises. When she failed to vacate her apartment by the termination date, Hilltop sued for repossession of her unit in the District Court. Kirk alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded the District Court’s $15,000 jurisdictional limit and the case was then transferred to the Circuit Court which, in turn, agreed with a motion filed by Hilltop that the amount involved was less than $15,000 and sent the case back to the District Court, as being within its exclusive jurisdiction.
  
  Kirk reasoned as follows:
  
  “…because her lease, by its express terms, automatically renews for successive one-year terms unless terminated for good cause, she has a right to possess the apartment for an “indefinite period of time” and, thus, the value of her right to possess the premises should have been calculated by multiplying the annual fair market rental payment by the number of years of her remaining estimated life expectancy, the product of which, it is undisputed, exceeds $15,000.”
  
  Hilltop believed that the “amount in controversy” should be as follows:
  
  “…the value of Kirk’s right to possess the premises should be calculated, not by multiplying her annual rent by her estimated life expectancy, but by multiplying her monthly rental payment by the number of months that remained on her current lease, which was due to expire on December 31, 2013 (approximately nine months after Hilltop notified Kirk that it was terminating the lease).”
  
  Hilltop’s methodology would deny the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
  
  Kirk entered into a model lease required to be used by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for Section 8 federally subsidized housing. The lease provided that after expiration of the first year of the term it would continue for successive one-year terms unless it automatically terminated for “good cause”.
  
  In its termination notice to Kirk, Hilltop recited a litany of alleged lease violations which gave it the right to terminate Kirk’s lease. Kirk denied the alleged violations. Moreover, she contended that until a court ruled that Hilltop terminated her lease for “good cause” it continued indefinitely. Furthermore, she argued that she only needed two more months beyond Hilltop’s lease termination date to reach the jurisdictional limit at which she could maintain a jury trial in the Circuit Court, there being no dispute as to the amount of the monthly rental due Hilltop pursuant to her lease. The issue was the length of time Kirk had the right to continued possession of the premises.
  
  Kirk argued two cases in the Maryland Court of Appeals supported her position. (See Carroll v. Housing Opportunities Commission, 306 Md. 515, 525 (1986) and Cottman v. Princess Anne Villas, 340 Md. 295 (1995)). Hilltop argued that a later-decided case supported its position. (See Carter v. Maryland Management Co., 377 Md. 596 (2003)
  
  The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed with Kirk’s use of the two Maryland Court of Appeals cases in determining the length of her tenancy. Her “model lease”, applicable to “project-based federal housing program[s]”, provided for automatic renewals until the lease was terminated for “good cause” and neither Hilltop’s cited case nor subsequent federal housing program regulations negated that fact. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the matter was remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Source: Maryland Court of Special Appeals finds Tenant Entitled to Jury Trial.

Editor's Note: It should be highlighted that the automatically renewing "model lease" used in this case was used in connection with a "project-based" Section 8 HUD program, as opposed to the, perhaps, more familiar Section 8 "tenant-based voucher" program.

Phones Ring Off Hook At Buffalo Non-Profit Law Firm Since News Broke Of $11.6 Million In Unclaimed Surplus Funds Belonging To Ex-Homeowners From Past Foreclosure Sales

In Buffalo, New York, The Buffalo News reports:

• The Western New York Law Center has been inundated since news broke of $11.6 million in surplus auction money that foreclosed owners can claim, but the city never told them about.
  
  Hundreds of calls poured into the nonprofit after a Nov. 26 Buffalo News story revealed the staggering balance from Buffalo’s property auctions, from 2009 to 2014, in an account managed by Erie County Comptroller Stefan I. Mychajliw Jr. The average amount is $9,600; the highest is almost $150,000.
  
  But the law doesn’t require the city to give surplus notifications, and after five years the money goes into the state’s general fund. Only 11 percent, or $2.56 million, has been claimed for the sale of 153 properties out of 1,368 with surpluses since 2009.
  
  Now the word is out, more previous owners are coming forth, anxious to claim the money. But it’s an involved legal process since some properties might have lienholders and judgments, and those creditors have first dibs on the surplus. A State Supreme Court judge decides its rightful owner.
  
  The law center’s assistance is free, so city residents, like Yvonne Young, have been calling.
  
  “I’ve been assigned a lawyer, and I’m so excited to get the process started,” said Young, who is expecting the entire $64,535 left from the sale of her West Side home in 2012 since a title search yielded no lienholders or judgment creditors. “I can’t believe it and won’t believe it until I have the money.”
  
  The law center’s surplus case load grew tenfold from last year’s in just two weeks. A new surplus hotline had to be created to handle the calls.
  
  As of Monday, 31 cases had been validated using the Buffalo News property auction surplus database and 39 more are being processed as the phone continues to ring.
  
  “It’s really picked up; we’ve definitely been busy,” said Paulette Cooke, a staff attorney at the law center.
  
  ***
  “What about the people who lost their homes years ago? How are they supposed to know,” asked Colleen Parker, a 57-year-old Buffalo resident, whose home was sold in the 2014 auction but learned of the $92,742 surplus from The Buffalo News. “Not everyone reads the paper or watches the news. How will they know?”
  
  April Reynolds, a 45-year-old Buffalo resident, didn’t know until Thursday that $13,149 remains from the 2012 sale.
  
  “A surplus? I haven’t heard anything about this,” Reynolds said. “All I can say right now is wow.”
  
  The law center is launching an outreach campaign next month that will probably employ investigative online tools to find the previous owners or their heirs since their current addresses are unknown. Assemblyman Michael Kearns, D-Buffalo, is drafting legislation, with the center’s assistance, to require notifications be retroactive to 2009. It calls for “extraordinary efforts” to find and unite owners with the money but also allows municipalities to charge surplus accounts “reasonable fees” to cover notification costs, he said.
  
  
  ***
  Meanwhile, local private law firms are on a separate and profitable pursuit to also find surplus claimants.
  
  “They’ve got the list too and have been calling me to find out how to file the claims,” Cooke said. The comptroller’s office has also received a number of requests for the list from law offices.
  
  “They think it’s a gold mine, and plan to track down previous owners,” Cooke said, “but some charge 30 percent of the surplus money.”
  
  Claimants can to take their cases to a private firm, but the law center’s services are free, Cooke added. The center’s surplus hotline is 855-0203, Ext. 124.

For more, see Law Center flooded by foreclosure calls (Former owners seek excess auction money).

Add One More (Ex-Staten Island Prosecutor) To List Of Guilty Lawyers Who Fleeced Clients; Admits To Glomming Approx. $700K In Sale Proceeds From Four Homeowners In Seperate Real Estate Closings

In Staten Island, New York, the Staten Island Advance reports:

• A Staten Island attorney has admitted to embezzling approximately $700,000 from four clients who hired him for real estate transactions, according to a press release from Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown.
  
  On Monday, Robert DePalma, 54, who has a law office in St. George and is a former prosecutor at the Staten Island district attorney's office, pleaded guilty to four counts of second-degree grand larceny and one count of scheme to defraud, the release said.
  
  DePalma faces up to nine years in prison when he is sentenced Dec. 23. At that court appearance, he will have to sign a confession of judgment for $700,000.(1)
  
  DePalma's bank accounts showed that he used the money from the real estate deals to pay for business and personal expenses, including mortgage payments and transfers into his personal bank account, and in some cases payment to other escrow clients, Brown's office said.
  
  According to the criminal charges, one of DePalma's clients sold a home for $274,000 but never saw any proceeds from the sale.
  
  Another client was cheated out of around $150,000 following the sale of their deceased mother's Staten Island property, which sold for $375,000, according to the criminal complaint.
  
  DePalma told another client that the $200,000 proceeds from a $380,000 real estate sale was being held in escrow, but the defendant's bank records show the money was deposited into his account, the complaint said.
  
  In October 2012, DePalma was disbarred New Jersey following allegations he knowingly misappropriated client funds, according to New York Law Journal.
  
  Brown took over the case as a special prosecutor at the request of then-District Attorney Daniel Donovan. DePalma's lawyer, Eric Nelson, declined to comment [].

Source: Staten Island lawyer admits to embezzling $700K from clients.

------------------------------

(1) Clients found to have been victimized by a theft by a New York attorney may be able to seek some reimbursement for being screwed over by turning to the The Lawyers’ Fund For Client Protection Of the State of New York, which manages and distribute money collected from annual dues paid by members of the state bar to members of the public who have sustained a financial loss caused by the dishonest conduct of a member of the bar acting as an attorney or a fiduciary.

See generally:

• N.Y. fund for cheated clients wants thieving lawyers disbarred, a July, 2015 Associated Press story on this Fund reporting that the Fund's executive director, among other things, is calling for prompt referral to the local district attorney when the disciplinary committee has uncontested evidence of theft by a lawyer injuring a client or an admission of culpability;
  
  When Lawyers Steal the Escrow, a June, 2005 New York Times story describing some cases of client reimbursements ("With real estate business surging and down-payment amounts rising with home prices, the temptation for a lawyer to filch money from a bulging escrow account and later repay it with other clients' money has never been greater, said lawyers who monitor the thefts."),
  
  Thieving Lawyers Draining Client Security Funds, a December, 1991 New York Times story that gives some-real life examples of how client security funds deal with claims and the pressures the administrators of those funds may feel when left insufficiently financed as a result of the misconduct of a handful of lawyer/scoundrels.

For similar "attorney ripoff reimbursement funds" that attempt to clean up the financial mess created by the dishonest conduct of lawyers licensed in other states and Canada, see:

• Directory Of Lawyers' Funds For Client Protection (now includes a listing for Canadian client protection funds, courtesy of the American Bar Association);
• Check the USA Client Protection Funds Map;
• Check the Canada Client Protection Funds Map.

Maps available courtesy of The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.