Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Steven M. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. —Adminstrative Decision and Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 06-101

 

In Re:

Steven M. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc.
Adminstrative Decision and Order
 
 

An Administrative Hearing was held February 10, 2006 at the offices of the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation in Gardiner, Maine.

The hearing was held pursuant to the express terms of a Notice of Hearing signed January 18, 2006. Notice of the hearing had been timely sent to Steven Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage Company by fax, overnight delivery and regular first class mail. Mr. Clark was also served in-hand with a subpoena directing him to attend and to produce documents.

The hearing was held to determine whether grounds exist for the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation to impose sanctions on Mr. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. for conduct related to activities as a Credit Services Organization/Loan Broker in the State of Maine.

The hearing commenced at 10:00 AM. Because neither Mr. Clark nor a representative from Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. had arrived at the hearing room at that time, the hearing was delayed for approximately fifteen minutes to provide an opportunity for late arrival. Despite the additional time, neither Mr. Clark nor a representative from Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. appeared. No records were produced by Mr. Clark, despite his having been served with a subpoena. No Motion for Continuance was received at any point prior to or during the hearing. No phone calls or letters requesting a continuance came to the attention of any parties, nor to the hearing officer. Many witnesses were in attendance, having also been directed to appear by subpoena. The hearing began approximately 10:15 AM.

The attorney representing the staff of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, James Bowie, Assistant Attorney General, began the proceeding with an opening statement, then called the first witness, Kristine Fournier, Senior Consumer Credit Examiner of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation.

Ms. Fournier testified that Mr. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. had a history of failing to respond to many consumer complaints during late 2005 and early 2006. Ms. Fournier testified that Mr. Clark admitted to having received copies of the consumer complaints forwarded to him by the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, but that he still failed to respond in any meaningful way. Ms. Fournier reported that Mr. Clark blamed his company’s problems on the fact that loan officers had left his company. Ms. Fournier testified that Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. held a Credit Services Organization registration since March of 2004, and that the registration expired because of non-renewal on January 31, 2006, due to Mr. Clark’s failure to submit materials required for that renewal.

The next witness was a consumer, Yvette Torres. She testified that she applied to Sebago Lake Mortgage to refinance an existing mortgage in early August, 2005. She testified that she made it clear from the start that the mortgage company could have her business if it could act quickly on her application. Ms. Torres testified that she was shuttled to several different loan officers, and that each time she was required to re-explain the elements of her application. She finally terminated the relationship with the mortgage company in December of 2005, having spent a fruitless 4 months pursuing the refinancing, and having spent $350 for an appraisal. When she spoke with Mr. Clark near the end of December, she testified that Clark acted as if she herself had not been cooperating in the refinance process.

When Mrs. Torres and her husband traveled to the offices of the mortgage company to retrieve their personal documents, they found the office closed, despite having been told by Mr. Clark the previous day that the office would be open for their visit. The front door was locked, but two back doors were ajar, and they went inside the offices to see whether anyone was present. She testified that the office was empty, but that multiple mortgage files, applications and personal financial documentation were spread across many desks and tables in the offices. Mrs. Torres testified that she has now been required to obtain much more expensive financing, because the delay in the process caused her to become delinquent on one or more other loans. The witness testified that she had been financially harmed, both in terms of having to pay $350 for an appraisal, and also for the lost opportunity and higher interest costs she will incur as a direct result of the respondents’ failure to respond as promised.

The next witness Paul Staples, testified that he dealt with an employee of Sebago Lake Mortgage in August of 2005. He paid $350 for an appraisal. After a period of time, he was told that his refinancing was in the final stages. However, the respondent company became non-responsive to the witness’ calls. The witness testified that he became alarmed that he would be caught between a skyrocketing interest rate on his old mortgage, payments on which were due to increase to an amount approximately 30% more than his current payment, and an uncertain loan from Sebago Lake Mortgage, a company that was non-responsive to his requests for information or any other type of communication. Mr. Staples ended up doing business with another company, out of necessity. He filed a complaint with the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation requesting a refund of his appraisal fee.

The next witness, Mark Johnston, testified that he expressed a willingness to do business with Steven Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage after the mortgage company offered to pay for the real estate appraisal required for a refinance. Mr. Johnston testified that at some point in the mortgage process, the company simply ceased communicating with him. In his written complaint to the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, he wrote, “I have made numerous call[s] . . . and have not been called back; it’s like the company fell off the face of the earth.” Mr. Johnston decided to seek a loan elsewhere, and is primarily concerned that Sebago Lake Mortgage has apparently closed its doors. The witness is concerned because he does not know the location of all the personal and financial information that he provided to the mortgage company as part of the incomplete application process.

The next witness, Lisa Ohland, is a licensed real estate appraiser. She testified that she has not been paid for six appraisals. In at least five of those appraisals, she operated under an informal agreement with Mr. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage, that the mortgage company would pay the cost of appraisals before or at the time of the loan closing. She testified that Sebago Lake Mortgage and Steve Clark assessed $350 to consumers for their appraisals, but that the respondents paid her only $250, retaining $100 as a “processing fee.” Ms. Ohland testified that she is owed at least $1,250 based on the five loans in which the consumer indicated either that the consumer was not liable for the cost of the appraisal because the lender had agreed to pay, or that the consumer had been told that the appraisal would not need to be paid out-of-pocket. In a separate case, a consumer indicated that he had “forgotten his checkbook,” according to the witness. This indicates an awareness on the part of this consumer that the consumer was responsible for the cost of the appraisal, and the cost of that appraisal is not computed into the total addressed in this Order.

The next witness, Anthony Requia, testified that he is a former employee of Sebago Lake Mortgage. He testified that he learned a great deal about the mortgage business from working for the company from December of 2004 through October of 2005. However, a search for greater security and greater potential earnings led him to decide to seek employment elsewhere. The witness testified that when he explained to Mr. Clark that he wished to complete his open files and then terminate his relationship with the company, Mr. Clark told him that it would be difficult for all concerned were he to stay and complete work on those files, and so he should leave right away but he would be compensated with the full commissions owed on files that were nearly ready to close.

The witness estimates that he is owed $3,800, given the state of completeness of the loan files when he left the company.

The witness indicated that while he did not feel intimidated by Mr. Clark, he understood why others might be intimidated by Mr. Clark’s behavior. He said he had seen Mr. Clark “animated” and “yelling”, and he described a situation in which Mr. Clark picked up a 5-gallon water cooler jug and threw it in the direction of another employee, Ryan Toothaker, during an office meeting.

The witness testified that toward the end of his tenure at Sebago Lake Mortgage, he felt Mr. Clark had lost control of the operations of the company. He said Clark was particularly upset that the witness now works for a competing company operated by an individual who formerly worked with Mr. Clark.

In response to a specific question from the Assistant Attorney General, the witness indicated that there was some evidence that Mr. Clark had difficulty with drug dependency, in that he told co-workers at one point that he was “7 days clean” and had not used “opiates” during that time.

The next witness, Ryan Toothaker, testified that he worked for Sebago Lake and Mr. Clark from June, 2005 through December, 2005. He stated that the operations of the company during his latter months constituted a “disaster,” and that Mr. Clark displayed symptoms of OxyContin dependency. He described the office as “looking like a war zone” because there were holes in doors or walls caused by Mr. Clark.

The witness claims to be owed $2,700 based on a loan that was nearly completed when he left, and for which he is owed a 50% commission.

Mr. Toothaker testified that he recently participated in a civil action in Portland District Court, successfully receiving a Protection from Harassment Order against Mr. Clark. The judge awarded the order based on a threat Mr. Clark left on the witness’ voicemail, in which the witness said Clark threatened to “beat me up, beat me bad”. That order was also based in part on the aforementioned “water jug-throwing” incident, as Mr. Toothaker was the apparent intended target of that assault.

The final witness, Douglas Jennings, Senior Consumer Credit Examiner, Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, testified that on February 1, 2006 he traveled to the offices of Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. at 468 Forest Avenue in Portland. He looked in the window and observed no desks or other signs of business activity. The building had a “for lease” sign on it. In the dumpster were shredded papers that Mr. Jennings testified appeared to be mortgage-related documents.

FINDINGS

The staff of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation has proven, not only by preponderance of evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. has not operated in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Maine Consumer Credit Code, and that its principal, Steven M. Clark, clearly does not possess the necessary financial responsibility, character or fitness to own, operate or participate in the operation of a credit services organization/loan broker, or a supervised lender.

The company and Mr. Clark have not shown appropriate financial responsibility with respect to vendors (such as appraisers), employees of the company, or regulators at the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation. Although the company’s phone number remains at least partially active, the office has been abandoned without notice to state regulators. The whereabouts of numerous extremely sensitive personal and financial records of applicants are unknown. Mr. Clark has made a series of promises to state regulators, to employees and to vendors that have remained unfulfilled. He assaulted an employee, and demonstrated other aggressive and inappropriate behavior.

JURISDICTION

The law requires that Credit Services Organizations and Loan Brokers demonstrate appropriate “financial responsibility, character and fitness” and that those qualifications be met by “partners, officers or directors” of the company. A company must operate “honestly and fairly” in compliance with the Maine Consumer Credit Code (9-A MRSA 10-201).

Jurisdiction also extends to individual loan officers, pursuant to 10 MRSA 10-201, as amended by Laws 2005, Chapter 164, 9. That law specifically addresses the “character and fitness of [an applicant’s] loan officers”, making clear that the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation can control the employment of such loan officers to ensure that a mortgage lender or broker will operate “honestly and fairly.”

In order to register with the OCCR in 2005, Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. was required to post a $10,000 surety bond. Pursuant to 9-A MRSA 10-401, after Notice of Hearing, this office is empowered to require forfeiture of such portion of the bond as proportionally may make aggrieved parties whole.

Additional remedies available to this loan officer include a cease and desist order for past or future behavior; a civil action through the Attorney General’s Office in which civil penalties are assessed, a civil action for actual damages; or revocation, suspension or non-renewal of a company’s license or registration; 9-A MRSA 10-401.

Finally, pursuant to 10 MRSA 8003 (5)(A-1), the agency may revoke a license or registration, and assess civil penalties of up to $1500 for each violation of applicable laws.

ORDER

The ability of Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. to continue doing business as a Credit Services Organization or Loan Broker expired effective January 31, 2006. Respondents shall no longer be authorized to conduct such business. Mr. Clark shall provide a copy of this Decision and Order with any application for registration or licensure as a loan broker, a supervised (mortgage) lender or a loan officer to the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation and the Department of Attorney General, and licensure or registration shall be granted only upon the joint concurrence of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation and the Attorney General.

Mr. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage are ordered to turn over any mortgage files, including personal or financial information, that is in their possession or under their control to the borrowers within 30 days. Within 45 days, respondents are also ordered to provide to the OCCR a written accounting of all pending applications in respondents’ possession or under their control.

Mr. Clark and Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. are required to reimburse, within 30 days of the end of the appeal period of this decision, the following amounts to the following individuals:

• Yvette Torres: $350

• Ryan Toothaker: $2,800

• Lisa Ohland: $1,250

• Paul Staples: $350

• Anthony Requia: $3,800

• To the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, for expenses incurred in investigating this case, $1,500 pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-106(6)

• The State of Maine, as a civil penalty for violation of 9-A MRSA 6-116, which requires that a licensee or registrant provide free and easy access to the records of licensed companies: $1,500 pursuant to 10 MRSA 8003 (5)(A-1)

• The State of Maine, as a civil penalty of $1,500 for failure to demonstrate financial responsibility, character and fitness with respect to vendors: $1,500 pursuant to 10 MRSA 8003 (5)(A-1)

• The State of Maine, as a civil penalty of $1,500 for failure to demonstrate financial responsibility, character and fitness with respect to its employees: $1,500 pursuant to 10 MRSA 8003 (5)(A-1)

Respondents shall have 30 days from the expiration of the appeal period to comply with all aspects of this order and to pay the amounts required. If payments are not made in a timely manner, the OCCR is directed to apply against the surety bond held by Sebago Lake Mortgage, Inc. and Steven Clark for the 2005 - 2006 license/registration period. Amounts due to consumers involved in this order shall have first priority; amounts due to vendors involved in this order shall have second priority; amounts due to former employees involved in this order shall have third priority; amounts due to mortgage customers not involved in this order who can demonstrate to the OCCR losses caused by Sebago or Mr. Clark within 60 days of the expiration of the appeal period of this order shall have fourth priority; and penalties, fees and costs listed in this order shall have fifth priority.

It is so Ordered.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 
Dated: ___________________________________
William N. Lund, Hearing Officer

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Check and Merchant Services Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Check and Merchant Services —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Check and Merchant Services
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Check and Merchant Services, also doing business as CMS, a debt collector located in White Plains, New York was notified by letters dated May 31, 2006 and July 3, 2006 (copies attached) that it was alleged to have engaged in activities requiring a Debt Collection license pursuant to Maine’s Title 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 109-A, Section 11001, et seq.; and

WHEREAS the May 31, 2006 letter provided information on licensing, and requested a response within 17 days; and the July 3, 2006 letter requested a response within 10 days; and

WHEREAS no response to that letter has been received; and

WHEREAS no request for a hearing has been received; and

WHEREAS unlicensed debt collection is subject to civil remedies pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. Section 11040 and 11054;

NOW THEREFORE, Check and Merchant Services is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from any debt collection or other activity subject to regulation in the State of Maine, unless and until such time a license is issued by the Administrator; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this directive be prominently posted on the state agency’s disciplinary action website.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. Middletown, Connecticut  Findings of Fact and Temporary Order of License Suspension : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. Middletown, Connecticut — Findings of Fact and Temporary Order of License Suspension

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2007-001

 

In Re:

Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. Middletown, Connecticut
Findings of Fact and Temporary Order of License Suspension
 
 

The Director of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation (Director) having determined that MORTGAGE LENDERS NETWORK USA, INC. (“Mortgage Lenders Network” or the “Corporation”), located at 213 Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457 has engaged in, or is engaging in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices constituting violations of the Maine Consumer Credit Code (Title 9-A MRSA) and 33 MRSA sections 521 – 527 (the Maine Funded Settlement Act), hereby issues the following Findings of Fact and Temporary Order of License Suspension (“Temporary Order”) pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A.
FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The Office of Consumer Credit Regulation (“Office”) has jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of persons and entities engaged in the business of making supervised loans pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, Title 9-A Maine Revised Statutes.
  2. Mortgage Lenders Network is, and at all relevant times has been, a foreign corporation conducting business in Maine. Mortgage Lenders Network’s main office is located at 213 Court Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457.
  3. Mortgage Lenders Network is licensed by the Office as a supervised lender. According to records maintained on file with the Office, the company has maintained a license since at least September 30, 2001.
  4. Mortgage Lenders Network maintains additional office locations outside Maine from which the Corporation conducts the mortgage lender business. According to records maintained on file with the Office, Mortgage Lenders Network currently possesses two additional mortgage lender licenses for locations operated outside Maine.
  5. Beginning on or about Friday, December 29, 2006 the Office received information from the State of Connecticut Department of Banking and from licensed Maine mortgage lenders and broker(s) indicating that Mortgage Lenders Network had, or was about to, fail to timely disburse loan proceeds in several mortgage loan transactions involving residential property in Maine.
  6. On December 29, 2006, Mortgage Lenders Network submitted a letter to the Office indicating, in part, that, “effective immediately, Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. will regrettably no longer fund residential mortgage loans. This course of action has been necessitated as a result of a lack of available warehouse funds.”
  7. Based upon the information reported to the Office as set forth under Paragraphs 5 and 6, the Office requested, among other information, a current report of the Corporation’s open pipeline of mortgage loan applications. The report submitted by Mortgage Lender’s Network, and other correspondence from the Corporation, contained information that was consistent with the conditions reported in Paragraph 5 regarding a significant volume of mortgage loans that had been closed by Mortgage Lenders Network, but that remained unfunded.
  8. On Tuesday, January 2, 2007, while disputing the actual date on which the Corporation began failing to fund loans, Mortgage Lenders Network confirmed that the Corporation was unable to fund loans that the Corporation had closed on or before Friday, December 29, 2006.
  9. Based upon the foregoing, the Office has maintained consistent communication with Mortgage Lenders Network, beginning on December 29, 2006 and continuing through the date of issuance of this Temporary Order, to monitor the actions taken by the Corporation to attempt to fund the mortgage loans that Mortgage Lenders Network had failed to fund.
  10. On Tuesday, January 2, 2007, Mortgage Lenders Network confirmed to representatives of the Office that at least one of the Corporation’s investors with whom Mortgage Lenders Network had maintained a warehouse line of credit to fund mortgage loans had suspended Mortgage Lenders Network’s authority to receive any further extensions on the line of credit. The Office requested a written explanation of the circumstances under which the line of credit was suspended, but had not received a written response as of the issuance of this Temporary Order.
  11. The Office is aware that on or about January 8, 2007, the Corporation entered an agreement with a third party investor to fund the as yet unfunded loans under the terms and conditions to which Mortgage Lenders Network underwrote the mortgage loans.
  12. As of the issuance of this Temporary Order, the funding period under the third party investor agreement has expired. The Office is aware that a substantial portion of Mortgage Lenders Network’s closed, but unfunded, loans remain unfunded.
  13. The Office is further aware that a substantial number of the consumers who had closed mortgage loans with Mortgage Lenders Network, but remained unfunded, elected to obtain a mortgage loan through an alternate lender under terms and conditions that are unknown to the Office as of the issuance of this Temporary Order.
  14. On January 2, 2007, Mortgage Lenders Network provided the Office with the Corporation’s balance sheet that was prepared as of an unspecified date in December 2006.
  15. On January 15, 2007, Mortgage Lenders Network provided the Office with an updated balance sheet and income statement, prepared as of December 31, 2006, that reported a 28.71% reduction in the Corporation’s cash account.
  16. On January 16, 2007, representatives from Mortgage Lenders Network notified the Office that during the sixteen day interim since December 31, 2006, the Corporation’s cash position had further diminished whereby Mortgage Lenders Network’s cash position as of January 16, 2007 reflected a 71.60% reduction from the Corporation’s cash position which had previously been reported to the Office on January 2, 2007.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 16, Mortgage Lenders Network has failed to demonstrate the financial responsibility, character, reputation and fitness that would warrant the belief that the business will be operated honestly and fairly within the purposes of the Maine Consumer Credit Code, and is therefore in violation of 9-A MRSA section 2-302(2). In addition, the failure to fund loans in which Mortgage Lenders Network acted as the retail lender constitutes a violation of Maine’s Funded Settlement Act, 33 MRSA section 521 et seq. Furthermore, these practices constitute a risk such that the public interest and protection of consumers requires a temporary suspension of Mortgage Lenders Network’s supervised lender license pursuant to 9-A MRSA section 2-303-A, “Temporary suspension of license”. 18. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 17, the Director of the Office determines that: (a) Mortgage Lenders Network has engaged in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices which warrant the belief that it is not operating honestly and fairly, nor demonstrating the required measures of financial responsibility, character and fitness required of licensed supervised lenders pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, 9-A MRSA section 2-302; (b) The public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing an Order of License Suspension to Mortgage Lenders Network. 19. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 17, had the facts and conditions found therein existed at the time of Mortgage Lenders Network’s original mortgage lender license application, the Office would have been warranted in refusing to issue such license. Further, the facts and conditions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 17 present sufficient grounds for the revocation of Mortgage Lenders Network’s supervised lender licenses pursuant to 10 MRSA section 8003, subsection 5(A-1)(2-A) and 9-A MRSA 2-303-A.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

After taking into consideration the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated herein, it is hereby: 20. ORDERED that Mortgage Lenders Network and any and all employees, independent contractors, or agents operating on behalf of Mortgage Lenders Network, and their successors or assigns, shall immediately cease engaging in the activities of a supervised lender, as defined under 9-A MRSA section 1-301(39) relative to any residential property in Maine, not otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of this Temporary Order. Therefore, Mortgage Lenders Network is ordered to immediately cease soliciting or accepting, either directly or indirectly, any residential mortgage loan applications from consumers for residential property located in Maine. 21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mortgage Lenders Network shall immediately place any fees previously collected from Maine consumers relative to any pending mortgage loan applications in a separate escrow account maintained at a federally-insured bank. 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mortgage Lenders Network shall not pay or declare a dividend, nor otherwise authorize or execute any financial transaction, either singular or structured, in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00), except for wages and salaries paid to employees, contractors, officers, or other members of the Corporation’s management in the normal course of Mortgage Lenders Network’s business, without the prior written approval of the Director. Upon the effective date of this Temporary Order, Mortgage Lenders Network shall implement or revise its practices and procedures, as necessary, to ensure that the Corporation’s financial books and records are accurately maintained, in a manner illustrating compliance with the provisions of this Paragraph, and available for review by the Office’s examiners upon request.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mortgage Lenders Network shall immediately place with one or more qualified lender(s), with no loss to applicants, the following: (a) the Corporation’s entire portfolio of Maine residential mortgage loans which were closed by Mortgage Lenders Network, not funded pursuant to the third party agreement referenced in Paragraphs 10-12 of this Temporary Order, and remain unfunded as of the issuance of this Temporary Order; and (b) the Corporation’s entire pending application list of Maine residential mortgage loans. It being understood that “no loss to the applicant” shall mean that any loan which was closed by Mortgage Lenders Network, as well as any application which was approved by the Corporation, shall be placed to a lender willing to fund, or close, the mortgage loan under the same terms and conditions extended by Mortgage Lenders Network. In the event that no such placement can be made, Mortgage Lenders Network shall either independently fund the mortgage loan under such terms and conditions or buy down the mortgage loan offered by the lender so that the applicant does not incur a loss as a result of such placement. Mortgage Lenders Network shall obtain the prior approval of the Director before placing such applications to the qualified lender(s). 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in any instance in which Mortgage Lenders Network failed to fund a loan closed by the Corporation and in which the consumer, prior to the effective date of this Temporary Order, obtained funding through an alternate lender, the Corporation shall reimburse each consumer the amount necessary to put the consumer in the same position as if Mortgage Lenders Network had funded the mortgage loan under the terms and conditions agreed upon at the closing of the loan.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mortgage Lenders Network shall submit to the Director a detailed record, prepared as of the date of submission, of all of the Corporation’s pending residential mortgage loan applications on property located in Maine, including all of the mortgage loans covered by the third party agreement referenced in Paragraph 10-12 of this Temporary Order. The records to be produced shall include all information on file regarding the Corporation’s Maine mortgage loan portfolio, including but not necessarily limited to, the following: (a.) Within one (1) business day of the effective date of this Temporary Order, Mortgage Lenders Network shall submit to the Director all information on file as of the date of submission regarding the Corporation’s portfolio of mortgage loans that were closed by Mortgage Lenders Network prior to the effective date of this Temporary Order, but remain as yet unfunded. Such information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: The names of all individuals from whom Mortgage Lenders Network processed an application and closed the residential mortgage loan, but failed to fund; the applicants’ addresses and telephone numbers; the loan number; the amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted by the customer; the amount of each loan; the loan terms; the current funding status; the actual closing dates; the loan purpose (i.e., purchase or refinance); and identification of the applicable lender with whom each application will be placed. The record should include telephone numbers of contact persons at each lender who is familiar with the Corporation’s submitted loans; (b.) As soon as possible, but not later than five (5) days after the effective date of this Temporary Order, Mortgage Lenders Network shall submit to the Director (i) all information on file as of the date of submission regarding the Corporation’s pipeline of pending mortgage loan applications, including but not limited to, the following: The names of all individuals from whom Mortgage Lenders Network has accepted an application for a residential mortgage loan; the applicants’ addresses and telephone numbers; the loan number; the amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted by the customer; rate lock status; the amount of each loan; application status (i.e., filed, submitted to lenders, cleared to close, etc.); loan terms, if approved; scheduled closing dates; the loan purpose (i.e., purchase or refinance); and identification of the applicable lender with whom each application will be placed. The record should include telephone numbers of contact persons at each lender who is familiar with the Corporation’s submitted loans; and (ii) Mortgage Lenders Network’s balance sheet and year-to-date income statement, prepared as of the date of submission, and attested by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation. The balance sheet should indicate Mortgage Lenders Network’s cash position at each of its depository banks as well as Mortgage Lenders Network’s bank account numbers; and (c.) On the last business day of each subsequent week after the effective date of this Temporary Order, Mortgage Lenders Network shall provide the Director with an updated, written status report of the mortgage loan applications identified above under subparagraphs 25(a) and 25(b). The form of the status report shall follow the format of the initial submission under subparagraphs 25(a) and 25(b) and shall indicate the final disposition of the loan application and include the final terms under which each approved loan is closed. The reporting requirement shall continue until each of the approved applications is placed with a lender and funded, funded by Mortgage Lenders Network, or withdrawn by the applicant(s). 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mortgage Lenders Network shall immediately secure all pending mortgage loan application files and, to the extent that any original documents must be forwarded to the relevant mortgage lender pursuant to this Temporary Order, a copy of such document, correspondence, or paper relating to the mortgage loan shall be retained in the Corporation’s books and records and shall be available to the Director, in their entirety, upon request. 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Temporary Order shall become effective immediately and shall remain in effect unless fully or partially set aside, limited, or suspended by the Director. 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 9-A MRSA section 2-303-A, a hearing will be scheduled on this matter only upon receipt of a written request for such a hearing from Mortgage Lenders Network within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this Temporary Order. If no hearing is requested within this fifteen (15) day period, this Temporary Order shall become remain in effect until it is modified or vacated by the Director.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Residential Mortgage Services  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Residential Mortgage Services — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Residential Mortgage Services
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the Parties and state as follows:

1) The State of Maine, Office of Consumer Credit Regulation administers the Consumer Credit Code, including its requirements for the licensing of supervised lenders and the registration of loan officers.

2) Maine law requires that supervised lenders and loan officers employed by those lenders display financial responsibility, character and fitness such as to warrant belief that the businesses will operate honestly and fairly.

3) Residential Mortgage Services (RMS) is a licensed supervised lender with several locations in Maine. Its president is James Seely.

4) Salem Capital Group (Salem) is an unlicensed lender. Its principal is Robert DiCarlo.

5) Robert Raymond is a loan officer employed by Residential Mortgage Services.

6) From November, 2006 through January, 2007, the Office of Consumer Credit received four complaints from customers of RMS. The customers alleged that they had been led into signing mortgages that they could not afford.

7) Specifically, the customers alleged that Mr. Raymond steered them into borrowing funds secured by a second mortgage and written on short-term, commercial, 6-month balloon contracts with Salem.

8) The consumers then deposited these funds, typically $20,000 to $30,000, in bank accounts and listed the deposits as assets in support of a credit application for first lien mortgages from a licensed lender.

9) The second balloon notes and mortgages were not disclosed to the first-lien lender.

10) Consumers were assured that they would be able to refinance the two loans into a single loan, when in fact Mr. Raymond had no reason to believe that such refinancing would be easy to arrange.

11) Loan officers are agents of their employer. Therefore, RMS bears ultimate responsible for the actions of Mr. Raymond.

12) RMS states that it was unaware of the arrangements being made by Mr. Raymond. When the situation was brought to the attention of RMS, Mr. Seely cooperated fully with the OCCR to determine the extent of the lending activity. RMS disclosed the existence of an additional five loans involving Salem.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following resolution:

1) RMS agrees that it will not in the future engage in steering a Maine consumer to an unlicensed lender.

2) RMS will monitor the activities of its loan officers to ensure that the actions of those loan officers are consistent with the requirements of the Maine Consumer Credit Code, including the prohibition against entering into undocumented loan agreements.

3) RMS agrees that it will remove the name of Robert Raymond from the list of authorized loan officers for RMS for 30 days, and that during this time RMS will arrange for Mr. Raymond to participate in at least 16 hours of mortgage-related training, including at least two hours of Maine-specific law and at least 2 hours of ethics. RMS agrees to take responsibility for the successful completion of these requirements by Mr. Raymond, to report on Mr. Raymond's progress, and obtain permission of the OCCR before re-registering Mr. Raymond as an RMS loan officer.

4) RMS will work with Salem such that a total of $29,564.94 is refunded to the ten consumers involved. Further, RMS will assist the consumers that signed balloon notes with Salem by refinancing the balloon or by combining the current first and second lien (balloon) loans into a single loan at favorable rates. The value of these financings is approximately $406,520.00. See details in Attachment “A” hereto.

5) RMS will pay to the Treasurer, State of Maine, the amount of $5,000 as a civil penalty, and to the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation the amount of $2,500 as compensation for its costs of investigation pursuant to 9-A MRSA sec. 6-116(6).

   
Dated: _____________ /s/James Seely, for Residential Mortgage Services
 
Dated: ______________ /s/William N. Lund, Director
Office of Consumer Credit Regulation

Attachment “A”

CONSUMER RESTITUTION OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

       
1. Scott O.   Refinanced first and second mortgage 1st loan amount: $147,200, fixed rate, 30 years 7.375% 2nd loan amount: $27,600, fixed, 20 years 12.5% Reduced payment $62 per month
2. Brandy D. Refinanced Secondary market-first mortgage; $186,000, fixed rate, 30 years, 8.125%; Reduced payment $232 per month
3. Donna G. $3,482.50 Refinanced; Portfolio loan of $183,000; 5% fixed 30 yr loan, no cost to borrower; Reduced payment to less than $1,000 per her request
4. Terry A. Refinanced Secondary market first mortgage; $217,800, fixed rate, 30 years, 7.75%
5. Gregory W. New 2nd; RMS rewrote second mortgage at 8% fixed, 30 year; No closing costs
6. Nicholas S. $7,966.91 New 2nd; RMS rewrote second mortgage $60,000 @ 6% 30 year fixed rate. RMS offered to pay closing costs when borrower was able to refinance first and second
7. Jeffrey D. $1,211.85 New 2nd; Meridian Mortgage refinanced second mortgage $17,000 @ 6% fixed for 30 years. Payment of $101.92 per month
8. Robin D. DiCarlo to refinance at 8.25% fixed, 30 years
9. Dorothy P. New 2nd; RMS rewrote second mortgages $28,500, 8% fixes, 30 year; No closing costs
10. Jason H. $6,445.00 Refinanced; Loan refinanced with outside investor through RMS; $275,500, ARM, 30 years, 8.9% Reduced payment>$100 per month
11. Laurie R. $4,370.00 Borrower has been fully approved and cleared to close on a secondary market first mortgage loan consolidating her present 1st and 2nd. $171,300 loan amount, fixed, 30 year 7.625% with no costs to the borrower. (.25% reduction in rate)
12. Robert C. DiCarlo to rewrite loan at 8.25%
13. Shawn R. $6,088.68 paid to 3rd party on behalf of borrower Refinanced; Borrower refinanced with another lender, RMS paid $6,088.68 prepayment penalty in the borrower’s behalf.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Financial Credit Service, Inc.  Cease and Desist and Order of Reimbursement : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Financial Credit Service, Inc. — Cease and Desist and Order of Reimbursement

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Financial Credit Service, Inc.
Cease and Desist and Order of Reimbursement
 
 

WHEREAS Financial Credit Service, Inc. (FCS), a debt collector located in Palatine, Illinois was notified by the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation at least 8 times during the years of 2005 and 2006 that it had engaged in activities requiring a Debt Collection license pursuant to Maine’s Title 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 109-A, Section 11001, et seq.; and

WHEREAS the February 20, 2007 letter from John Bauer, General Manager, Financial Credit Service, Inc. (copy attached), indicated that Financial Credit Service, Inc. would no longer do business in the State of Maine as of February 1, 2007; and

WHEREAS on March 13, 2007, the Maine Office of Consumer Credit Regulation (OCCR) received a complaint from a Maine consumer attaching a collection letter from FCS dated February 26, 2007; and

WHEREAS Financial Credit Service, Inc. continued to contact Maine consumers after Mr. Bauer committed that no further contact would occur; and

WHEREAS a debt collector must reimburse the OCCR for the costs incurred in any compliance examination pursuant to 32 MRSA 11051 and 9-A MRSA 6-106;

NOW THEREFORE, Financial Credit Service, Inc. is hereby notified and ORDERED to CEASE AND DESIST from any debt collection or other activity subject to regulation in the State of Maine, unless and until such time a license is

(COPY OF LETTER)

 

Financial Credit Services
P.O. Box 1211
Palantine, IL 60078-1211
Telephone: 800-706-3401
Fax: 847-925-2050

.

 

February 20, 2007

   

Ms. Mary Young
Consumer Credit Protection
35 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

 

 

RE: Closing our accounts in Maine

 

Dear Ms. Young:

 

We apologize for the delay in sending you this information.

As we mentioned when we last talked, Financial Credit Services will no longer do business in the state of MAINE. This has been effective as of February 1, 2007.

If you have any questions, contact us at your convenience.

 

 

Sincerely,

/s/ John Bauer

John Bauer,
General Manager

 

 

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
National Child Support Adminstrative Decision and Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > National Child Support —Adminstrative Decision and Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

National Child Support
Adminstrative Decision and Order
 
 

WHEREAS National Child Support, a debt collector located in Cincinnati, Ohio was notified by letter date February 8, 2007 (copies attached) that it was alleged to have engaged in activities requiring a Debt Collection license pursuant to Maine’s Title 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 109-A, Section 11001, et seq.; and

WHEREAS the February 8, 2007 letter provided information on licensing, and requested a response within 10 business days; and

WHEREAS no response to that letter has been received; and

WHEREAS unlicensed debt collection is subject to civil remedies pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. Section 11040 and 11054;

NOW THEREFORE, National Child Support is hereby notified and ORDERED to CEASE AND DESIST from any debt collection or other activity subject to regulation in the State of Maine, unless and until such time a license is issued by the Administrator; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this directive be prominently posted on the state agency’s disciplinary action website.

(COPY OF LETTER)

 

February 8, 2007

.

 

   

CERTIFIED MAIL


National Child Support
P.O. Box 4237
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

 

 

RE: Maine debt collector license required

 

Dear National Child Support:

 

The Office of Consumer Credit Regulation administers Maine’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including the law’s licensing provisions.

A review of our roster of licensed debt collectors does not reveal the name “National Child Support”.

Under Maine law, “debt” includes “any obligation or alleged obligation for payment of child support owed to, or owed by, a resident of this state”; see 32 Maine Revised Statutes, section 11001(5).

Our office has learned that you have solicited at least one Maine woman to provide child support collection services, and that you may have entered into one or more contracts to provide such services.

Please confirm within 10 business days that you received this letter, and that you either already have a debt collector license that you will terminate any contracts and return any fees or commissions assessed to Maine residents, or that you have begun the process of applying for a license using the forms available on our regulatory agency’s website, www.Credit.Maine.gov; click on “List of Licensee Types” and then select “Debt collector licensing information”. We have also enclosed a debt collector licensing package for your review and use.

If I do not hear from you with that commitment, and with an estimated time for our receipt of that application, our office will issue and publicize a formal Cease and Desist order.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

 

 

Sincerely,

/s/William N. Lund

Willliam N. Lund,
Director

 

 

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Salem Capital Mortgage Group, LLC  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Salem Capital Mortgage Group, LLC — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Salem Capital Mortgage Group, LLC
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the Parties and state as follows:

1) The State of Maine, Office of Consumer Credit Regulation administers the Consumer Credit Code, including its requirements for the licensing of supervised lenders and the registration of loan officers.

2) Maine law requires that supervised lenders and loan officers employed by those lenders display financial responsibility, character and fitness such as to warrant belief that the businesses will operate honestly and fairly.

3) Salem Capital Group, LLC (Salem) is an unlicensed lender. Its principal is Robert DiCarlo.

4) Residential Mortgage Services (RMS) is a licensed supervised lender with several locations in Maine. Its president is James Seely.

5) Robert Raymond is a loan officer employed by Residential Mortgage Services.

6) From November, 2006 through January, 2007, the Office of Consumer Credit received four complaints from customers of Salem and RMS. The customers alleged that they had been led into signing mortgages that they could not afford.

7) Specifically, the customers alleged that Mr. Raymond steered them into borrowing funds secured by a second mortgage and written on short-term, commercial, 6-month balloon contracts with Salem.

8) The consumers then deposited these funds, typically $20,000 to $30,000, in bank accounts and listed the deposits as assets in support of credit applications for first lien mortgages from a licensed lender.

9) The second balloon notes and mortgage were not disclosed to the first-lien lenders.

10) Consumers were assured that they would be able to refinance the two loans into a single loan.

11) Despite the fact that the loans from Salem were written on commercial contracts, they were consumer loans. State and federal law require that the determination as to whether a loan is a commercial loan or a consumer loan is based on the purpose for which the loan is obtained. In this case, the loans were second mortgage loans made for the purpose of enabling the purchase or refinance of personal residences; therefore, they were consumer loans.

12) Lenders making consumer loans in Maine must first obtain a supervised lender license. Salem did not obtain a supervised lender license before making the loans at issue in this case.

13) Salem, through its principal Robert DiCarlo, asserts that it was unaware of the requirement to obtain a supervised lender license in order to legally make consumer loans. When the situation was brought to the attention of Salem, Mr. DiCarlo cooperated fully with the OCCR to determine the extent of the lending activity. RMS and Salem disclosed to the OCCR the existence of an additional five loans involving Salem and RMS.

14) The penalty under the Maine Consumer Credit code for making loans without a license is to refund to consumers one year's interest, plus prepaid interest and fees. Mr. DiCarlo has cooperated with the OCCR's directives in this regard.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following resolution:

1) Salem agrees that it will not in the future engage in lending to Maine consumers without first obtaining a supervised lender license.

2) Salem will work with RMS to make restitution to consumers, such that a total of $29,564.94 is refunded to the ten consumers involved. Further, Salem will work with RMS to assist the consumers who signed balloon notes with Salem by refinancing the balloons or by combining the current first and second lien loans into single loans. The value of these financings is approximately $406,520.00, as set forth on Attachment "A" hereto.

3) Salem will pay to the Treasurer, State of Maine, the amount of $5,000 as a civil penalty, and to the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation the amount of $2,500 as compensation for its costs of investigation pursuant to 9-A MRSA sec. 6-116(6).

Dated: _____________
Robert DiCarlo, for Salem Capital Funding, LLC

Dated: ______________
William N. Lund, Director, Office of Consumer Credit Regulation

ATTACHMENT "A"

CONSUMER RESTITUTION OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

       
1. Scott O.   Refinanced first and second mortgage 1st loan amount: $147,200, fixed rate, 30 years 7.375% 2nd loan amount: $27,600, fixed, 20 years 12.5% Reduced payment $62 per month
2. Brandy D. Refinanced Secondary market-first mortgage; $186,000, fixed rate, 30 years, 8.125%; Reduced payment $232 per month
3. Donna G. $3,482.50 Refinanced; Portfolio loan of $183,000; 5% fixed 30 yr loan, no cost to borrower; Reduced payment to less than $1,000 per her request
4. Terry A. Refinanced Secondary market first mortgage; $217,800, fixed rate, 30 years, 7.75%
5. Gregory W. New 2nd; RMS rewrote second mortgage at 8% fixed, 30 year; No closing costs
6. Nicholas S. $7,966.91 New 2nd; RMS rewrote second mortgage $60,000 @ 6% 30 year fixed rate. RMS offered to pay closing costs when borrower was able to refinance first and second
7. Jeffrey D. $1,211.85 New 2nd; Meridian Mortgage refinanced second mortgage $17,000 @ 6% fixed for 30 years. Payment of $101.92 per month
8. Robin D. DiCarlo to refinance at 8.25% fixed, 30 years
9. Dorothy P. New 2nd; RMS rewrote second mortgages $28,500, 8% fixes, 30 year; No closing costs
10. Jason H. $6,445.00 Refinanced; Loan refinanced with outside investor through RMS; $275,500, ARM, 30 years, 8.9% Reduced payment>$100 per month
11. Laurie R. $4,370.00 Borrower has been fully approved and cleared to close on a secondary market first mortgage loan consolidating her present 1st and 2nd. $171,300 loan amount, fixed, 30 year 7.625% with no costs to the borrower. (.25% reduction in rate)
12. Robert C. DiCarlo to rewrite loan at 8.25%
13. Shawn R. $6,088.68 paid to 3rd party on behalf of borrower Refinanced; Borrower refinanced with another lender, RMS paid $6,088.68 prepayment penalty in the borrower’s behalf.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
New Century and Home 1 2 3  Consent Agreement and Order : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > New Century and Home 1 2 3 — Consent Agreement and Order

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2007-002

 

In the Matter of:

New Century and Home 1 2 3
Consent Agreement and Order
 
 

The State of Maine, acting through the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, of the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation (“Office”) has reviewed the business practices of New Century Mortgage corporation (“New Century”) and Home123 Corporation (“Home123”), and its officers, employees and directors. Based on the results of its review, the Office believes that New Century and Home123 operated in violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code (“Code”), 9-A MRSA 1-101 et seq. and the Funded Settlement Act, 33 MRSA 521 et seq. The parties to the above captioned matter, in lieu of litigation, hereby stipulate that the following statements are true and correct in the settlement of the above-captioned matter and, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to the terms of this Consent Agreement and Order (the “Order”).

BACKGROUND

  1. The Office is the Maine state governmental administrative agency authorized and empowered to administer and enforce the Code and Funded Settlement Act.

  2. New Century is licensed in Maine as Supervised Lender, License No. SLM3335, with 32 licensed branch offices.

  3. Home123 is licensed as Supervised Lender, License no. SLM4780, with 22 licensed branch offices.

  4. New Century and Home123 have their corporate headquarters in Irvine, CA.

  5. New Century and Home123 are the subsidiaries of New Century Financial Corporation that originate and make mortgage loans.

  6. The Office has learned that New Century and Home123 do not have sufficient warehouse lines of credit to fund loans that New Century and Home123 closed or intended to close with Maine consumers.

  7. As of the issuance of this Order, there are still closed and unfunded loans outstanding with Maine consumers.

  8. The Office has learned that the stock of New Century has dropped considerably, and that because of alleged misstatements on its financial statements, New Century is being investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

  9. New Century and Home123 are in such financial condition that they cannot continue in business with safety to the Maine customers of New Century and Home123 as provided in Section 2-301(a) of the Code

CORRECTIVE ACTION

  1. New Century and Home123 shall immediately cease and desist accepting, from either consumers or mortgage brokers, any applications for residential first or second mortgage loans secured by Maine real property or from Maine consumers. For purposes of this Order, “Maine consumers” shall include Maine residents or persons who have submitted applications for loans which are, or are intended to be, secured by Maine real property.

  2. New Century and Home123 shall immediately cease and desist from advertising for its wholesale and retail businesses in Maine or to Maine consumers.

  3. New Century and Home123 shall obtain funding for, or place with another lender, loans to Maine consumers that have closed but have not yet been funded.

  4. New Century and Home123 shall either (i) obtain funding for and close or (ii) place with other lenders, applications from Maine consumers to whom loan commitments have been issued.

  5. For loan applications from Maine consumers for which no commitment has been issued, New Century and Home123 shall either (i) obtain funding for and close into loans, or (ii) place with other lenders, or (iii) deny for cause, the loan applications. This Paragraph shall not apply if the Maine consumer or the representative mortgage broker has voluntarily withdrawn the loan application.

  6. New Century and Home123 shall notify all Maine mortgage applicants or the mortgage applicant’s broker of the status of any applications or loans with New Century and/or Home123, and of the likelihood of funding.

  7. New Century and Home123 shall seek out other lenders with whom they can place Maine consumer loans or applications to the benefit of Maine consumers.

  8. New Century and Home123 shall provide to the Office a list each work day of all loans to Maine consumers that have closed but not funded, or loan applications from Maine consumers that have not closed. This list shall be updated as stated above until all Maine consumers have either had their loans funded, or until all issues regarding Maine loan applications have been resolved.

a. This list shall include, but is not limited to:

  1. The names of all Maine consumers who have closed but not funded loans from New Century and/or Home123 or who have submitted an application to New Century and/or Home123 for a loan that has not yet closed;
  2. The address and telephone numbers of the consumers listed in (i);
  3. The loan number;
  4. The amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted;
  5. The amount of each loan;
  6. The current application status;
  7. The rate lock status;
  8. The actual closing dates;
  9. Whether the loan was a purchase or refinance; and
  10. The identification of the applicable lender with whom each loan will be placed, and the contact information for that lender.

b. Any changes in the list shall be explained in writing.

c. The list shall be sent to William Lund, Director, Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, at william.n.lund@Maine.gov and Julie Haefele, Principal Examiner at julie.f.haefele@Maine.gov. by 5:00 PM EST on each business day.

  1. New Century and Home123 shall provide to the Office on a weekly basis with a liquidity schedule that lists the anticipated loans to be closed and the anticipated funding available.

  2. New Century and Home123 shall, as soon as possible, place any fees previously collected from Maine consumers relative to any first or second mortgage loan applications in a separate escrow account maintained at a federally-insured depository institution.

  3. New Century and Home123 shall release any liens filed on any Maine real property or filed on property owned by Maine consumers as a result of a residential mortgage loan that was closed with New Century or Home123 but that has not been funded. In the event that the loan subsequently funds, New Century and/or Home123 may file a lien against the property at that time.

  4. In the event that interest on a Maine residential mortgage loan closed or originated by New Century and/or Home123 starts on any day other than the day of funding, or if there is any change of terms from the signed loan document, New Century and/or Home123 must notify William Lund or Julie Haefele immediately at the contact information provided in paragraph 17(c).

  5. Nothing in this Order shall prevent New Century and/or Home123 from selling or assigning residential mortgage loans to other entity, servicing closed mortgage loans or engaging in other activity not prohibited herein or by the Code or the Funded Settlement Act.' '

  6. New Century and Home123 shall use every best effort to resolve their current inability to fund loans.'

FURTHER PROVISIONS

  1. Consent. New Century and Home123 hereby knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and irrevocably consent to the entry of this Order pursuant to the Office’s order authority under the Code and the Funded Settlement Act, and agree that they understand all of the terms and conditions contained herein. New Century and Home123, by voluntarily entering into this Order, waive any right to a hearing or appeal concerning the terms and/or conditions set forth in this Order.'

  2. Publication and Release. New Century and Home123 consent to the publication and release of this Order.'

  3. Entire Agreement. This Order contains the whole agreement between the parties. There are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements, conditions, or otherwise, of any kind whatsoever concerning this Order. This Order may be amended in writing by mutual agreement by the Office, and New Century and Home123.

  4. Re-negotiability. New Century and Home123 may, given a change in conditions, seek to renegotiate with the Office the applicability of this Order.

  5. Binding Nature. The Office, New Century and Home123, and all officers, owners, directors, employees, heirs and assigns of new Century and Hom123 intend to be and are legally bound by the terms of this Order.

  6. Counsel. This Order is entered into by the parties upon full opportunity for legal advice from legal counsel.

  7. Effectiveness. New Century and Home123 hereby stipulate and agree that the Order shall become effective on the date that the Office executes this Order.

  8. Other Enforcement Action.

    a. The Office reserves all of its rights, duties, and authority to enforce all statutes, rules and regulations under its jurisdiction against New Century and Home123 in the future regarding all matters not resolved by this Order.

b. New Century and Home123 acknowledge and agree that this Order is only binding upon the Office and not any other local, state or federal agency, department or office regarding matters within this Order.

  1. Authorization. The parties below are authorized to execute this Order and legally bind their respective parties.

  2. Counterparts. This Order may be executed in separate counterparts and by facsimile.

  3. Titles. The titles used to identify the paragraphs of this document are for the convenience of reference only and do not control the interpretation of this document.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, including the recital paragraphs, the Office, New Century and Home123 intending to be legally bound do hereby execute this Consent Agreement and Order.

STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF CONSUMER CREDIT REGULATION
 
/s/William N. Lund, Director
Office of Consumer Credit Regulation
March 20, 2007
 
 
FOR NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION
 
/s/Stergios Theologides
(Officer Signature)
 
Stergios Theologides
(Print Officer Name)
 
Exec. Vice President & General Counsel
Title
 
Date: March 20, 2007
 
 
FOR HOME 1 2 3
 
/s/Stergios Theologides
(Officer Signature)
 
Stergios Theologides
(Print Officer Name)
 
Exec. Vice President & General Counsel
Title
 
Date: March 20, 2007

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Mortgage Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Mortgage Foreclosure Solutions, Inc. — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Mortgage Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the parties, and agree as follows:

  1. Mortgage Foreclosure Solutions, Inc (MFS) is a for-profit debt settlement company located in Clearwater, Florida.

  2. Maine’s debt management services laws (32 MRSA 6171 et seq.), administered by the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, require a license before any company can offer Maine consumers the service including acting or offering to act as an intermediary between a consumer and one or more creditors of the consumer for the purpose of adjusting, settling, discharging, reaching a compromise on or otherwise altering the terms of payment of the consumer's obligation or of adjusting, mediating, settling or discharging consumer debt.

  3. MFS is not registered with the State of Maine to provide debt management services.

  4. MFS has contracted with a Maine consumer to provide services covered by Maine’s law.

NOW, THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:

  1. MFS agrees to cease and desist offering debt management services to Maine consumers unless it has first obtained a license.

  2. MFS acknowledges that additional activity with respect to Maine consumers will subject the company to monetary penalties and other sanctions.

 
Date:07/12/07 /s/Debra Behrens
Debra Behrens
for Mortgage Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Timothy Hogan License No. CSO5033  Consent Agreement and Order : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Timothy Hogan License No. CSO5033 — Consent Agreement and Order

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Timothy Hogan License No. CSO5033
Consent Agreement and Order
 
 

Introduction

This document is a Consent Agreement (“the Consent Agreement”) concerning licensure of Timothy P. Hogan as a loan officer in the State of Maine. The parties to the Consent Agreement are Timothy P. Hogan (“Mr. Hogan”), the Maine Office of Consumer Credit Regulation (“the OCCR”) and the Maine Department of Attorney General. The Consent Agreement is entered into pursuant to 9 A M.R.S.A. 2-303 and 6-106 through 6-117 and 10 M.R.S.A. 8003(5)(B).

Facts

  1. Since January 2006, Mr. Hogan has been a loan officer licensed pursuant to 9-A M.R.S.A. 10-201.

  2. Title 9-A M.R.S.A. 10-201 of the Maine Consumer Credit Code, 9 A M.R.S.A. 1-101 through 11-122, requires that loan officer may not be licensed unless the Director of the OCCR “finds that the financial responsibility, character and fitness of the applicant…warrant belief that the business will be operated honestly and fairly within the purposes of [the Consumer Credit Code].”

  3. Prior to November 2005 to the present time, Mr. Hogan has been associated with Weber Mortgage Co., a duly-registered credit services organization/loan broker with offices in Bangor, Maine. Mr. Hogan has been responsible for origination of home mortgage loans.

  4. From November 2005 to January 2006, Mr. Hogan handled the loan application of Ms. Susan Blake of Rockport, Maine. In the course of that transaction, Mr. Hogan provided Ms. Blake Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) for deposit in her checking account, to overstate Ms. Blake’s financial ability to qualify for a loan. Mr. Hogan arranged to retrieve the monies he provided Ms. Blake after the loan closing. He received a commission for closing the loan.

  5. To resolve issues raised by conduct described in 4 above, Mr. Hogan enters into this Consent Agreement with the OCCR.

    Covenants

  6. Mr. Hogan admits the conduct described in 4 above and that he has failed to conform to and comply with provisions of the Consumer Credit Code, including standards set forth in 9-A M.R.S.A. 10-201.

  7. The Director of the OCCR finds that, by his admitted conduct, Mr. Hogan has failed to conform to and comply with provisions of the Consumer Credit Code, including standards set forth in 9-A M.R.S.A. 10-201.

  8. Effective August 15, 2007 and until November 28, 2007, the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation suspends Mr. Hogan’s licensure as a loan officer.

  9. After August 15, 2007 and until November 28, 2007, Mr. Hogan will not act as a loan officer. He shall not accept, originate, consider, negotiate, solicit, arrange for or obtain mortgage loans. He shall not have any direct contact with mortgage applicants or lenders. In conjunction with the mortgage lending business, he shall engage only in purely administrative or clerical tasks. Persons who approach Mr. Hogan for service after the execution of this Consent Agreement shall be referred to other persons, and Mr. Hogan shall accept no compensation for such referrals. Until November 28, 2007, he shall provide a copy of this Consent Agreement to any licensee of the OCCR with whom he is associated in any way. If he has any doubt about the permissibility of action by him, he shall consult with Kristine M. Fournier, Senior Credit Examiner at the OCCR, who may provide written guidance as deemed appropriate.

  10. Except for activities specifically approved in 9 above and activities as a loan officer after November 28, 2007, Mr. Hogan shall not otherwise engage, directly or indirectly, for himself or for others, in the financial services industry.

  11. Beginning in August 2007 and until August 2008, Mr. Hogan shall file written monthly reports of his activities related to the mortgage lending industry. Mr. Hogan shall file the reports between the 15th and 20th day of each month. Subsequent to August 2008 and until August 2009, the reports shall be quarterly and filed on a schedule established by the OCCR. Reports shall include information about Mr. Hogan’s professional activities deemed relevant by the OCCR. The reports shall explain his activities related to the mortgage lending industry during the preceding month. Reports shall be submitted to Kristine M. Fournier, Senior Consumer Credit Examiner at the OCCR. Reports shall be detailed enough for the OCCR to understand what specific tasks Mr. Hogan undertook. Mr. Hogan shall respond to any request from the OCCR for additional information within ten days of receiving such a request.

  12. From the date of the Consent Agreement to August 15, 2007, Mr. Hogan shall wind up any pending mortgage lending business. Business during that time shall be confined strictly to those matters required to protect the interests of persons who are clients as of the time of this Consent Agreement and other persons to whom Mr. Hogan or Weber Mortgage is legally obligated. Persons who approach Mr. Hogan for service after the execution of this Consent Agreement shall be referred to other persons, and Mr. Hogan shall accept no compensation for such referrals.

  13. No later than noon July 25, 2007, Mr. Hogan shall provide the OCCR with an accounting of the pending business referenced in 12 above. The accounting will list the names of all clients and will explain the disposition of any funds, fees, prepayments, deposits or other amounts paid by those clients.

  14. As part of the winding up of the pending business referenced in 12 above, Mr. Hogan shall provide for the safekeeping of client records with Weber Mortgage or another duly-licensed loan broker, so as to ensure the records’ preservation and availability.

  15. During the winding up of the pending business referenced in 12 above, Mr. Hogan shall ensure that the OCCR is informed frequently of arrangements being made to fulfill the requirements of this Consent Agreement. All arrangements shall be subject to approval by the OCCR.

  16. Upon the completion of the winding up of the pending business referenced in 12 above, Mr. Hogan shall provide the OCCR with a final accounting of that business. The accounting will explain the status of client accounts open as of the date of this Consent Agreement, the disposition of all funds relating to each client account open as of the date of this Consent Agreement and the location of all relevant records. The final accounting shall contain any other information deemed relevant by the OCCR.

  17. All costs associated with the winding up of the pending business referenced in 12 above and compliance with this Consent Agreement shall be borne by Mr. Hogan.

  18. No later than July 25, 2007, Mr. Hogan shall pay the OCCR investigative costs of Five Hundred Dollars ($500). Payment shall be by certified check or money order made out to “Maine Office of Consumer Credit Regulation” and shall be delivered to Kristine M. Fournier, Senior Consumer Credit Examiner at the OCCR.

  19. No later than April 30, 2008, Mr. Hogan shall pay the OCCR a monetary penalty of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for conduct admitted in 6 above. Payment shall be by certified check or money order made out to “Treasurer, State of Maine” and shall be delivered to Kristine M. Fournier, Senior Consumer Credit Examiner at the OCCR.

  20. No later than September 12, 2007, Mr. Hogan shall submit proof to the OCCR that he has satisfactorily completed a pre-approved ethics course. Completion of this course is a requirement distinct from and in addition to any continuing education requirements for maintaining licensure.

  21. Assuming that Mr. Hogan otherwise qualifies for licensure after November 28, 2007, his licensure shall be probationary until August 19, 2009. Conditions of probation shall include compliance with all terms of this Consent Agreement and requests of the OCCR.

  22. From the date of this Consent Agreement to August 19, 2009, Mr. Hogan’s records shall be subject to unannounced inspection by the OCCR, to ensure compliance with this Consent Agreement. The OCCR may exercise whatever supervisory authority deemed necessary to enforce this Consent Agreement and protect the public.

  23. Mr. Hogan shall notify the OCCR immediately of any change in his employment situation or home address.

  24. Failure by Mr. Hogan to comply with any condition or term of this Consent Agreement or his license probation shall make him liable to the State of Maine for a monetary penalty of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) and permanent license revocation. Such penalties shall be separate from and in addition to any other remedy available pursuant to this Consent Agreement or the law.

  25. Nothing in this Consent Agreement shall be construed to excuse any violation of law by Mr. Hogan.

  26. Nothing in this Consent Agreement shall be construed to excuse any obligation or duty of Mr. Hogan to past, present or future clientele.

  27. Nothing in this Consent Agreement shall be construed to excuse Mr. Hogan from any requirement for maintaining the ability to obtain full licensure, regardless of whether such requirement is addressed herein. For example, among other things, during the period of his license suspension, Mr. Hogan shall be responsible for meeting continuing education requirements.

  28. This Consent Agreement is limited in scope to resolution with the OCCR and no other State or federal government agency. It does not preclude any agency of
    State or federal government from pursuing any claim based upon alleged violation of any law other than Consumer Credit Code provisions applicable to matters admitted by Mr. Hogan.

  29. This Consent Agreement does not affect the rights of any person not a party hereto.

  30. This Consent Agreement is not subject to appeal.

  31. This Consent Agreement is not subject to amendment, except by written agreement of all parties.

  32. This Consent Agreement is a public record subject to provisions of the Maine Freedom of Access Law, 1 M.R.S.A. 401 through 410.

  33. This Consent Agreement is enforceable by an action in Maine Superior Court.

  34. By his signature on this Consent Agreement, Mr. Hogan indicates that he has read the Agreement, that he understands the Agreement, that he has had an opportunity to consult with counsel before signing the Agreement and that he enters into the Agreement voluntarily and without coercion of any kind from any person.

    Signatures

Dated: July 24th, 2007 /s/Timothy P. Hogan
Timothy P. Hogan
 
Dated: July 25th, 2007 /s/James M. Bowie
James M. Bowie
  Assistant Attorney General

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
United Cash Loans Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > United Cash Loans —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

United Cash Loans
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS UNITED CASH LOANS, a payday lender located in Miami, Oklahoma was notified by certified letter dated May 23, 2007 and a second letter dated June 20, 2007, that it was allegedly engaging in activities requiring a license as a supervised lender pursuant to 9-A Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Article II, 2-301 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified United Cash Loans that it must obtain a license before engaging in making loans to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS no response to the May 23rd or June 20th letters have been received; and

WHEREAS unlicensed activity is subject to administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to 9-A M.R.S.A. 5-201; and 5-301;

NOW THEREFORE, United Cash Loans is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to licensing in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as a license is granted by the Administrator.

United Cash Loans is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all interest and fees collected from Maine consumers.

United Cash Loans may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

Dated this 3rd day of August, 2007

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
American Home Mortgage Corporation and American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc  Order of Preliminary License Suspension : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > American Home Mortgage Corporation and American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc — Order of Preliminary License Suspension

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2007-003

 

In the Matter of:

American Home Mortgage Corporation and American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc
Order of Preliminary License Suspension
 
 

The Director of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation (Director) having determined that American Home Mortgage Corporation (AHM) and American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc (AHMA), located at 538 Broadhollow Road, Melville, NY 11747 have engaged in, are engaging in, or are about to engage in, acts or practices constituting violations of the Maine Consumer Credit Code (Title 9-A MRSA) and 33 MRSA 521 – 527 (the Maine Funded Settlement Act), hereby issues the following Findings of Fact and Order of Preliminary License Suspension (“Temporary Order”) pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The Office is the Maine state governmental administrative agency authorized and empowered to administer and enforce the Code and Funded Settlement Act.

  2. American Home Mortgage Corporation (AHM) and American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc (AHMA) are, and at all relevant times have been, foreign corporations conducting business in Maine. AHM and AHMA have their corporate headquarters in Melville, NY.

  3. Supervised lenders are subject to 33 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), 521 et seq., the state’s Funded Settlement Act. This law requires that mortgage loans be funded “prior to noon of the first business day after expiration of the rescission period required under the federal Truth in Lending Act.”

  4. AHM is licensed in Maine as Supervised Lender, License No. SLM2803, with 42 licensed branch offices around the country.

  5. AHMA is licensed as Supervised Lender, License SLM6739.

  6. Beginning on or about Monday, July 30, 2007, the Office received information from licensed Maine mortgage lenders and brokers indicating that AHM and AHMA had, or were about to, fail to timely disburse loan proceeds in several mortgage loan transactions involving residential property in Maine.

  7. On July 31, 2007, AHM and AHMA submitted a letter to the Office indicating, in part, that, “AHM is no longer able to fund loans.”

  8. Based upon the information reported to the Office as set forth under Paragraphs 7 and 8, the Office requested, among other information, a current report of the Corporation’s open pipeline of mortgage loan applications. The report submitted by AHM and AHMA, and other correspondence from the Corporation, contained information that was consistent with the conditions reported in Paragraphs 6 and 7 regarding a significant volume of mortgage loans that had been closed by AHM, but that remained unfunded.

  9. On Thursday, August 2, 2007, AHM confirmed that it was still unable to fund loans and was attempting to secure funding, but those efforts had failed.

  10. Based upon the foregoing, the Office has maintained consistent communication with AHM, beginning on July 31, 2007 and continuing through the date of issuance of this Temporary Order, to monitor the actions taken by the Corporation to locate sources of funding for the mortgage loans that AHM and AHMA have failed to fund.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  1. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10, AHM and AHMA have failed to demonstrate the financial responsibility and fitness that would warrant the belief that the business will be operated fairly within the purposes of the Maine Consumer Credit Code, and are therefore in violation of 9-A MRSA 2-302(2). In addition, the failure to fund loans in which AHM and AHMA acted as the retail lender constitutes a violation of Maine’s Funded Settlement Act, 33 MRSA 521 et seq. Furthermore, these practices constitute a risk such that the public interest and protection of consumers requires a preliminary suspension of AHM and AHMA’s supervised lender licenses pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A, “Temporary suspension of license”.

  2. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10, the Director of the Office determines that:

A. AHM and AHMA have engaged in, or are about to engage in, acts or practices which warrant the belief that they are not operating fairly, nor demonstrating the required measures of financial responsibility and fitness required of licensed supervised lenders pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, 9-A MRSA 2-302; and

B. The public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing an Order of License Suspension to AHM and AHMA; and

C. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10, had the facts and conditions found therein existed at the time receipt of original mortgage lender license applications submitted by AHM and AHMA, the Office would have been warranted in refusing to issue such licenses. Further, the facts and conditions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 10 present sufficient grounds for the revocation of AHM and AHMA’s supervised lender licenses pursuant to 10 MRSA 8003, subsection 5(A-1)(2-A) and 9-A MRSA 2 303 A.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

After taking into consideration the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated herein, it is hereby:

  1. ORDERED that AHM, AHMA and any and all employees, independent contractors, or agents operating on behalf of AHM, AHMA and their successors or assigns, shall immediately cease engaging in the activities of a supervised lender, as defined under 9-A MRSA 1-301(39) relative to any residential property in Maine, not otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of this Order. Therefore, AHM and AHMA is ordered to immediately cease soliciting or accepting, either directly or indirectly, any residential mortgage loan applications from consumers for residential property located in Maine.

  2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AHM and AHMA shall immediately place any fees previously collected from Maine consumers relative to any pending mortgage loan applications in a separate escrow account maintained at a federally-insured bank.

  3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AHM and AHMA shall not pay or declare a dividend, nor otherwise authorize or execute any financial transaction, either singular or structured, in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00), except for wages and salaries paid to employees, contractors, officers, or other members of the Corporation’s management in the normal course of AHM and AHMA’s business, without the prior written approval of the Director. Upon the effective date of this Temporary Order, AHM and AHMA shall implement or revise its practices and procedures, as necessary, to ensure that the Corporation’s financial books and records are accurately maintained, in a manner illustrating compliance with the provisions of this Paragraph, and available for review by the Office’s examiners upon request.

  4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AHM and AHMA shall immediately place with one or more qualified lender(s), with no loss to applicants, the following: (a) the Corporation’s entire portfolio of Maine residential mortgage loans that were closed by AHM or AHMA, not funded pursuant to the third party agreement referenced in this Order, and remain unfunded as of the issuance of this Order; and (b) the Corporation’s entire pending application list of Maine residential mortgage loans. It being understood that “no loss to the applicant” shall mean that any loan that was closed by AHM or AHMA, as well as any application which was approved by the Corporation, shall be placed with a licensed lender willing to fund, or close, the mortgage loan under the same terms and conditions offered by AHM or AHMA. In the event that no such placement can be made, AHM and AHMA shall either independently fund the mortgage loan under such terms and conditions, or buy down the mortgage loan offered by the lender so that the applicant does not incur a loss as a result of such placement.

  5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in any instance in which AHM or AHMA failed to fund a loan closed by the Corporation and in which the consumer, prior to the effective date of this Temporary Order, obtained funding through an alternate lender, the Corporation shall reimburse each consumer the amount necessary to put the consumer in the same position as if AHM or AHMA had funded the mortgage loan under the terms and conditions agreed upon at the closing of the loan.

  6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AHM and AHMA shall submit to the Director a detailed record, prepared as of the date of submission, of all of the Corporation’s pending residential mortgage loan applications on property located in Maine, including all of the mortgage loans covered by the third party agreement referenced in this Order. The records to be produced shall include all information on file regarding the Corporation’s Maine mortgage loan portfolio, including but not necessarily limited to, the following:

A. Within seven (7) calendar days of this Order, AHM and AHMA shall submit to the Director all information on file as of the date of submission regarding the Corporation’s portfolio of mortgage loans that were closed by AHM and AHMA prior to the effective date of this Order, but remain as yet unfunded. Such information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: The names of all individuals from whom AHM and AHMA processed an application and closed the residential mortgage loan, but failed to fund; the applicants’ addresses and telephone numbers; the loan number; the amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted by the customer; the amount of each loan; the loan terms; the current funding status; the actual closing dates; the loan purpose (i.e., purchase or refinance); and identification of the applicable lender with whom each application will be placed. The record should include telephone numbers of contact persons at each lender who is familiar with the Corporation’s submitted loans;

B. As soon as possible, but not later than ten (10) calendar days after the effective date of this Temporary Order, AHM and AHMA shall submit to the Director (i) all information on file as of the date of submission regarding the Corporation’s pipeline of pending mortgage loan applications, including but not limited to, the following: The names of all individuals from whom AHM and AHMA has accepted an application for a residential mortgage loan; the applicants’ addresses and telephone numbers; the loan number; the amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted by the customer; rate lock status; the amount of each loan; application status (i.e., filed, submitted to lenders, cleared to close, etc.); loan terms, if approved; scheduled closing dates; the loan purpose (i.e., purchase or refinance); and identification of the applicable lender with whom each application will be placed. The record should include telephone numbers of contact persons at each lender who is familiar with the Corporation’s submitted loans; and (ii) AHM and AHMA’s balance sheets and year-to-date income statements, prepared as of the date of submission, and attested by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation. The balance sheets should indicate AHM’s and AHMA’s cash positions at each of its depository banks as well as AHM and AHMA’s bank account numbers; and

C. On the last business day of each subsequent week after the effective date of this Order, AHM and AHMA shall provide the Director with an updated, written status report of the mortgage loan applications identified under subparagraphs 6(A) and 6(B) above. The form of the status report shall follow the format of the initial submission under subparagraphs 6(A) and 6(B) and shall indicate the final disposition of the loan application and include the final terms under which each approved loan is closed. The reporting requirement shall continue until each of the approved applications is placed with a lender and funded, funded by AHM or AHMA, or withdrawn by the applicant(s).

  1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AHM and AHMA shall immediately secure all pending mortgage loan application files and, to the extent that any original documents must be forwarded to the relevant mortgage lender pursuant to this Order, a copy of such document, correspondence, or paper relating to the mortgage loan shall be retained in the Corporation’s books and records and shall be available to the Director, in their entirety, upon request.

  2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall become effective immediately and shall remain in effect unless fully or partially set aside, limited, or suspended by the Director.

  3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A, a hearing will be scheduled on this matter only upon receipt of a written request for such a hearing from AHM and AHMA within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this preliminary Order. If no hearing is requested within this fifteen (15) day period, this preliminary Order shall become remain in effect until it is modified or vacated by the Director.

It is so ordered.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 10th day of August 2007.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

First Magnus Financial Corporation of Tucson, Arizona  Findings of Fact and Temporary Order to Cease and Desist : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > First Magnus Financial Corporation of Tucson, Arizona — Findings of Fact and Temporary Order to Cease and Desist

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2007-004

 

In the Matter of:

First Magnus Financial Corporation of Tucson, Arizona
Findings of Fact and Temporary Order to Cease and Desist
 
 

The Director of the Office of Consumer Credit Regulation (Director) having determined that First Magnus Financial Corporation (FMFC), located at 603 North Wilmot Road ,Tucson, Arizona has engaged in, is engaging in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices constituting violations of the Maine Consumer Credit Code (Title 9-A MRSA) and 33 MRSA 521 – 527 (the Maine Funded Settlement Act), hereby issues the following Findings of Fact and Order of Preliminary License Suspension (“Temporary Order”) pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The Office is the Maine state governmental administrative agency authorized and empowered to administer and enforce the Code and Funded Settlement Act.

  2. FMFC is, and at all relevant times have been, a foreign corporation conducting business in Maine. FMFC’s headquarters is located in Tucson, Arizona.

  3. Supervised lenders are subject to 33 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), 521 et seq., the state’s Funded Settlement Act. This law requires that mortgage loans be funded “prior to noon of the first business day after expiration of the rescission period required under the federal Truth in Lending Act.”

  4. FMFC is licensed in Maine as Supervised Lender, License No. SLM5258, with 6 licensed branch offices around the country.

  5. Beginning on or about Thursday, August 16, 2007, the Office received information from licensed Maine mortgage lenders and brokers indicating that FMFC had, or was about to, fail to timely disburse loan proceeds in several mortgage loan transactions involving residential property in Maine.

  6. On August 16, 2007, FMFC indicated that it was no longer able to fund loans.

  7. Based upon the information reported to the Office as set forth under Paragraphs 5 and 6, the Office requested, among other information, a current report of the Corporation’s open pipeline of mortgage loan applications. The report submitted by FMFC contained information that was consistent with the conditions reported in Paragraphs 5 and 6 regarding a significant volume of mortgage loans that had been closed by FMFC, but that remained unfunded.

  8. Based upon the foregoing, the Office has maintained consistent communication with FMFC, beginning on August 16, 2007 and continuing through the date of issuance of this Temporary Order, to monitor the actions taken by the Corporation to locate sources of funding for the mortgage loans that FMFC has failed to fund.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  1. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 8, FMFC has failed to demonstrate the financial responsibility and fitness that would warrant the belief that the business will be operated fairly within the purposes of the Maine Consumer Credit Code, and is therefore in violation of 9-A MRSA 2-302(2). In addition, the failure to fund loans in which FMFC acted as the retail lender constitutes a violation of Maine’s Funded Settlement Act, 33 MRSA 521 et seq. Furthermore, these practices constitute a risk such that the public interest and protection of consumers requires a preliminary suspension of FMFC’s supervised lender licenses pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A, “Temporary suspension of license”.

  2. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 8, the Director of the Office determines that:

A. FMFC has engaged in, or is about to engage in, acts or practices that warrant the belief that the company is not operating fairly, nor demonstrating the required measures of financial responsibility and fitness required of licensed supervised lenders pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, 9-A MRSA 2-302;

B. The public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing an Order of License Suspension to FMFC; and

C. Based upon the information contained in Paragraphs 1 through 8, had the facts and conditions found therein existed at the time receipt of original mortgage lender license applications submitted by FMFC, the Office would have been warranted in refusing to issue such licenses. Further, the facts and conditions set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 8 present sufficient grounds for the revocation of FMFC’s supervised lender licenses pursuant to 10 MRSA 8003, subsection 5(A-1)(2-A) and 9-A MRSA 2 303 A.

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

After taking into consideration the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated herein, it is hereby:

  1. ORDERED that FMFC and any and all employees, independent contractors, or agents operating on behalf of FMFC and their successors or assigns, shall immediately cease engaging in the activities of a supervised lender, as defined under 9-A MRSA 1-301(39) relative to any residential property in Maine, not otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of this Order. Therefore, FMFC is ordered to immediately cease soliciting or accepting, either directly or indirectly, any residential mortgage loan applications from consumers for residential property located in Maine.

  2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FMFC shall immediately place any fees previously collected from Maine consumers relative to any pending mortgage loan applications in a separate escrow account maintained at a federally-insured bank.

  3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FMFC shall not pay or declare a dividend, nor otherwise authorize or execute any financial transaction, either singular or structured, in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00), except for wages and salaries paid to employees, contractors, officers, or other members of the Corporation’s management in the normal course of FMFC’s business, without the prior written approval of the Director. Upon the effective date of this Temporary Order, FMFC shall implement or revise its practices and procedures, as necessary; to ensure that the Corporation’s financial books and records are accurately maintained, in a manner illustrating compliance with the provisions of this Paragraph, and available for review by the Office’s examiners upon request.

  4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FMFC shall immediately place with one or more qualified lender(s), with no loss to applicants, the following: (a) the Corporation’s entire portfolio of Maine residential mortgage loans that were closed by FMFC, not funded pursuant to the third party agreement referenced in this Order, and remain unfunded as of the issuance of this Order; and (b) the Corporation’s entire pending application list of Maine residential mortgage loans. It being understood that “no loss to the applicant” shall mean that any loan that was closed by FMFC, as well as any application which was approved by the Corporation, shall be placed with a licensed lender willing to fund, or close, the mortgage loan under the same terms and conditions offered by FMFC. In the event that no such placement can be made, FMFC shall either independently fund the mortgage loan under such terms and conditions, or buy down the mortgage loan offered by the lender so that the applicant does not incur a loss as a result of such placement.

  5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in any instance in which FMFC failed to fund a loan closed by the Corporation and in which the consumer, prior to the effective date of this Temporary Order, obtained funding through an alternate lender, the Corporation shall reimburse each consumer the amount necessary to put the consumer in the same position as if FMFC had funded the mortgage loan under the terms and conditions agreed upon at the closing of the loan.

  6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FMFC shall submit to the Director a detailed record, prepared as of the date of submission, of all of the Corporation’s pending residential mortgage loan applications on property located in Maine, including all of the mortgage loans covered by the third party agreement referenced in this Order. The records to be produced shall include all information on file regarding the Corporation’s Maine mortgage loan portfolio, including but not necessarily limited to, the following:

A. Within seven (7) calendar days of this Order, FMFC shall submit to the Director all information on file as of the date of submission regarding the Corporation’s portfolio of mortgage loans that were closed by FMFC prior to the effective date of this Order, but remain as yet unfunded. Such information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: The names of all individuals from whom FMFC processed an application and closed the residential mortgage loan, but failed to fund; the applicants’ addresses and telephone numbers; the loan number; the amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted by the customer; the amount of each loan; the loan terms; the current funding status; the actual closing dates; the loan purpose (i.e., purchase or refinance); and identification of the applicable lender with whom each application will be placed. The record should include telephone numbers of contact persons at each lender who is familiar with the Corporation’s submitted loans;

B. As soon as possible, but not later than ten (10) calendar days after the effective date of this Temporary Order, FMFC shall submit to the Director (i) all information on file as of the date of submission regarding the Corporation’s pipeline of pending mortgage loan applications, including but not limited to, the following: The names of all individuals from whom FMFC has accepted an application for a residential mortgage loan; the applicants’ addresses and telephone numbers; the loan number; the amount of all prepaid loan fees submitted by the customer; rate lock status; the amount of each loan; application status (i.e., filed, submitted to lenders, cleared to close, etc.); loan terms, if approved; scheduled closing dates; the loan purpose (i.e., purchase or refinance); and identification of the applicable lender with whom each application will be placed. The record should include telephone numbers of contact persons at each lender who is familiar with the Corporation’s submitted loans; and (ii) FMFC’s balance sheets and year-to-date income statements, prepared as of the date of submission, and attested by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation. The balance sheets must indicate FMFC’s cash positions at each of its depository banks as well as FMFC’s bank account numbers; and

C. On the last business day of each subsequent week after the effective date of this Order, FMFC shall provide the Director with an updated, written status report of the mortgage loan applications identified under subparagraphs 6(A) and 6(B) above. The form of the status report shall follow the format of the initial submission under subparagraphs 6(A) and 6(B) and shall indicate the final disposition of the loan application and include the final terms under which each approved loan is closed. The reporting requirement shall continue until each of the approved applications is placed with a lender and funded, funded by FMFC, or withdrawn by the applicant(s).

  1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FMFC shall immediately secure all pending mortgage loan application files and, to the extent that any original documents must be forwarded to the relevant mortgage lender pursuant to this Order, a copy of such document, correspondence, or paper relating to the mortgage loan shall be retained in the Corporation’s books and records and shall be available to the Director, in their entirety, upon request.

  2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall become effective immediately and shall remain in effect unless fully or partially set aside, limited, or suspended by the Director.

  3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 9-A MRSA 2-303-A, a hearing will be scheduled on this matter only upon receipt of a written request for such a hearing from FMFC within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this preliminary Order. If no hearing is requested within this fifteen (15) day period, this preliminary Order shall become remain in effect until it is modified or vacated by the Director.

It is so ordered.

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 23rd day of August 2007.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc  Settlement Agreement and Consent Order : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc — Settlement Agreement and Consent Order

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2007-005

 

In the Matter of:

Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc
Settlement Agreement and Consent Order
 
 

Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. Settlement Agreement and Consent Order

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Pay-Loan-Yes.com Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Pay-Loan-Yes.com —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Pay-Loan-Yes.com
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

Payday-Loan-Yes.Com; P.O. Box 571992; Murray, UT 84157

WHEREAS PAY-LOAN-YES.COM, a payday lender located in Murray, Utah was notified by certified letter dated May 17, 2007 and a second letter dated June 21, 2007, that it was allegedly engaging in activities requiring a license as a supervised lender pursuant to 9-A Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Article II, 2-301 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letters notified Pay-Loan-Yes.Com that it must obtain a license before engaging in making loans to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS no response to the May 17 or June 21 letters has been received; and

WHEREAS the name of Pay-Loan-Yes.Com appears on the “moneycafe.com” website as of April 9, 2008, under the “Maine Personal Loans” link; and

WHEREAS unlicensed activity is subject to administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to 9-A M.R.S.A. 5-201; and 5-301;

NOW THEREFORE, Pay-Loan-Yes.Com is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to licensing in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as a license is granted by the Administrator.

Pay-Loan-Yes.Com is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all interest and fees collected from Maine consumers.

Pay-Loan-Yes.Com may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 10th day of April, 2008.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
GECC (a.k.a. Cash Direct Express Government Employees Credit Center) Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > GECC (a.k.a. Cash Direct Express Government Employees Credit Center) —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

GECC (a.k.a. Cash Direct Express Government Employees Credit Center)
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS GECC, a payday lender located in Newark, Delaware, was notified by letter dated March 21, 2008, that it allegedly was making loans to a Maine consumer, thus engaging, pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, in activity requiring a license as a supervised lender, 9-A M.R.S.A. 2-301 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified GECC that it must obtain a license before engaging in making loans to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS a response was received by the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection the by letter of April 4, 2008, and telephone call of April 14, 2008; and

WHEREAS the State of Maine asserts that unlicensed activity is subject to administrative, civil, and/or criminal penalties pursuant to 9-A M.R.S.A. 5-201 and 5-301; and

WHEREAS GECC, without admitting fault or liability, has agreed not to make loans henceforth in the State of Maine;

NOW THEREFORE, GECC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to licensing in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as a license is granted by the administrator; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that GECC shall forthwith pay a Buckfield, Maine, consumer the sum of $875 by check payable to the consumer, to be sent to the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection.

GECC may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request to writing to the administrator, or may seek judicial review of this order pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedures Act, 5. M.R.S.A. 11001-11008.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 1st day of May, 2008.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Downeast Mortgage Corporation SLM2435, SLB5784, SLB5785, SLB7793, SLB8177, SLB8405, SLB9145, SLB9259, SLB7839, SLB8630, SLB9144, SLB5340, SLB5341  Order Terminating Licenses for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Downeast Mortgage Corporation SLM2435, SLB5784, SLB5785, SLB7793, SLB8177, SLB8405, SLB9145, SLB9259, SLB7839, SLB8630, SLB9144, SLB5340, SLB5341 — Order Terminating Licenses for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2008-BND

 

In Re:

Downeast Mortgage Corporation SLM2435, SLB5784, SLB5785, SLB7793, SLB8177, SLB8405, SLB9145, SLB9259, SLB7839, SLB8630, SLB9144, SLB5340, SLB5341
Order Terminating Licenses for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage
 
 

1) On March 31, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from NGM Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of April 25, 2008.

2) On April 3, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond within 21 days of that letter.

3) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of April 26, 2008, the Bureau had not received the lender’s replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective April 26, 2008.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 29th day of May, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
1st Atlas Mortgage & Investment Corp.  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > 1st Atlas Mortgage & Investment Corp. — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2008-BND

 

In Re:

1st Atlas Mortgage & Investment Corp.
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage
 
 

1) On May 27, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from Platte River Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of June 24, 2008.

2) On June 2, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond by June 22, 2008.

3) On June 23rd and June 25th, 2008, the Bureau left two telephone messages at the above-named supervised lender requesting a return call. As of June 26, 2008, the Bureau has not received a return call.

4) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of June 26, 2008, the Bureau had not received the lender’s replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective June 24, 2008.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 26th day of June, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Vanguard M&T Inc. License # SLM9033 & SLB9035  Order Terminating Licenses for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Vanguard M&T Inc. License # SLM9033 & SLB9035 — Order Terminating Licenses for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # Docket No. 2008-BND

 

In Re:

Vanguard M&T Inc. License # SLM9033 & SLB9035
Order Terminating Licenses for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage
 
 

1) On May 27, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from The Hartford Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of July 2, 2008.

2) On June 2, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond by June 30, 2008.

3) On July 1, 2008, Vanguard informed the Bureau that it would be surrendering its licenses.

4) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of July 10, 2008, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate Vanguards license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective July 3, 2008.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 3rd day of July, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Prime Mortgage Financing, Inc. SLM6159, SLD6160  Order Terminating License for Failure to Timely Renew : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Prime Mortgage Financing, Inc. SLM6159, SLD6160 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Timely Renew

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2008-TERM

 

In Re:

Prime Mortgage Financing, Inc. SLM6159, SLD6160
Order Terminating License for Failure to Timely Renew
 
 

1) On December 1, 2007, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) mailed a Supervised Lender license renewal form to the above-named lender, to the address provided by the lender and contained in the Bureau’s files.

2) That renewal form indicated that the Bureau must receive the completed renewal form by January 31, 2008.

3) On February 29, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a second renewal form stamped “Final notice,” specifically notifying the lender that its renewal application had not been received in a timely manner by the Bureau. This notice provided the above named lender a due of March 19, 2008 to submit its renewal to avoid a penalty of $5 per day.

4) As of July 18, 2008, the Bureau had not received the lender’s completed license renewal application.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective January 31, 2008.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 18th day of July, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Investor Funding, Co. Ltd.  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Investor Funding, Co. Ltd. — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Investor Funding, Co. Ltd.
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the parties, and stipulate to the following facts:

  1. The Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection is responsible for enforcing the Maine Consumer Credit Code Article X, which regulates the practices of loan brokers conducting business in the state of Maine.

  2. Any person who, with respect to the extension of consumer credit by others, provides or offers to provide, in return for separate payment of money or other valuable consideration, any of the following services: (1) improving a consumer’s credit record, history or rating; (2) arranging for or obtaining an extension of credit for a consumer; or providing advice or assistance to a consumer with respect to (1) or (2) must licensed pursuant to Article X, 9-A MRSA 10-101 et seq.

  3. Investor Funding Co. is not licensed pursuant to Article X, 9-A MRSA 10-101 et seq. Investor Funding Co. and its president, Mark Braun, have solicited Maine consumers via a mailed solicitation.

  4. The solicitation received by a Maine consumer is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

  5. Investor Funding Co. and its president, Mark Braun were notified of this violation in May 2008. Mr. Braun has assured the Bureau that Investor Funding Co. does not intend and will no longer solicit applications from Maine consumers.

NOW THERFORE, the parties agree as follows:

  1. Investor Funding Co. and its president, Mark Braun will immediately discontinue the practice of mailing application forms to Maine consumers, and will immediately discontinue accepting applications from Maine consumers.

  2. All applications received by Investor Funding Co. from Maine consumers will be destroyed immediately upon receipt by Investor Funding Co. Said document control practice to take effect upon the execution of this agreement.

  3. All payments and fees received from Maine consumers will be returned to said consumers with a letter of explanation stating that Investor Funding, Co. is not licensed to conduct business with Maine consumers.

  4. Investor Funding Co. and its president, Mark Braun, assure the Bureau that the solicitation of applications from Maine consumers has ceased and the practice discontinued. All future solicitations of Maine consumers, without the license prescribed in Article X, will be subject to the remedies and penalties allowed for pursuant to Article X, 9-A MRSA 10-101 et seq.

  5. Investor Funding, Co. will submit along with this Assurance of Discontinuance, a check for $50.00, payable to “Treasurer, State of Maine,” for payment of investigative costs.

Date: July 23, 2008 /s/David R. Stolt
David R. Stolt, Chief Field Investigator
Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection
 
Date: July 12, 2008 /s/Mark Braun
Mark Braun, President
Investor Funding Co. Ltd

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

Ancora Debt Solution, LLC  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Ancora Debt Solution, LLC — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Ancora Debt Solution, LLC
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the parties, and stipulate to the following facts:

  1. The Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection is responsible for enforcing the Maine Debt Management Service Provider Act, 32 MRSA 6171 et seq., which regulates the practices of debt management service providers conducting business in the state of Maine.

  2. Maine’s debt management service statute (32 MRSA 6171 et seq.), requires an organization, wherever located, desiring to act as a debt management service provider with respect to a consumer in the State of Maine, shall apply to the administrator for registration in accordance with Chapter 80-A. Debt management services include acting or offering to act as an intermediary between a consumer and one or more creditors of the consumer for the purpose of adjusting, settling, discharging, reaching a compromise on or otherwise altering the terms of payment of the consumer’s obligation.

  3. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC is not registered with the State of Maine to provide debt management services pursuant to 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.

  4. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC has solicited and contracted with Maine consumers to provide services covered by Maine’s statute.

  5. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC were notified of this violation in March 2008. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC has assured the Bureau that they do not intend and will no longer solicit and/or accept applications from Maine consumers.

NOW THERFORE, the parties agree as follows:

  1. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC and its chief executive officer, Silvana Dodson will immediately discontinue offering debt management services to Maine consumers until the company has first registered with the State of Maine as a debt management service provider.

  2. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC will cease and desist from entering into contractual agreements with Maine consumers to provide debt management services.

  3. All payments and fees received from Maine consumers will be returned to said consumers with a letter of explanation stating that Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC is not licensed to conduct business with Maine consumers.

  4. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC, and its chief executive officer, Silvana Dodson, assure the Bureau that there are currently no contractual agreements with any Maine consumers.

  5. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC acknowledges that additional activity with respect to Maine consumers, without the prescribed registration, will be subject to the remedies and penalties allowed for pursuant to 32 MRSA 6181.

  6. Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC will submit along with this Assurance of Discontinuance, a check in the amount of $250.00, payable to “Treasurer, State of Maine,” for payment of compliance examination costs pursuant to 32 MRSA section 6178(3).

Date: July 23, 2008 /s/David R. Stolt
David R. Stolt, Chief Field Investigator
Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection
 
Date: July 17, 2008 /s/Silvana Dobson
Silvana Dobson, CEO
Ancora Debt Solutions, LLC

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

Financial Freedom Resources Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Financial Freedom Resources —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Financial Freedom Resources
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS FINANCIAL FREEDOM RESOURCES, a debt management services company located in Clearwater, Florida was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated July 6, 2007, May 12, 2008, and by certified letter dated June 23, 2008, that the company was engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letters notified Financial Freedom Resources that it must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS no response to the July 6, 2007, May 12, 2008, and June 23, 2008 letters has been received by the Bureau; and

WHEREAS Financial Freedom Resources contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from that consumer; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Financial Freedom Resources is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Financial Freedom Resources is further ORDERED to refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order.

Financial Freedom Resources is further ORDERED to pay $750 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order in reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS: Financial Freedom Resources may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this Order within 30 days of the date of this Order by making that request in writing to the Administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

Dated at Gardiner, Maine this 29th day of July, 2008.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 29th day of July, 2008.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Ryan Witmer  Revocation of loan officer registration LO#19104 : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Ryan Witmer — Revocation of loan officer registration LO#19104

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Ryan Witmer
Revocation of loan officer registration LO#19104
 
 

Ryan Witmer
50 Pond Road
Eddington, ME 04428

Sent via Regular and Registered Mail

Re: Revocation of loan officer registration, LO#19104

Dear Mr. Witmer:

Our office is responsible for administering the mortgage loan officer registration program in the State of Maine.

The BCCP was notified by the Penobscot District Attorneys office and your employer, Dedicated Mortgage Associates, LLC that you were involved in a domestic dispute that resulted in charges of aggravated attempted murder, elevated aggravated assault, aggravated assault, burglary and assault on a police officer.

A loan officer qualifies for registration only if he or she exhibits the appropriate character and fitness to warrant belief that they will perform their duties honestly and fairly within the purposes of Maine law.

In addition, all loan officers must be affiliated with a licensed lender or loan broker. Your former employer has notified us that your employment at that business has been terminated.

In our opinion, these allegations disqualify you from eligibility for employment as a mortgage loan officer. Our computer system has been programmed to prevent renewal of your registration.

Under the Maine Consumer Credit Code, you have the right to request a hearing on this refusal to renew your registration. If you notify our office in writing within 30 days of your receipt of this correspondence, then within 15 days after receipt of your written request for a hearing, this matter will be scheduled for administrative hearing.

Sincerely,

Julie F. Haefele,
Principal Examiner, for
William N. Lund, Superintendent

cc: Dedicated Mortgage Associates, LLC
1 Crosswoods Path Blvd, Suite 2A
Merrimack, NH 03054

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 9th day of July, 2008.

 

 

Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan A.K.A. Frederick Law Group Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan A.K.A. Frederick Law Group —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan A.K.A. Frederick Law Group
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group, debt management services companies located in Frederick, Maryland and Montgomery Village, Maryland respectively, were notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letters dated April 17, 2008 and July 28, 2008 that the companies are engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letters notified the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group are not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group have contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees after notification from the Bureau that to do so violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group have failed to refund fees collected from at least two (2) Maine consumers or to register as debt management services companies; and

WHEREAS THE Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group are hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

The Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group are further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

The Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group are further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order. The list must include the full name and address of each consumer, a description of the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group, the total amount of all payments made by the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group to the consumer’s creditors, and the amount of any refund paid by the Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group to the consumer.

The Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group are further ORDERED to pay $2,500 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

The Law Offices of Richard A. Brennan a/k/a Frederick Law Group may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 6th day of August, 2008.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Geneva-Roth a/k/a Loanpoint USA  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Geneva-Roth a/k/a Loanpoint USA — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Geneva-Roth a/k/a Loanpoint USA
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the parties and state as follows:

  1. The State of Maine BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION administers the Maine Consumer Credit Code, including requirements for the licensing of supervised lenders.

  2. Respondent Geneva-Roth, a/k/a Loanpoint is not licensed in the State of Maine.

  3. In June 2007 a consumer from Naples, Maine, borrowed $300 in a payday loan from Respondent.

  4. On several dates in July and August 2007, Respondent debited the consumer’s account for a total amount of $529, at which point the consumer notified Respondent that it was not authorized to withdraw any more funds from her bank account.

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following resolution:

  1. Respondent agrees to no longer make loans in the State of Maine, whether styled as payday loans or otherwise, unless and until it has been licensed to make loans in the State of Maine.

  2. Respondent understands that future lending activity with respect to Maine consumers will cause Respondent to be subject to reimbursement, penalties and costs.

Date: August 29, 2008 /s/ 
Geneva-Roth a/k/a Loanpoint USA
 
Date: September 2, 2008 /s/William N. Lund
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 2 day of September, 2008.

 

 

Excel Aquisitions, LLC Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Excel Aquisitions, LLC —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Excel Aquisitions, LLC
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS EXCEL ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a debt collector whose mailing address is P.O. Box 1965; North Falmouth, MA 02556 or 4 Barlows Landing Road, Suite 18; Pocasset, MA 02559 was notified by letter from the State of Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection dated July 21, 2008, that it was allegedly engaging in activities requiring a license as a debt collector pursuant to Title 32, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 109-A (11031 and 11014); and

WHEREAS the letter notified Excel Acquisitions, LLC that it must obtain a license before collecting debts incurred in Maine with Maine residents and providing proof of such debts owed; and

WHEREAS no response to the July 21 letter has been received by the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection; and

WHEREAS unlicensed activity is subject to administrative, civil and/or criminal penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 11040, 11051, 11053 and 11054;

NOW THEREFORE, Excel Acquisitions, LLC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to licensing in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as a license is granted by the Administrator. Excel Acquisitions, LLC is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all amounts collected from Maine consumers, including interest and fees.

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING/REVIEW RIGHTS: Excel Acquisitions, LLC may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order r by making that request within 30 days of the date of this order in writing to the administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 3rd day of September, 2008.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Pacific Wholesale Mortgage, Inc. SLM 9668  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Pacific Wholesale Mortgage, Inc. SLM 9668 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2008-BND

 

In Re:

Pacific Wholesale Mortgage, Inc. SLM 9668
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On May 27, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from Fidelity Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of August 27, 2008.

2) On June 2, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond by August 25, 2008.

3) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of September 19, 2008, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate Pacific Wholesale Mortgage, Inc.’s license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective August 28, 2008.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22nd day of September, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Fairfield Mortgage LLC. SLM8110  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Fairfield Mortgage LLC. SLM8110 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2008-BND

 

In Re:

Fairfield Mortgage LLC. SLM8110
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On August 4, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from The Hartford Fire Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of September 1, 2008.

2) On August 6, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond by August 30, 2008.

3) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of September 19, 2008, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate Fairfield Mortgage LLC’s license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective September 2, 2008.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22nd day of September, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Sound Investment Solutions Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Sound Investment Solutions —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Sound Investment Solutions
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS SOUND INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, a debt management services company located in Longwood, Florida and Pottsboro, Texas was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by certified letter dated June 18, 2008 that the company was engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Sound Investment Solutions that it must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS no response to the June 18, 2008 letter has been received by the Bureau; and

WHEREAS Sound Investment Solutions contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from that consumer; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Sound Investment Solutions is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Sound Investment Solutions is further ORDERED to refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order.

Sound Investment Solutions is further ORDERED to pay $500 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order in reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS: Sound Investment Solutions may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this Order within 30 days of the date of this Order by making that request in writing to the Administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 30th day of July, 2008.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
A & B Mortgage Company SLM6034  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > A & B Mortgage Company SLM6034 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2008-BND

 

In Re:

A & B Mortgage Company SLM6034
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond Coverage
 
 

1) On August 4, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from North American Speciality Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of September 4, 2008.

2) On August 6, 2008, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond by September 2, 2008.

3) As of September 29, 2008, the Bureau has not been able to contact A & B Mortgage Company at the telephone numbers provided on its license application.

4) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of September 29, 2008, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate Vanguards license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective September 4, 2008.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 29th day of September, 2008.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Julie F. Haefele, Principal Examiner
Peachtree Settlement Funding, and Peachtree Pre-Settlement Funding, LLC  Assurance and Memorandum of Understanding : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Peachtree Settlement Funding, and Peachtree Pre-Settlement Funding, LLC — Assurance and Memorandum of Understanding

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Peachtree Settlement Funding, and Peachtree Pre-Settlement Funding, LLC
Assurance and Memorandum of Understanding
 
 

WHEREAS:

  1. The Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit (the "Bureau") Administers 9-A M.R.S.A., article XII the "Maine Consumer Credit Code – Litigation Funding Practices" (the "Litigation Funding Statute");

  2. This law requires registration of any company wherever located, that acts as a "litigation funding provider" by providing "legal funding" to Maine residents; see 9-A M.R.S.A. 12-102;

  3. The website of Peachtree Settlement Funding of Norcross, Georgia and Boynton Beach, Florida indicates that Peachtree or a subsidiary, Peachtree Pre- Settlement Funding, LLC, ("Peachtree") "provides cash advances to people with personal injury claims;"

  4. Peachtree's website further identifies the states in which it provides "legal funding" and Maine is not listed as such a state;

  5. When notified of the law's requirements, Peachtree's staff attorney in its Office of General Counsel responded by declining to register and by asserting that legal funding has never been and is not now offered to any residents of Maine and would not be offered in the future to residents of Maine unless and until such time in the future as it had complied with the law.

NOW, THEREFORE:

  1. Peachtree confirms that it has been notified of the requirements of the Litigation Funding Statute; and

  2. Peachtree acknowledges that it has been notified that providing pre-settlement funding to Maine consumers without having first registered may subject the companies to remedies including but not limited to investigation, administrative action and civil action pursuant to 9-A MRSA, Article VII, incorporated into Article 12 through 9-A M.R.S.A. 12-107(1);

  3. The Bureau hereby informs Peachtree and acknowledges for itself that any action taken by the Bureau will be taken pursuant to the statutes cited above and after completion of any administrative requirements, notices to Peachtree and all other actions required by the statutes and regulations to be taken by the Bureau.

Date: October 24, 2008 /s/Sandra Lilly, Staff Attorney
Sandra Lilly, Staff Attorney
Peachtree Settlement Funding
 
Date: October 24, 2008 /s/William N. Lund
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

Eric Murphy Jr. and Murphy Home Loans  Findings and Order : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Eric Murphy Jr. and Murphy Home Loans — Findings and Order

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Eric Murphy Jr. and Murphy Home Loans
Findings and Order
 
 

INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

This administrative matter was heard on March 30, 2009, to determine whether grounds exist for the Superintendent of the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection to impose sanctions against Respondents Eric S. Murphy, Jr. of Ellsworth (as a licensed loan broker and as a registered loan officer of that loan brokerage) or Murphy Home Loans (as the d/b/a name for Eric S. Murphy, Jr., the licensed loan broker) for conduct undertaken in the State of Maine. Identical standards of “financial responsibility, character and fitness . . . warranting a belief that the business will be operated honestly and fairly” apply both to the individual registered loan officer and the licensed loan brokerage; accordingly, in this order I generally refer simply to Eric S. Murphy, Jr. himself as “Respondent.” Bureau Staff maintains that Respondent, as a loan broker, violated 9-A M.R.S. 10-201 (requiring financial responsibility, character, and fitness); 10-301 (requiring establishment of an escrow account for consumers’ fees separate from operating accounts pending completion of services); and 10-303-A (requiring good faith and fair dealing, the safeguarding and accounting of money borrowed, and reasonable skill, care, and diligence).

Respondent had been given notice of the place, date, and time of the hearing but did not appear. Accordingly, the testimony and documentary evidence offered by the Staff is unrebutted. I found each witness’ testimony to be credible. Staff called a total of ten witnesses, whose testimony is summarized below, as each witness’ dealings with Respondents were different from each other, although at least eight of the ten are tied by the common thread that Respondent owes money to each.

In addition, Staff offered 50 documentary exhibits, and those documents were admitted into evidence and became part of the record of this case. Those relevant to establishing the background for the witnesses’ sworn verbal testimony include the following: Exhibits 6 and 7 establish that Respondent was licensed as a loan broker with the Bureau from August 2004 until terminated by the licensee in October 2008, and that Respondent was the company’s owner and designated agent. Exhibit 4 is a letter, sent as an attachment to an e-mail of March 16, 2009, addressed to Staff Counsel by which Respondent purports to surrender his license as a loan broker. Exhibit 24, a complaint filed with the Bureau by Elizabeth and Tony Belch and about which there was no testimony, may be officially noticed as it is a record of the Bureau.

TESTIMONY

Steve Veilleux

Mr. Veilleux has been the President of Rhoades Building Products, Inc., since 2004. He has known Respondent as a provider of construction financing for several projects since late 2006 or early 2007. Rhoades would send a credit application to Respondent, who would advise Rhoades of the amount of a loan secured by a consumer. Rhoades would then provide building materials to the contractor who borrowed money from Respondent. Respondent was responsible for paying Rhoades for supplies.

Rhoades began to experience delays in payments from Respondent in early 2007. Respondent explained the delays by telling Veilleux that contractors were not good with paperwork and that Rhoades should start sending bills directly to him, which Rhoades did. This did not solve the problem of delayed payments, despite Veilleux’s talking with Respondent many times. Respondent offered various explanations for the delays, all of which related to his having multiple projects going on, and the other projects had not closed so that he was unable to distribute funds that he claimed would come to him when the owners applied for permanent financing.

One project for which Rhoades provided materials was a “spec” house (a house built on speculation) built by Duane Shimmel in Surry (hereinafter the “Shimmel House”). Rhoades was not paid on a timely basis over a six to seven month period. Respondent told Veilleux that he was getting additional funding from investors, but he would not identify those investors. The construction work was not completed because neither Respondent, as the broker, nor his father (Eric S. Murphy, Sr.), as investor, continued to fund the construction. Among other things, the house has no furnace, and it recently had about two feet of standing water in the basement. The witness testified that Respondent’s father has been unwilling to divest himself of his interest in the property without first receiving payment of a sum of money. Rhoades was interested in buying the Shimmel house and finishing it for sale. Rhoades Building Products placed a lien on the property because its accounts with Respondent remained unpaid. Rhoades is still owed $97,000 by Respondent on the Shimmel house, including costs and attorneys fees.

Tony and Elizabeth Belch, long-standing customers of Rhoades, invested in the Shimmel house with Respondent. Respondent told Veilleux he was unable to pay his lumber bill on the Shimmel house because of cost overruns on another project, being built by Dale Achorn (hereinafter the Achorn house), and did not have funds to complete both projects, but had to complete the Achorn house and convert it to permanent financing in order to free up capital for the Shimmel house. Veilleux, at a negotiation over the ownership and disposition of the house, stated that Respondent had diverted funds from this account to complete work on Achorn account for which Respondent had provided financing and Rhoades provided materials. This prompted the Belches to demand an accounting of the money, which Respondent’s father did not have.

On his credit application to Rhoades Building Supply, Respondent indicated that he would be able to pay his bills on the Achorn project, but he was unable to do so after one-half to three-quarters of the work was done. Veilleux spoke with Respondent at least a dozen times about this. Respondent said Achorn had run his costs way over, and Respondent would be taking funds from other escrow accounts to finish funding. Rhoades delivered some $100,000 worth of building material for the Achorn project, and was paid $50,000 to $55,000 by Respondent. Eventually, but only after filing suit in April 2008 (Exhibit 11), Rhoades was paid in full on the Achorn account. And this occurred only after Dale Achorn notified Rhoades that the property had been sold.

Veilleux wondered how the property had sold because Rhoades had placed a lien against the property. Respondent had presented Veilleux with a waiver of the lien because he said he was applying for a bridge loan that would pay off the Achorn account, thus allowing him to complete the Shimmel house. Veilleux refused to sign the lien waiver; Rhoades wanted to maintain a security interest in the property. After Rhoades learned of the sale of the Achorn property, Respondent’s attorney delivered to Rhoades a lien release (Exhibit 12) that purported to have Veilleux’s signature on it. The signature is not Veilleux’s. Rhoades brought this to the attention of Respondent’s attorney. Soon thereafter, Respondent’s father paid to Rhoades the amount claimed in the civil suit, approximately $44,000.

Respondent had sent Veilleux two documents in an effort to convince him to sign the lien waiver. Veilleux described these as enticements because Respondent said he wanted Rhoades to have a guarantee that the building products company would be paid if Veilleux signed the lien waiver. The first (Exhibit 8) was a letter showing that H. C. Lending of Bangor had agreed to take a 30-year mortgage on the Shimmel property once it was completed. This was sent to Veilleux a week before the purported lien waiver was signed. The second (Exhibit 9) was a letter, also from H. C. Lending, offering to pay for the materials delivered to the both the Shimmel and Achorn properties, totaling some $125,000, when closing on the Achorn property occurred. Respondent, but not H. C. Lending, said there would be a definite closing date. This came to Veilleux the day after the purported lien waiver (Exhibit 12) was signed. Respondent has not admitted that he signed Veilleux’s name of the purported lien waiver.

Tina Limeburner

Limeburner knows Respondent through having worked at Murphy Home Loans and at Breezy Maples Farm, a venture of Respondent’s with Cynthia Carroll. Limeburner and her husband also used Respondent as a loan broker during the purchase of their modular home in Sargentville. Respondent charged the Limeburners 10 per cent interest and an origination fee of $7500 on a loan of $150,000. The well for their residence was drilled by Hanscom Well, whom Respondent did not pay the $5,600 bill despite being contractually bound to do so. Respondent told Limeburner to bring him the bills, but over a period of several months he never looked at them and repeatedly told Limeburner that he’d not had time to review them. In addition, when the Limeburners refinanced their residence, Respondent told the new lender that the Limeburners owed more than they did on their first loan, and after the refinancing loan went through there was a discrepancy in the numbers, never explained by Respondent, concerning how much Respondent received and how much the Limeburners owed. Limeburner testified that she felt they’d been double-billed for the plumbing and heating work on their house.

These matters resulted in Limeburner filing a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection in September 2008 (Exhibit 13). She testified that Respondent’s response to the Bureau (Exhibit 14) contains multiple untruths: the Limeburners did not sign loan documents on August 30, 2006; Limeburner’s complaint to the Bureau was not the first time Respondent heard of money due Hanscom Well; there previously had been communications among the parties relating to this debt; Respondent previously had received a bill or invoice from Hanscom Well; and the Limeburners did not owe Respondent $2,349 as he asserted; to the contrary, Limeburner contends Respondent owes them money. Limeburner also believes—but cannot say for certain due to Respondent’s not providing an accounting—that total disbursements did not amount to $198,803.58 on her and her husband’s construction loan. Further, when Limeburner left their house closing material with Respondent it was for the purpose of going over discrepancies, not to determine if closing costs were appropriate.

Limeburner left Respondent’s employ in November 2007, not having been fully paid for her work. At the time eight or nine of her weekly paychecks had been delivered, while four, totaling some $1,500, remain undelivered. Respondent told Limeburner that he was having financial difficulties, and the choice was either to pay her wages or to feed the horses at the farm.

Merritt F. Williams, Jr.

In accordance with a prehearing order, Mr. Williams testified by telephone from his winter residence in Florida, having been sworn in as were all witnesses. He testified that he considers Respondent’s parents to be dear friends and holds them in the highest regard. He met Respondent six years ago when he moved to Maine, and in 2007, when looking for an investment opportunity, entered a business relationship with Respondent. Williams met with Respondent, who explained that he provided construction loans financed through investors. Respondent sought to assure Williams that there was safety in the investments because he made an appraisal of each property, and the loans were never more than 65 per cent of the securing property’s value. Respondent told Williams the expected return on a loan investment was two points at initiation and one per cent per month on the total of the loan. Williams and Respondent had no written agreement, and there was no written investment prospectus.

Williams invested $150,000 with Respondent, on a property owned by one Glidden. He then received monthly payments from June to September 2007. After receiving a monthly payment in September late, and not receiving October and November payments, Williams e-mailed Respondent to inquire if there was anything to be concerned about. Respondent, by return e-mail to Williams, apologized for the delay in payment, saying he had been ill and was getting late payments from those who owed him money. He assured Williams his money was secure. Williams received payments for November and December 2007, but none thereafter.

In June 2008 Williams sought out Respondent at Breezy Maples Farm and reiterated his previous inquiry whether there was reason to be concerned. Respondent did not say when he would settle up with Williams. Williams asked Respondent for a 1099 tax form, and Respondent sent him a summary of a ledger sheet but never a 1099. Respondent did not explain why he did not send a 1099, and Williams did not ask.

In the fall of 2008 Williams again sought out Respondent and specifically asked for documentation of the Glidden loan. Respondent never produced any. Williams then went to the Registry of Deeds and discovered that the mortgage on the Glidden property had been discharged in May 2008, and that the property had been sold. Williams, because he understood that this property was his security for his investment, expected to have been paid from proceeds of the sale. He was not paid, is owed over $150,000, and now understands the likelihood of recovery from Respondent is very small due to what he understands are Respondent’s financial difficulties. He is distressed that Respondent was not forthcoming about what happened despite Williams’ having spoken with Respondent at least three times about the sale of the property in which Williams invested.

F. Duane Shimmel, Jr.

Shimmel first confirmed the accuracy of Steve Veilleux’s testimony.

Shimmel met Respondent through Tina Limeburner. There were two projects. On the first, Shimmel’s own house, Respondent provided financing at 12 per cent with a six per cent origination fee, on 75 per cent loan-to-value. Respondent said he would record a mortgage against the property (in the name of the Eric S. Murphy Trust) to secure the construction loan. In fact, no mortgage was ever recorded. At first Shimmel supplied Respondent all the bills of workers on the project, and based on Respondent’s assurance that he would provide funds monthly for Shimmel to disburse. This soon changed because Respondent said it was cumbersome for him to receive all the daily bills; Respondent then provided Shimmel with monthly payments to cover the bills that Shimmel would pay.

Shimmel signed paperwork with Respondent for a second project in March 2007, with construction beginning in May 2007. This was the modular home in Surry, the Shimmel house about which the earlier witness, Veilleux, testified. Shimmel borrowed $315,000. Respondent told Shimmel that Respondent’s father was an investor funding the project, but he refused to identify other investors. Respondent disbursed funds monthly—but only into June 2007. Then the payments stopped, and in November, 2007, so too did the construction when there was no prospect on any further funds because Respondent said his money was tied up in the Achorn house.

Shimmel testified that he repeatedly discussed the lack of money with Respondent. Respondent told Shimmel on several occasions that he would have whatever money was needed to finish the house. Shimmel told Respondent he needed $30,000 to get to the point where an appraisal could be done. Respondent’s father told Shimmel that based on paperwork supplied by Respondent, all the necessary money had been disbursed, and then some: $335,000 on the loan of $315,000. This is untrue, according to the witness, who testified that some $235,000 has been disbursed while approximately $80,000 is still due.

Shimmel confronted Respondent frequently about this situation from November 2007 to the spring of 2008. Respondent’s father sought a deed in lieu of foreclosure from Shimmel and offered him $15,000 when the house sold. Shimmel declined this proposal. Respondent’s father would not put the offer in writing, and Shimmel knew that Respondent still owed money to Rhoades Building Supply, and he wanted to protect Rhoades. The deed on this property was recorded in Shimmel’s name, but the mortgage, which would have protected Respondent’s investment, was not recorded at this time despite Respondent’s saying he had done so. (Respondent subsequently recorded the mortgage.) The house remains ten per cent unfinished. Shimmel has attempted to sell the house, unsuccessfully.

In August 2007 Respondent asked Shimmel for assistance on the Achorn property, so it could be appraised. Respondent said would pay Shimmel $35 per hour cash—he spent about 100 hours on that job—as well as offering him a side deal of $5000 if Shimmel waited until that property refinanced before he would give Shimmel another draw on the house (which he was not making, for lack of money, in any event). Shimmel was never paid for this work and did not receive the $5000. Shimmel left this project to return to his own work.

Shimmel has financial obligations of approximately $115,000. He owes Rhoades Building Products about $81,000, as well as money to subcontractors. He was forced into bankruptcy in 2008 (Exhibit 15), through which he has sought to recover damages from Respondent and his father, who he testified offered him $15,000 to settle. Shimmel rejected this as an insincere offer that he viewed as insulting. He has lost the ability to function as a builder, and his credit scores have been extremely damaged.

Elizabeth Belch

Belch owns Pebblebrook Construction with her husband Tony. They were good friends with Respondent’s father and mother, who mentioned investing with Respondent. The Belches understood that Respondent had done well with investments in California. Respondent represented that he invested no more than 60 per cent loan to value, so that the market would have to drop 40 per cent for there to be a risk to the Belches. They asked for a prospectus but never received one despite Respondent’s saying he would provide one.

In November 2006 the Belches invested $100,000, payable at Respondent’s direction to the Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust, from their joint account (Exhibit 16), for the construction of the Limeburners’ residence, with Respondent receiving a $2,000 origination fee. The Belches were to receive 12 per cent annual interest, to be paid monthly. They received money until June 2007, when the mortgage was scheduled to roll over (i.e., be converted to permanent financing). In June 2007 they invested another $200,000 of Pebblebrook Construction funds, payable to the Eric Murphy Trust (Exhibit 17). Although they originally had invested in the Limeburner project, half of their $300,000 investment now was said to go to the Shimmel house and half to the residence of Michael and Paula DeBeck (Exhibit 18). They continued to receive payments on the DeBeck property until December 2007, and then one more in June 2008, and on the Shimmel property until September 2007. Payments then stopped, with Respondent telling the Belches that they would get the remainder of their funds when the property, which he said was almost completed, was sold. He blamed Duane Shimmel for not making payments to those working on the project.

Belch spoke with Respondent three or four times regarding their investments. Respondent said the Shimmel house would be completed by December 2007, at which time the mortgage was to be refinanced and would provide money to the Belches. As to the DeBeck project, if it did not finish by then, Respondent said his father was to buy their interest. When Belch talked to Respondent’s father, the father made it clear he had no idea he was to be investing in the DeBeck property, even though she told the father that Respondent had said as much.

In June 2008 the Belches met with Veilleux (of Rhoades Building Supply) and Respondent. Rhoades had let Respondent accumulate a bill of approximately $80,000. Respondent told Veilleux that he had overspent on the Achorn property, and that is where the Belches would have to find their money. She called Respondent’s father, who was annoyed at this news, and said he would audit the books. When they next talked to Respondent’s father, the father admitted that Respondent had misapplied money and had spent substantially too much on the Achorn project. Respondent told them the rest of their money for the DeBeck project was sitting in a checking account. Respondent told them as well that the DeBeck’s had changed their minds about what house they were going to build, and this had delayed things.

Belch proposed to Respondent taking some acreage of Breezy Maples Farm to recoup some of what they had invested. Respondent did not know how much was invested. They did not know at that point that the money supposedly in the Eric S. Murphy Trust account was gone. The differences between trusts are unclear to this witness.

Exhibit 20 is an accounting of what Respondent said the Belches had been paid from their investment into the DeBeck property, where the Belches believed they had $150,000 invested. This list does not include one $1,500 check to them. Because this was one of three such accountings, all with discrepancies, Belch testified that in his opinion this was just another example of bogus accounting. It had reached the point that she “couldn’t trust a thing that came through.”

Respondent gave the Belches a promissory note (Exhibit 21) in September 2007 by which he promised to repay them $150,000 from money received from Mike DeBeck himself, but DeBeck did not agree to it because of a disagreement over what the DeBecks had received. This led to Respondent’s telling the Belches that he would repay them $150,000 himself and get what he could from DeBeck. The Belches received “never a penny.”

The Belches pushed Respondent for something with security. He gave them a promissory note for $80,000 (Exhibit 22), secured by the Breezy Maples Farm property, where Tony Belch had built the barn and been paid $290,000 in December 2007. Belch then discovered that the property already was encumbered by liens and promissory notes of approximately $800,000. The Belches are still owed $171,000, including interest and attorney’s fees, on the barn at Breezy Maples Farms. They have talked repeatedly to Respondent and his father about obtaining some secured interest in this debt and have obtained, through suit, a writ of execution against Breezy Maples Farms.

The Belches tried to purchase Respondent’s father’s interest in the Shimmel house, through an arrangement whereby they and Rhoades Building Products could recoup some of their losses, and Rhoades would acquire the property and be able to sell it. The Belches finished the Achorn property for Respondent, for which they are owed between $8000 and $10,000. Respondent owes the Belches $300,000 on their DeBeck and Shimmel investments. This has been a devastating experience for the Belches. They are now deeply in debt and have been forced to sell their residence for much less than its value and to move into an apartment. These events have destroyed friendships they had with Respondent’s father and mother. The witness testified that she and her husband feel betrayed.

Paula DeBeck

Paula and Michael DeBeck met Respondent in the spring 2007 through a friend of Michael for whom Respondent had done a construction loan. The DeBecks had been looking for a house. Respondent said he could help them out, without discussing particular amounts. The DeBecks wanted to pay off land that had been owner-financed and Michael wanted to provide funding for his own business. Respondent did pay off the land and gave Michael a check for $15,000 for a truck for Michael’s business. Respondent was supposed to get their house project underway, and the DeBecks began looking for a modular home. But the prices were always too high, until finally Respondent finally approved one. Respondent called the dealer to get the DeBecks’ home ordered.

“Suddenly,” according to the witness, “there was no money.” Respondent did not pay the mobile home dealer, who then ordered production of the home halted. The dealer told Belch that Respondent was making up excuses for why there was no money. In the summer of 2007 the DeBecks tried to reach Respondent, which became impossible; Respondent would not return their phone calls and was never at his office. They finally found out about Breezy Maples Farm, and tracked down Respondent there. Respondent always proffered an excuse, such as that expected money had not come in yet, or that he had overspent on the last house and he had to wait for it to sell. Respondent kept putting the DeBecks off.

Paula asked Respondent if they were ever going to get their house. The witness testified that Respondent looked her in the eye, and said “yes.” In reliance on Respondent’s assurances that the deal was going to come together after Respondent paid for the land and also gave Michael DeBeck $15,000 for a truck, the DeBecks began preparing for their home by clearing a portion of their lot. Then in June 2007 Respondent hurriedly asked the DeBecks to sign a mortgage for the property, which they did, for $192,000, with an assistant of Respondent. This amount was a shock to the DeBecks because the house they were to buy was $80,000, the land payoff was $27,000, and the truck was $15,000. The mortgage was recorded, and the DeBecks learned in the fall of 2008 that they owed $20,000 to Respondent—when payments had never been discussed, and they had no house to make payments on. Respondent made no disclosure about any responsibility of the DeBecks.

After the witness and her husband signed the documents, they found that communications with Respondent were very infrequent. Paula testified that she trusted Respondent to complete the project; but they “never saw another penny” of their loan. “That’s when the excuses started,” she testified. The DeBecks kept calling Respondent, who, when they were able to reach him, said that needed money had not come in yet, or that he had to foreclose on another project so that he could finance the DeBecks. He told the DeBecks they would receive an “end loan” (permanent financing) in December 2007, and although Respondent said the project was still active, they never heard from Respondent again and could not get a hold of him.

In the fall of 2008 Respondent called Michael and said the deal was not going to go through, but the DeBecks needed to sign another mortgage, for $70,000, for the money he had invested in them. The DeBecks hunted down Respondent at the Breezy Maples Farms and told him they were not going to sign the mortgage.

They trusted Respondent, and originally had no reason to doubt him. He seemed like an honest businessman and assumed he was upstanding. But they still do not have the house they hoped for. They still want it very much. The witness testified that the experience left her devastated, depressed, and humiliated. She testified that feels residents in her area look at her knowing she was unwise to trust Respondent.

Cynthia Carroll

Carroll is an experienced horsewoman. After she met Respondent in the summer of 2006, he told her he wanted to see her make a living with her love for horses. After Respondent assured her that he wanted her as a partner and asked if she were serious about wanting to go into business, he proposed buying what became Breezy Maples Farm. His proposal was that Carroll would own the house at the farm, which would be separated with five or ten acres from the farm itself; she would take care of the horse aspects of the partnership; and he alone would take care of the financial affairs. This way, Respondent told her, if the farm was not a success, no one could take her house.

The farm cost $234,000. She asked Respondent for copies of the paperwork, but despite his promises that he would get paperwork to her he never did. She never had access to the paperwork. Respondent assured her that money was not a problem. The business of the farm was supposed to pay for all expenses. When she sold her prior home to move into the partnership—for she thought was an amount of $119,000—she gave all the proceeds except $3000 to Respondent, to put it into the farm to make her dream come true. Carroll was supposed to receive a salary, but she never did.

In the spring of 2007, Respondent told Carroll that she no longer had to pay for the feed for the horses, including Respondent’s two horses and her own horse. She had to ask him for weekly checks for grain and shavings. Respondent did not follow through on his promises, and Carroll ended up paying for the feeding of all the horses for weeks at a time.

Respondent said they were getting a bridge loan, which was due to come in any day, to pay off all their creditors. Respondent said he would improve the farm with an indoor riding ring, trails, and pastures, which she excitedly told customers about. She so trusted him that she sign papers without reading them. Then in June 2008 Tony Belch informed her that the partnership was $800,000 in debt. When she confronted Respondent, Respondent said Belch did not know what he was talking about and was just causing trouble.

Carroll asked Respondent for a meeting with him and Belch, to resolve these issues. Respondent had told Carroll he had allowed Tony Belch to convince him to allow Belch to undertake the construction of the barn, in August 2007, though Respondent previously had said to Carroll that he had plenty of money. At the meeting, Tony Belch said Respondent was not telling the truth, and he had a contract for the construction of the barn. Carroll called Respondent a liar, and said she wanted the business sold and the creditors paid off. Respondent thereafter avoided her, and she had to deal with his father. An attorney advised Carroll to get all the paperwork on the farm. Respondent’s father told Carroll that it was impossible to list what their creditors were owed because proof of all debts had not been received. His father told her she knew the risk when she got involved and that she knew there was a chance that she could lose everything.

The partnership was way behind in its payments to the woman from whom the property had been purchased, Respondent had never insured the structures on the farm, and back taxes were due. The amount past due to the former owner of the property was $12,455.27 (Exhibit 27). That seller subsequently filed a civil foreclosure action against the entire farm property (Exhibit 29). In August 2008, Respondent’s father told Carroll that if she signed over her half interest in the farm he would give her what she had invested with Respondent.

In the fall of 2007 Carroll learned that the farm bank account was overdrawn. She told Respondent to get the problem straightened out. Respondent told her he had not had time to take care of it. At her request, the bank started sending bank statements to Carroll. From January to March 2008, the farm account was constantly overdrawn. Carroll discovered a variety of bills owed to creditors, and began making calls to find out whom they owed. The farm owed one supplier $19,315.52 (Exhibit 30). Respondent took out insurance on the farm, but never paid premiums totaling over $14,000. The farm owed $8,000 for rubber stall matting, over $165,000 to the Belches, and $1,600 to an electrician. As an example of the Respondent’s financial mismanagement, the witness testified that Respondent sold a $75 trail ride to a customer when the farm did not even have trails, as well as a riding lesson Carroll (who conducted all the lessons) knew nothing about (Exhibit 31).

Respondent had told Carroll that Respondent’s father had invested $350,000 in the farm, an amount in excess of the purchase price, in a loan repayable by Respondent and Carroll individually (Exhibit 25). Of this, $290,000 went to the Belches. Carroll could not determine where the remainder went. Respondent did not pay bills, and the recordkeeping was baffling. The witness testified that several monthly payments, in amounts ranging between $15,000 and $30,000, were paid to the “Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust.”

Carroll testified that she absolutely trusted Respondent. Now, however, her experiences with him have ruined her reputation and her credit. She has no home. In public, she believes that she sees people talking about her. She had a good reputation with horse owners. People trusted her. She testified that in her opinion, Respondent shows no remorse whatsoever for the impact he had on her life. Instead, he claims that there is a conspiracy against him, and that if people did not have money to lose they should never have invested. She feels badly for those who trusted her and Respondent. Even to this day, she does not know the identities of all the people to whom the farm partnership owed money.

Jerrad Wilson

Wilson is the son of Catherine Aranda Murphy and Respondent’s stepson. He moved from California for the opportunity to work with Respondent. He worked for a short time for Respondent at Breezy Maples Farm, helping to take care of the horses. He was supposed to become acquainted with the business aspects of the farm but never did. Although Respondent confided little in Wilson, by the summer of 2007 Wilson was aware that Respondent had financial difficulties. Respondent asked for a loan in September 2007 to pay one of his mortgages—he did not say which one—and Wilson lent him $4,500. This was deposited in the account of Murphy Home Loans. Respondent promised to repay the loan “within a week”; he did not do so.

This was the first in a series of personal loans that Wilson made to Respondent (Exhibit 33). The next loan, for $1,000, was made on November 1, 2007, and was deposited in the Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust account. This ostensibly was for business expenses. Based on his experience in California, he understands that an investment trust account is supposed to be used strictly to service loans and pay investors. Also on November 1, 2007, Wilson lent Respondent another $1,000, deposited to the Breezy Maples Farm account, for farm expenses. And on November 5, 2007, he lent Respondent $12,000, deposited to the Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust. He had to take out an unsecured loan to cover this loan to Respondent. The total of these checks is $18,500.

Respondent owes Wilson $5,192.25 in wages from the witness’ work on the farm. Wilson also agreed to have his mother added as an authorized user to one of his credit card accounts to allow him to borrow money. He was living with Respondent at the time, and Respondent asked Wilson to help cover household expenses. Respondent told Wilson he would pay him, and pay him back, when the Achorn project closed in December 2007. When there were not enough funds from this source, Wilson was to be paid from a bridge loan that was supposed to close. When that did not happen, Wilson was to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the farm. The farm did not sell, and is now in foreclosure.

In October 2008 Wilson had Respondent sign a promissory note (also signed by Catherine A. Murphy, Respondent’s wife and Wilson’s mother) covering all the debts he owed Wilson, a total of $30,816.76 plus interest (for a total of $31,812.14), payable on February 1, 2009 (Exhibit 34). Respondent did not pay Wilson any amount on the note as required.

Wilson views his move from California as having been induced by Respondent’s false pretenses. He is in debt and his credit has been ruined, and he is afraid he will not even be able to rent a place to live. He is planning to return to California, and intends to live with friends or out of his car.

Catherine Aranda Murphy

Catherine Murphy is Respondent’s wife of 14 years; they are divorcing. She and Respondent moved to Maine in 2004. Respondent started a mortgage company in August of that year. Respondent established the Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust account to handle investors’ money and payouts and to manage construction loans (Exhibit 35). Catherine had nothing to do with this account until the day it was closed, but her name was added to this account in November 2004.

Respondent also had an operating account for Murphy Home Loans, and he and Catherine had a joint personal checking account. She similarly had nothing to do with the Murphy Home Loans account, which she assumed was for ordinary business expenses. Respondent controlled the operation of the joint account. She never saw a bank statement or balanced the account.

By 2008 Respondent had abandoned support of Catherine and their daughter. She had to ask for child support, which Respondent claimed to be unable to make. In a note designated Exhibit 36 and introduced into the record, Respondent asserted that “I have received no income since March 2008. I have relied on gifts from my father for food and basics since that time.”

Catherine expressed profound sorrow to the witnesses whose testimony she heard during the day-long hearing. She described herself as “collateral damage.”

David M. Leach

Leach is a principal consumer credit examiner with the Bureau Staff with a background in banking. He received the Limeburner complaint (Exhibit 13), in response to which he requested documents from Respondent (Exhibit 37), which Respondent did not provide. Respondent merely sent a letter with no attachments (Exhibit 14). Leach gathered from Carroll, by subpoena, a great deal of additional information about Respondent’s activities and Breezy Maples Farm. This did not include an accounting of the Limeburner, Shimmel, or Belch matter, or any accounting of money due Carroll or Wilson.

The Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection issued a subpoena to Respondent for records of Murphy Home Loan and Breezy Maples Farm (Exhibit 39). Leach received loan documents from Murphy Home Loans. He did not receive an accounting of the Limeburner, Shimmel, or Belch matters, or any accounting of money due Carroll. Among documents he obtained, Leach found four sealed payroll checks (totaling $1,178.52), drawn on the Breezy Maples Farm account payable to Tina Limeburner (Exhibit 40), and four sealed payroll farm checks (totaling $1,128.69) payable to Jarrad Wilson (Exhibit 41).

Leach discovered evidence of four accounts: 1) the Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust account; 2) the business operating account for Murphy Home Loans; 3) the joint checking account of Respondent and Catherine Murphy; and 4) the Breezy Maples Farms account. Leach found there were gaps in the check sequencing on the trust account and therefore concluded that he did not receive all the checks. As examples only, Bureau Staff offered statements on the accounts. The trust account, during the period May 9 to June 8, 2008, was overdrawn on from May 9 to May 26 (Exhibit 42) and on other occasions. The business operating account for May 9 to June 8 had a consistently negative balance, ending with a -$151.81 (Exhibit 43). On the Breezy Maples Farm account for the period January 1 to January 31, 2008, the balance went from +$2,982.09 to -$1605.13 (Exhibit 44). In March 2008 Respondent’s bank warned him of the consequences of a continuing overdrawing of the Breezy Maples Farm account (Exhibit 45). All accounts had several periods in which there were negative balances.

By his application for licensing as a loan broker (Exhibit 6), Respondent was required to establish a separate trust account that cannot be comingled with operating accounts. By law, only loan application fees from consumers can be deposited in such an account. Once a loan is closed, funds can be withdrawn for transfer to another account.

Exhibit 46 shows several checks drawn on the trust account for apparent operating expenses of Breezy Maples farm or payable to the farm, to Respondent himself, to Respondent for the DeBecks or Pebblebrook Construction (in an amount, $290,000, consistent with the construction of the barn), and other individuals or businesses. Leach opined that such draws violate the requirements of 9-A M.R.S. 10-301. Exhibit 47 shows that several checks were drawn on the Murphy Home Loans for various apparent personal items and expenses. Leach opined that these would be legally appropriate expenditures from a personal checking account, but not from a loan broker’s business operating account.

Leach prepared Exhibit 48 to demonstrate, based on 164 checks obtained by the subpoena served on Carroll, how much money Respondent had paid himself or to “cash” between October 13, 2006, and June 3, 2008, keeping in mind that Leach did not obtain copies of all the checks drawn during this period. The largest check was for $27,314.20. The total of the available checks is $461,332.33.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

9-A M.R.S. 10-201

Section 10-201 requires “[a] person desiring to engage or continue in business” as a loan broker to “apply . . . for a license . . . on or before January 31st of each even-numbered year.” During all times relevant to the facts found above, from August 2004 to October 2008, Respondent held loan broker license number CSO7142 (Exhibit 7) issued by the Superintendent of the Bureau as the administrator of the Maine Consumer Credit Code. See id. 6-103.

Section 10-201 further provides that

[a] license may not be issued unless the administrator, upon investigation, finds that the financial responsibility, character and fitness of the applicant and, where applicable, its partners, officers or directors and the character and fitness of its loan officers, warrant belief that the business will be operated honestly and fairly within the purposes of this Title.

The purposes of the Consumer Credit Code are, among other things, “[t]o protect consumer buyers, lessees, and borrowers against unfair practices by some suppliers of consumer credit . . .” and “[t]o permit and encourage the development of fair and economically sound consumer credit practices.” Id. 1-102(2)(D), (E).

I conclude that Respondent has violated section 10-201 of the Consumer Credit Code based on the following conduct of Respondent:

(1) Respondent used his position and status as a licensed loan broker to acquire credit from Rhoades Building Products for the purchase of building material for houses in which he arranged investments. Two projects are at issue here; first, the “spec” house being built by Duane Shimmel, a project on which construction ended due to cost overruns on a second house; and the second house, this one built by Dale Achorn, in which the reported overruns preventing Respondent from financing the Shimmel house.

(2) Respondent failed to record a mortgage in the name of Murphy Home Loans on the residence of Duane Shimmel, and failed to disburse funds to Shimmel for payment to contractors on the Shimmel house, causing construction on the house to terminate before the house was finished. This failure to perform has severely undermined Shimmel’s ability to sell the house, and has left Shimmel $115,000 in debt to Rhoades Building Supplies and other contractors.

(3) Respondent used his status as a loan broker on the Shimmel house to allow him to ask Shimmel to work on the Achorn property, for which Shimmel was not paid the $8,500 that Respondent owes Shimmel.

(4) Respondent acted as a loan broker for the Limeburners, but failed to pay for well drilling that was his responsibility, and failed to make clear to the Limeburners, when they refinanced their home, how much he had received as a commission and how much they owed.

(5) I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent made untrue statements to the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection in his response to Limeburner’s complaint to the Bureau in September 2008, as enumerated by Tina Limeburner in her credible testimony.

(6) Respondent failed to provide a promised return on investment in late 2007 to Merritt Williams on Williams’ investment on the Glidden property, and Respondent failed to produce promised tax documentation relative to this project when Williams asked for it.

(7) Respondent failed to pay Tony and Elizabeth Belch after misrepresenting where their money was invested, telling them at one point that the funds were invested in the Limeburner residence, and later telling them that half their funds were invested in the Shimmel house while the other half was invested in the residence of Michael and Paula DeBeck. Further, Respondent failed to make a promised return on investment to the Belches. With the exception of one payment in June 2008, no payments were made after September 2007 on the Shimmel house and no payments were made after December 2007 on the DeBeck house;

(8) Respondent falsely told the Belches that his father would take over financing for the DeBecks’ investment if the house was not finished by December 2007, a representation contradicted through indirect but reliable testimony from witnesses who spoke with the father, Eric S. Murphy, Sr.

(9) Respondent risked the investments of the Belches and Williams by tying up money in one project (the house built by Achorn), such that when it cost more than was expected, Respondent possessed insufficient funds to pay his investors;

(10) Respondent told witness Veilleux that the DeBecks’ investment was tied up in the Achorn project and then, in contradiction, falsely telling the DeBecks that their money was sitting in a checking account. Respondent then failed to provide the DeBecks with a clear picture of where their investment money had gone, with the result that the DeBecks received nothing in return for their investments.

(11) Using his position and status as a licensed loan broker, Respondent persuaded the Belches to take a promissory note $80,000 secured by Breezy Maples Farm at a time when the farm was, as Respondent had reason to know, encumbered by liens and promissory notes well in excess of its purchase price of $264,000, as well as debts incurred through construction of improvements, such as the barn built by Tony Belch’s company, Pebblebrook Construction, at a cost of $461,000, only $290,000 of which was ever paid.

(12) Respondent failed to pay the Belches $8,000 as reimbursement for Tony Belch’s work in completing the Achorn project.

(13) Respondent, acting as a loan broker for Michael and Paula DeBeck, approved the production of a modular home for the DeBecks at a time when, based on subsequent explanations (statements against interest) provided by Respondent, he knew that he did not have investment money available to fund the purchase price for the modular home.

(14) Acting as a loan broker, Respondent arranged for the DeBecks to sign a mortgage for $192,000 which led to their being indebted $20,000 to Respondent, without any benefit to the DeBecks and without the DeBecks having been told that they would be obligated for any money to Respondent.

(15) Acting as a loan broker, Respondent promised to secure a construction loan for the DeBecks, in reliance on which the DeBecks cleared their land in expectation of siting their new modular residence, after which Respondent failed to obtain that construction loan.

9-A M.R.S. 10-301

Section 10-301 of the Consumer Credit Code requires a loan broker to “place fees from consumers, other than bona-fide 3rd-party fees, in an escrow account separate from any operating accounts of the business, pending completion of services offered.” I find that Respondent established a trust account, in the name of the Eric S. Murphy, Jr. Trust, and identified that account to state regulators as the escrow account created to comply with the State’s loan broker licensing statutes. I find that Respondent violated section 10-301 by using this account not as a loan broker account for proper handling of third-party fees, and not even as a proper investment trust account to process payments resulting from investments and then payouts to investors. Rather, this account was used to transfer money to the Breezy Maples farm account, to pay various operating expenses of the farm, to make self-payments (for purposes that remain unclear), to make checks payable to “cash,” and to a make partial payment of $290,000 to Pebblebrook Construction for the barn built at the farm. Respondent did not treat the trust account as one “separate from any operating accounts of [his] business” but, to the contrary, repeatedly disrespected legal and accounting standards that accompany the proper and appropriate use of trust accounts.

The scope of Respondent’s misuse of his trust account is breathtaking. Staff has demonstrated that, deriving information from the 164 checks it was able to obtain—based on check sequencing, many dozens remain unaccounted for—Respondent expended $461,332.33. It is a fair conclusion from the evidence that much of that sum is unaccounted for and was diverted by Respondent to himself for his personal gain. Proof of self-payments during calendar year 2008 means that his statement in September 2008 that he had received no income since March 2008 is demonstrably false.

It is also evident that Respondent shifted funds around from one account to another and from one investment project to another, making payments to earlier or more persistent investors using funds from subsequent or less confrontational investors. This activity forms the basis of what is termed a “Ponzi” scheme, and it is clear from the evidence that Respondent’s business practices of satisfying investors by paying small initial dividend-type payments while not taking steps (such as recording protective security interests) to protect or secure those large investments, have the earmarks of just such an inherently fraudulent pyramid business model.

9-A M.R.S. 10-303-A

Section 10-303-A of the Consumer Credit Code requires a loan broker, “in addition to duties imposed by other statutes or the common law,” to

A. Act in good faith with fair dealing in any transaction, practice or course of business in connection with the brokering or making of any mortgage loan; B. Safeguard and account for any money handled for the borrower; * * * D. Use reasonable skill, care and diligence; E. Timely and clearly disclose to the borrower material information that might reasonably affect the borrower’s rights, interests or ability to receive the borrower’s intended benefit from the residential mortgage loan . . . .

Respondent acted as a loan broker and loan officer regulated by 9-A MRSA, Article 10 with respect to the Limeburners (to help purchase their modular home in Sargentville, see testimony on pages 5 – 6 of this Order), and with respect to the DeBecks (also a modular home, one that was ordered and then the order was canceled; see pages 13 – 15 of this Order). I find that in each of those cases, Respondent acted in violation of the principles of section10-303-A. With respect to the Limeburners, Respondent’s failure to pay for the drilling of a well, and his failure to provide proper accountings for disbursement of proceeds from a refinancing in the amount of a $198,000 loan, led the consumers to file a complaint with state regulators. With respect to the DeBecks, Respondent promised to secure a construction loan for the couple, in reliance on which the DeBecks cleared their land in expectation of placement of their new modular residence, after which Respondent failed to obtain that construction loan. In each case, Respondent violated the above section of law in that he did not “act in good faith,” did not “safeguard and account for any money handled” and failed to “timely and clearly disclose to the borrower[s] information that might reasonably affect [their] rights [and] interests ….”

ORDER ON SANCTIONS

The Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) in this case informed Respondent that Staff would seek sanctions, remedies and penalties pursuant to 10 M.R.S. 8003(5)(A-1). Respondent was notified that Bureau Staff intended to prove violations of Article 10 of the Commercial Credit Code, as specified above. Having found myriad violations of Article 10, I also invoke sanctions, remedies and penalties available under 9-A M.R.S. 10-401.

By a letter attached to an e-mail of March 15, 2009, Respondent purported to “surrender or otherwise revoke any license, registration or other privilege with the State of Maine . . . .” (Exhibit 4). Respondent submitted that, with the surrender of his license the subject matter of the present hearing would be moot. I rejected that prehearing motion, since a voluntary surrender of a license or registration does nothing to develop findings of fact, conclusions or law or sanctions with respect to activities and behavior undertaken during the time a licensed and regulated professional actively holds and exercises his rights and privileges under the license and registration. In addition, all loan brokers must post a surety bond to ensure responsiveness to regulators and to serve as a resource for recovery if damages, penalties or costs of enforcement are assessed against a loan broker and are not paid following the conclusion of a case and the running of the appeal period. Making a claim against a surety bond is a very serious remedy and a state agency must be able to demonstrate that a solemn hearing was held, that testimony was properly received and that the Respondent had knowledge of the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and present testimony. The message from the Respondent in this case in which he tried to voluntarily surrender his ability to act as a licensed loan broker establishes that he had actual knowledge of the upcoming hearing; however, his effort to moot the need for the hearing, or to moot the effect of the sanctions and other remedies set forth below, cannot prevail. See Wood v. Superintendent of Insurance, 638 A.2d 67 (Me. 1994).

Sanctions are imposed not as punishment, but “to encourage sound, ethical business practices.” 10 M.R.S. 8001. The magnitude and repetitive nature of Respondent’s conduct as a loan broker, as loan officer and as one who arranged many investments, show his lack of sound and ethical business practices, and so bear in direct proportion to the extent of sanctions imposed. Sanctions can be imposed insofar as they reflect the Respondent’s conduct as a loan broker or loan officer, or to the extent that they involve his using his position as a loan broker or loan officer to accomplish improper ends. All the evidence I heard was relevant to the general requirement that licensed loan brokers and registered loan officers demonstrate appropriate financial responsibility, character and fitness in order to receive and retain their license as a loan broker and registration as a loan officer. With respect to the specific violations relating to misuse of a loan broker’s trust account and to the “good faith and fair dealings” requirement, specific penalties are limited below to the Limeburner and DeBeck cases, in which Respondent acted as a loan broker and loan officer subject to 9-A MRS, Article 10.

I now impose the following sanctions:

  1. Respondent, in either a loan broker or loan officer capacity, is ordered to cease and desist from engaging in any conduct that would constitute a violation of 9-A M.R.S. 10-201, 10-301, or 10-303-A. 9-A M.R.S. 10-401(1).

  2. Respondent’s license to conduct business in this state as a loan broker is revoked, effective 30 days from the date of this Order. Id. 10401(5); 10 M.R.S. 8003(5)(A-1)(2-A). This sanction shall be reportable on any application for registration or licensing in any jurisdiction that requires disclosure of administrative or civil action against the Respondent. The Bureau shall not consider any application from Respondent to be licensed as a loan broker within five years from the effective date of this Order.

  3. Respondent is directed to surrender his loan broker license on or before the end of the 30-day period from the date of this Order. Id. 8003(5)(D).

  4. Respondent’s registration to conduct business in this state as a loan officer, either in association with a loan broker or with a supervised lender, is revoked, effective 30 days from the date of this Order. 9-A M.R.S. 10-401(5). This sanction shall be reportable on any application for registration or licensing in any jurisdiction that requires disclosure of administrative or civil action against the Respondent. I shall not entertain any application from Respondent to be registered as a loan officer within five years from the effective date of this Order.

  5. Civil penalties of $1500 shall apply to each of the following instances of conduct, pursuant to id. 8003(5)(A-1)(3):

Violations of 9-A M.R.S. 10-201 (failing to demonstrate appropriate financial responsibility, character and fitness”

(A) Failing to pay well-drilling costs for the Limeburners, and otherwise failing to meet the standard of good faith and fair dealing in his interactions with the Limeburners.

(B) Failing to provide a proper accounting to the Limeburners on several occasions, related both to the original transaction and the purported refinancing, after which Respondent did not disclose disbursements or his commission.

(C) Asserting untrue statements to the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection in his response to Limeburner’s formal written complaint to the Bureau.

(D) Falsely promising the DeBecks that he would secure a construction loan, resulting in their clearing land for a home that they never received.

(E) Approving the production of a modular home for Michael and Paula DeBeck at a time when he knew that he did not have investment money available to fund the purchase price for the modular home.

(F) Convincing the DeBecks to sign a mortgage for $192,000 which led to his claim that they are indebted $20,000 to Respondent, without any benefit to the DeBecks.

Violations of 9-A M.R.S. 10-301 (requiring establishment and use of escrow account for consumer fees, “separate from any operating accounts of the business, pending completion of services offered.”)

(G) Failing to establish and maintain a trust account “separate from any operating accounts of the business” as required by Maine’s loan broker statutes.

(H) Utilizing the trust account for payment of routine expenses unrelated to loan brokerage activities or investments and returns.

Violations of 9-A M.R.S. 10-303-A (failure to “act in good faith,” or to “safeguard and account for any money handled” and failure to “timely and clearly disclose to the borrower[s] information that might reasonably affect [their] rights [and] interests …)

(I) With respect to the Limeburners, failing to pay for the drilling of a well; and

(J) Failure to provide proper accountings for disbursement of proceeds from the refinancing in the amount of a $198,000 loan;

(K) With respect to the DeBecks, failure to secure a construction loan for the couple, in reliance on which the DeBecks cleared their land in expectation of placement of their new modular residence.

The total of these civil penalties is $16,500.

Costs of investigation and hearing

Costs of investigating and providing a hearing for a regulated party are recoverable pursuant to 9-A M.R.S. 6-106(6). Reimbursement in this case is ordered in the amount of $5,000 for the costs of the pre-hearing investigation, discovery, pre-hearing motions, the administrative hearing expenses and direct, associated costs (including the photocopying of 8,071 pages of documents provided to the Respondent to assist in the preparation of his defense). This reimbursement is ordered as a priority over the civil penalties specified above.

The penalties and assessments above must be paid within 30 days of the expiration of the appeal period. If they are unpaid after that time, the Bureau shall make application against the surety bond effective during the period of Respondent’s licensure as a loan broker.

APPEAL RIGHTS

Either party may appeal this Order by filing a petition for review in the Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of this Order pursuant to 5 M.R.S. 11001-11008. If the Order is not appealed, it shall become binding on the parties at the end of the 30-day period.

Date: April 28, 2009 /s/William N. Lund
William N. Lund, Hearing Officer
Administrator, Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

 

 

Cash-Rite; Portland, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Cash-Rite; Portland, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Cash-Rite; Portland, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Cash-Rite of Portland, Maine is licensed with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Supervised Lender; and

WHEREAS Cash-Rite was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Cash-Rite, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unlicensed companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender License of Cash-Rite, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Cash-Rite, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Citifinancial Auto Ltd; Altamonte Springs, FL Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Citifinancial Auto Ltd; Altamonte Springs, FL —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Citifinancial Auto Ltd; Altamonte Springs, FL
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Citifinancial Auto LTD of Altamonte Springs, Florida is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Sales Finance Company; and

WHEREAS Citifinancial Auto LTD was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Citifinancial Auto LTD, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Sales Finance Company registration of Citifinancial Auto LTD, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Citifinancial Auto LTD, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from entering into consumer credit transactions and taking assignment of or undertaking collection of payment arising from a consumer credit transaction in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics, Park University Enterprises Inc; Overland Park, KS Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics, Park University Enterprises Inc; Overland Park, KS —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics, Park University Enterprises Inc; Overland Park, KS
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Park University Enterprises, Inc., dba Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics of Overland Park, Kansas is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Park University Enterprises, Inc., dba Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Park University Enterprises, Inc., dba Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Park University Enterprises, Inc., dba Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Park University Enterprises, Inc., dba Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Gallant Motorsports Inc; Orrington, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Gallant Motorsports Inc; Orrington, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Gallant Motorsports Inc; Orrington, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Gallant Motorsports, Inc., of Orrington, Maine is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a used car dealer; and

WHEREAS Gallant Motorsports, Inc., was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Gallant Motorsports, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the used car dealer registration of Gallant Motorsports, Inc., is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Gallant Motorsports, Inc., is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing and assigning credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales; Lewiston, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales; Lewiston, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales; Lewiston, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales of Lewiston, Maine is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a used car dealer; and

WHEREAS Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales, was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the used car dealer registration of Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Gateway Auto & Trailer Sales, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing and assigning credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Kennedy-Western University; Cheyenne, WY Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Kennedy-Western University; Cheyenne, WY —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Kennedy-Western University; Cheyenne, WY
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Kennedy-Western University of Cheyenne, Wyoming is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Kennedy-Western University was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Kennedy-Western University indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Kennedy-Western University, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Kennedy-Western University is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Lendmark Mortgage Corporation; Framingham, MA Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Lendmark Mortgage Corporation; Framingham, MA —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Lendmark Mortgage Corporation; Framingham, MA
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Lendmark Mortgage Corporation of Framingham, Massachusetts is licensed with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Supervised Lender; and

WHEREAS Lendmark Mortgage Corporation was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Lendmark Mortgage Corporation, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unlicensed companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender License of Lendmark Mortgage Corporation, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Lendmark Mortgage Corporation, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Mortgage Assistance Corporation; Dallas, TX Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Mortgage Assistance Corporation; Dallas, TX —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Mortgage Assistance Corporation; Dallas, TX
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Mortgage Assistance Corporation of Dallas, Texas is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Loan Servicer; and

WHEREAS Mortgage Assistance Corporation was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Mortgage Assistance Corporation, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Loan Servicer registration of Mortgage Assistance Corporation, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Mortgage Assistance Corporation, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from its ability to take assignments of, or undertake direct collection of payments from, or enforcement of rights against debtors arising from these transactions with respect to Maine consumers in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Neighborhood Solutions Inc; Brandon, FL Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Neighborhood Solutions Inc; Brandon, FL —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Neighborhood Solutions Inc; Brandon, FL
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Neighborhood Solutions, Inc., of Brandon, Florida is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Sales Finance Company; and

WHEREAS Neighborhood Solutions, Inc., was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Neighborhood Solutions, Inc., indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Sales Finance Company registration of Neighborhood Solutions, Inc., is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Neighborhood Solutions, Inc., is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from entering into consumer credit transactions and taking assignment of or undertaking collection of payment arising from a consumer credit transaction in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Paramount Promotions LLC; St. Augustine, FL Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Paramount Promotions LLC; St. Augustine, FL —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Paramount Promotions LLC; St. Augustine, FL
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Paramount Promotions, LLC of St. Augustine, Florida is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Paramount Promotions, LLC was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Paramount Promotions, LLC indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Paramount Promotions, LLC, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Paramount Promotions, LLC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Pearlmans Fine Jewelers; Battle Creek, MI Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Pearlmans Fine Jewelers; Battle Creek, MI —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Pearlmans Fine Jewelers; Battle Creek, MI
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Pearlman’s Fine Jewelers of Battle Creek, Michigan is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Pearlman’s Fine Jewelers was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Pearlman’s Fine Jewelers indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Pearlman’s Fine Jewelers, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Pearlman’s Fine Jewelers is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Quantum Auto Group LLC; Melville, NY Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Quantum Auto Group LLC; Melville, NY —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Quantum Auto Group LLC; Melville, NY
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Quantum Auto Group, LLC of Melville, New York is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Sales Finance Company; and

WHEREAS Quantum Auto Group, LLC was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Quantum Auto Group, LLC, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Sales Finance Company registration of Quantum Auto Group, LLC, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Quantum Auto Group, LLC, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from entering into consumer credit transactions and taking assignment of or undertaking collection of payment arising from a consumer credit transaction in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Rain Recording; Ringwood, NJ Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Rain Recording; Ringwood, NJ —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Rain Recording; Ringwood, NJ
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Rain Recording of Ringwood, New Jersey is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Sales Finance Company; and

WHEREAS Rain Recording was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Rain Recording, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Sales Finance Company registration of Rain Recording, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Rain Recording, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from entering into consumer credit transactions and taking assignment of or undertaking collection of payment arising from a consumer credit transaction in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Recreational Products Inc; Naples, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Recreational Products Inc; Naples, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Recreational Products Inc; Naples, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Recreational Products, Inc., of Naples, Maine is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Recreational Products, Inc., was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Recreational Products, Inc., indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Recreational Products, Inc., is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Recreational Products, Inc., is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Recreatives Industries Inc; Buffalo, NY Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Recreatives Industries Inc; Buffalo, NY —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Recreatives Industries Inc; Buffalo, NY
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Recreatives Industries, Inc., of Buffalo, New York is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Recreatives Industries, Inc., was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Recreatives Industries, Inc., indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Recreatives Industries, Inc., is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Recreatives Industries, Inc., is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

RT 7 Auto of Corinna, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > RT 7 Auto of Corinna, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

RT 7 Auto of Corinna, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Rt. 7 Auto of Corinna, Maine is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a used car dealer; and

WHEREAS Rt. 7 Auto, was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Rt. 7 Auto, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the used car dealer registration of Rt. 7 Auto, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Rt. 7 Auto, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing and assigning credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

RT 22 Auto Sales; Buxton, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > RT 22 Auto Sales; Buxton, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

RT 22 Auto Sales; Buxton, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Rt. 22 Auto Sales of Buxton, Maine is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a used car dealer; and

WHEREAS Rt. 22 Auto Sales, was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Rt. 22 Auto Sales, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the used car dealer registration of Rt. 22 Auto Sales, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Rt. 22 Auto Sales, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing and assigning credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Sage Credit Company Inc; Irvine, CA Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Sage Credit Company Inc; Irvine, CA —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Sage Credit Company Inc; Irvine, CA
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Sage Credit Company, Inc., dba Sage Credit of Irvine, California is licensed with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Supervised Lender; and

WHEREAS Sage Credit Company, Inc., dba Sage Credit was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Sage Credit Company, Inc., dba Sage Credit, indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unlicensed companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender License of Sage Credit Company, Inc., dba Sage Credit, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Sage Credit Company, Inc., dba Sage Credit, is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Online Mall LLC, d/b/a Quality Brands Online; Atlanta, GA Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Online Mall LLC, d/b/a Quality Brands Online; Atlanta, GA —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Online Mall LLC, d/b/a Quality Brands Online; Atlanta, GA
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Online Mall, LLC dba Quality Brands Online of Atlanta, Georgia is registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a general creditor; and

WHEREAS Online Mall, LLC dba Quality Brands Online was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Online Mall, LLC dba Quality Brands Online indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension of credit by unregistered companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the creditor registration of Online Mall, LLC dba Quality Brands Online, is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Online Mall, LLC dba Quality Brands Online is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist issuing credit in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 24th day of April, 2009.

 

 

Home Loan Consultants Inc  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Home Loan Consultants Inc — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-BND

 

In Re:

Home Loan Consultants Inc
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On February 2, 2009, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from Great American Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of March 2, 2009.

2) On March 19, 2009, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a letter requesting a replacement bond immediately.

3) On March 19, 2009 and March 20, 2009, several unsuccessful telephone calls were made to a variety of telephone numbers in our file for this company.

4) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of May 1, 2009, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate Home Loan Consultants, Inc., license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective May 1, 2009.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 1st day of May, 2009.

 

 

Home Consultants Inc; Lake Ariel, PA Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Home Consultants Inc; Lake Ariel, PA —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-TERM

 

In Re:

Home Consultants Inc; Lake Ariel, PA
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Home Consultants, Inc., of Lake Ariel, Pennsylvania is licensed with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a Supervised Lender; and

WHEREAS Home Consultants, Inc., was notified by mail on December 1, 2008 that its annual filing was due by January 31, 2009; and

WHEREAS on February 18, 2009, the Bureau mailed a second notice to Home Consultants, Inc., indicating that its filing had not been received and as of February 20th, late payment fees of $5 per day would be assessed; and

WHEREAS the notice further indicated that failure to file a notification by March 30, 2009, would result in revocation of its registration pursuant to 9-A, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Section 6-204, et seq.; and

WHEREAS no response to those notifications has been received; and

WHEREAS extension, assignment or collection of credit by unlicensed companies constitutes a violation of the Maine Consumer Credit Code;

NOW THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender License of Home Consultants, Inc., is REVOKED and TERMINATED, and Home Consultants, Inc., is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist from its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers in the State of Maine.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 1st day of May, 2009.

 

 

Kingman, Cole & Associates; 6558 4th Section Road, #321; Brockport, New York Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Kingman, Cole & Associates; 6558 4th Section Road, #321; Brockport, New York —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Kingman, Cole & Associates; 6558 4th Section Road, #321; Brockport, New York
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) is established to, among other things, receive and act on complaints, 9-A M.R.S. 6-104(1)(A), and may issue orders that direct a person to cease and desist from violating the Maine Consumer Credit Act, id. 6-108(1); and

WHEREAS the Bureau received a complaint from Maine consumers M. T. and L. T. alleging that they had received a call from Sue Porter of Kingman, Cole & Associates asserting that she worked for a debt collector and that M. T. owed $5,866.85 on a Montgomery Ward Visa account; and

WHEREAS Ms. Porter said that M. T. would be summoned to court but could settle the account by paying $3,800; and

WHEREAS M. T. asked why he had not heard of the debt before, and after Ms. Porter could not provide an explanation he received from her telephone numbers at GE Money Bank that he could call to verify the information; and

WHEREAS M. T. called GE Money Bank, which could find no record of the account; and

WHEREAS L. T. called Kingman, Cole & Associates and spoke with Simon Hughes and reported what M. T. had learned from GE Money Bank; and

WHEREAS Mr. Hughes told L. T. that M. T. had started paying off the debt and then stopped, and he then told L. T. that she was home watching The Price Is Right and spending all her husband’s money, told her several times that she was ignorant, stated that he would see M. T. and L. T. in court, and stated that court would cost them $4,000 on top of what M. T. owed; and

WHEREAS the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 15 U.S.C. 1692d, and the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 32 M.R.S. 11013(1), prohibit harassment, oppression, or abuse of any person in connection with the collection of a debt; and

WHEREAS the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 15 U.S.C. 1692e, and the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 32 M.R.S. 11013(2), prohibit any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt; and

WHEREAS the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 15 U.S.C. 1692e(5), and the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 32 M.R.S. 11013(2)(E), prohibit threats to take any legal action that is not intended to be taken; and

WHEREAS the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, in 32 M.R.S. 11031(1), requires that an entity must be licensed by the Superintendent of the Bureau to conduct the business of debt collection in the state of Maine, subject to exceptions not here relevant; and

WHEREAS Kingman, Cole & Associates was not, and is not, licensed as a debt collector in the state of Maine; and

WHEREAS Senior Consumer Credit Examiner Steven R. Dunn of the Bureau sent two letters to Kingman, Cole & Associates, on November 21, 2008, and December 23, 2008, in which he set forth the allegations of conduct violative of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, instructed that Kingman, Cole & Associates is required to be licensed to collect debts in Maine, and asked whether Kingman, Cole & Associates intends to become licensed; and

WHEREAS the Bureau did not receive a response to either letter;

NOW THEREFORE, Kingman, Cole & Associates, through any of its employees, agents, or representatives, is ORDERED not to engage in the business of debt collection in connection with any Maine consumer unless and until licensed by the Superintendent of the Bureau; and it is further

ORDERED that Kingman, Cole & Associates shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, pay to the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection $200 for expenses incurred in the investigation of this matter, pursuant to 9-A M.R.S. 6-106(6) and 32 M.R.S. 11051.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 3rd day of June, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
New England Funding Corp, SLM6072  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > New England Funding Corp, SLM6072 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-BND

 

In Re:

New England Funding Corp, SLM6072
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On April 6, 2009, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from The Hartford Fire Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of June 1, 2009.

2) On April 8, 2009, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a letter requesting a replacement bond by May 30, 2009.

3) On May 29, 2009 and June 4, 2009, unsuccessful telephone calls were made to the telephone numbers in our file for this company.

4) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of June 10, 2009, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate New England Funding Corp.’s license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective June 10, 2009.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A MRSA 6-108(1) and 5 MRSA 1001 et seq., as applicable, within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 10th day of June, 2009.

 

 

/s/Julie F. Haefele, Examiner-in-Charge
Julie F. Haefele, Examiner-in-Charge
Mary Brigid Arcand and Paydays, Inc.  Administrative Findings and Order : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Mary Brigid Arcand and Paydays, Inc. — Administrative Findings and Order

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Mary Brigid Arcand and Paydays, Inc.
Administrative Findings and Order
 
 

The above-referenced matter came on for administrative hearing on June 10, 2009. Appearing were: Eric Wright, staff attorney for the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”); Charles Meade, attorney for Respondents, Paydays, Inc. and Mary Brigid Arcand; and Mary Brigid Arcand, Respondent and president of Respondent, Paydays, Inc.

Witnesses Rhonda Kenney and Analisa Gallant of the Bureau testified that Ms. Arcand did not renew the payroll processor license of Paydays, Inc. for calendar year 2009. They testified that they scheduled a routine, on-site compliance examination of Paydays, Inc. for April 6, 2009, but when Ms. Arcand was called to confirm the appointment, she stated she was not ready for the exam and she “would pass” on the rescheduling of the examination. The Bureau communicated with Ms. Arcand through regular mail and later by registered or certified mail, but Ms. Arcand was unresponsive or uncooperative with the Bureau’s efforts to administer Maine’s payroll processor laws (10 MRSA, section 1495 et seq.).

Witness Mary Brigid Arcand began her testimony by stating as a general matter, she did not contest the previous testimony of Bureau staff. She said she and her staff were extremely busy, especially during each of the four months that mark the end of tax quarter-years. She stated she resented the cost of complying with Maine’s payroll processor law, including the cost of the bond and the cost of reimbursing the Bureau of the costs of conducting a payroll processor examination. She stated she was “not in the best of moods” when discussing scheduling an examination on the phone with Bureau staff, and she was “short” with the staff-member who contacted her to confirm the date of the exam.

She admitted that even after receiving a certified mail notice dated April 3, 2009 warning her of the consequences of continuing to operate without a valid 2009 license, she put it aside in a pile of other papers, and did not contact the Bureau until May 20th, after having received the Petition for Administrative Hearing requiring her presence at the present proceeding.

She stated she now understands that she “must be in compliance” with the requirements of the State of Maine, and she will come into the office on a weekend, if necessary, to prepare documentation necessary to permit a Bureau examiner to review that documentation. She and her attorney brought with them to the hearing the completed renewal form to permit the continued operation of respondent’s company.

Based on the record of the hearing, I find that the Respondents have violated Maine’s payroll processor law by operating in 2009 without a valid license, and by failing to permit access to its books and records for purposes of a compliance examination.

Based on the above, it is hereby ORDERED:

1) Respondent may not conduct payroll processor activities with respect to Maine employers or with respect to Maine employees of out-of-state employers without proper licensing. The Bureau will process the renewal application received June 10, 2009 for calendar year 2009, and Respondent is ordered to promptly provide any additional information or documentation reasonably required by the Bureau in completing the review and determination on that renewal application. Respondent may continue operating as a Maine payroll processor pending a determination on that application.

2) Respondent shall cooperate with the Bureau on the scheduling of a compliance examination at the offices of Respondent in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The Respondent shall respond fully to the pre-exam questionnaire and shall permit free access to the books and records of the company.

3) Respondent is assessed $1,500 (one thousand five hundred dollars) in civil penalties for the violations set forth in the Findings. The civil penalty is suspended for 12 months from the date of this Order, and will be suspended permanently if the Respondent complies with the payroll processor law during that 12-month time period.

4) Respondent is assessed $1,000 (one thousand dollars) for the reasonable costs of the investigation leading to this administrative hearing, as well as the costs of the administrative hearing. This total includes amounts attributable to the proportionate personnel costs of the Staff Attorney, the Senior Consumer Credit Examiner, the Principal Consumer Credit Examiner, the transcriptionist and the hearing officer. Respondent must reimburse those costs to the Bureau within 90 days of the date of this Order.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to 9-A M.R.S.A. 6-108(1) and 5 M.R.S.A. 1001 et seq. within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Any other person aggrieved shall have 40 days from the date the decision was rendered to petition for review.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 10th day of June, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Money Works; P.O. Box 572856; Marietta, GA Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Money Works; P.O. Box 572856; Marietta, GA —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Money Works; P.O. Box 572856; Marietta, GA
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) is established to, among other things, receive and act on complaints, 9-A M.R.S. 6-104(1)(A), and may issue orders that direct a person to cease and desist from violating the Maine Consumer Credit Act, id. 6-108(1); and

WHEREAS the Bureau in January 2009 received a complaint from a Maine consumer, Jane S., that she had received a high pressure call from a representative of Money Works, and succumbed to providing Money Works with her husband’s Visa account number, which Money Works charged $990 to enlist her as a client; and

WHEREAS the Bureau in February 2009 received a complaint from a second Maine consumer, Jeffrey S., that a representative of Money Works convinced him that, in return for payment of $1095, it would reduce his $6000 Bank of America credit card debt by at least $4000, and Money Works obtained Jeffrey S.’s credit card account and charged him $1095; and

WHEREAS the Bureau in March 2009 received a complaint from a third Maine consumer, Patricia L., that a representative of Money Works had contacted her and her husband and said that for a fee of $790 Money Works would contact their credit card companies to lower their interest rates to save Patricia L. and her husband money, and that if Money Works could not save Patricia L. and her husband at least $3000 in interest, or if Money Works did not reduce their balances to $0, Money Works would refund their $790, after which Money Works obtained the account information of Patricia L. and her husband and charged them $790; and

WHEREAS the Bureau in April 2009 received a complaint from a fourth Maine consumer, Alfred R., that a representative of Money Works called him and by contrivance obtained his Citi MasterCard account number, at which time it immediately charged his account $990; and

WHEREAS in all four instances summarized above, the consumers attempted to recover from Money Works the money that had been charged to their accounts; and

WHEREAS in each instance, except that of Patricia L. and her husband, Money Works refused to repay the consumer the amounts it had charged the consumers; and

WHEREAS in the case of Patricia L. and her husband, Money Works, after receiving a letter from the Bureau, agreed to refund the $790 it had charged Patricia L. and her husband; and

WHEREAS in the case of Alfred R., his credit card issuer, Citi MasterCard, after receiving a letter from the Bureau, agreed to remove from Alfred R.’s account the $990 transaction and charge it back to Money Works; and

WHEREAS Jeffrey S.’s credit card issuer agreed to remove the charge of $1095 made to his account; and

WHEREAS the credit card issuer of Jane S. has expressly refused to negate the $990 charge to her account; and

WHEREAS Money Works has not been, and is not, registered in Maine as a debt management service provider, in violation of 32 M.R.S. 6173(2), and has not produced any evidence that it holds a surety bond, as required by 32 M.R.S. 6174; and

WHEREAS when notifying the Bureau that it was refunding Patricia L. and her husband their $790, Money Works wrote on April 10, 2009, that it “has ceased all business activities and is no longer active” and continued by saying that while it “does not concede that it previously did anything improper, it certainly agrees that it will cease and desist in making solicitations to residents of the State of Maine”;

NOW THEREFORE, Money Works, through any of its employees, agents, or representatives, is ORDERED not to offer debt management services for or in connection with any Maine consumer unless and until it has applied for registration as a debt management service provider by the Superintendent of the Bureau; and it is further

ORDERED that Money Works shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, reimburse Jane S. for the $990 that it charged to her account; and it is further

ORDERED that Money Works shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, pay to the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection $200 for expenses incurred in the investigation of this matter, pursuant to 9-A M.R.S. 6-106(6).

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 15th day of June, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Easy Financial Solutions; 228 Park Ave. South, Ste 2280; New York, NY Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Easy Financial Solutions; 228 Park Ave. South, Ste 2280; New York, NY —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Easy Financial Solutions; 228 Park Ave. South, Ste 2280; New York, NY
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS in January 2009 a representative of Easy Financial Solutions contacted an elderly Maine consumer, A. S., by telephone and managed to obtain A. S.’s Visa account number and address; and

WHEREAS Easy Financial Solutions sent to A. S. an undated letter in which it informed the reader, “You now have a team of Professionals who are dedicated to assisting you in the elimination of your debt . . .”; and “Our Portfolio Managers provide their years of experience combined with cutting–edge technology to show you how you may eliminate your debt three-to-five times faster”; and “If you have not started, or started but not finished your credit card negotiation process with our Portfolio Managers, please do not delay this any longer!”; and “We are here to help you stop this unnecessary drain of your finances”; and “We are pleased to inform you that the benefits we provide to you are much, much greater than just interest rate negotiation”; and “Financial Coaching—this personalized one-on-one service will assist and guide you to financial freedom”; and “We are pleased to provide you with a Program that is about improving the quality of life for you and your family in a way that is financially responsible”; and

WHEREAS other paperwork sent to A. S. from Easy Financial Solutions informed the reader of the following: that it would provide A. S. with a “Road Map to Financial Freedom”; that “you should be securely grounded with Easy Financial Solutions’s commitment to work with you as a team”; that “The earlier you complete and return these forms, the sooner Easy Financial Solutions can begin its task of evaluating your current financial picture and generating a Financial Road Map specifically for you”; that “we guarantee that we will show you how to reduce the amount of interest that you will pay in future interest on your current credit cards . . . “; that “We will get you on that road [to becoming debt free] fast providing you with a plan that will work for you and that fits with your specific financial abilities”; that “We will educate you on the traps that get consumers into credit card debt, and teach you how to overcome it”; that “With our program you gain access to IRS Certified Debt Management Programs, Legal Counseling, Financial Coaching, Discounted Tax Services, Credit Repair and Mortgage Consulting Services”; that “Your Portfolio Manager will analyze your lender profile, and develop with you a strategy to work with your creditors to reduce the amount of time it will take you to become Debt Free”; and that “They will educate you on how to negotiate with your lenders and teach you how to avoid hidden feeds, finance charges, and inflated interest rates”; and

WHEREAS Easy Financial Solutions’ website offers, “Let us show you how you can break free from your debt cycle” and “Balance your finances, control your spending, lower your borrowing costs and gain financial freedom”; and

WHEREAS C. S., the daughter of A. S., who holds power of attorney for A. S., happened to see the paperwork from Easy Financial and inquired of her mother what it was; her mother had no idea; and

WHEREAS C. S. saw a bill from Easy Financial Solutions to A. S. in the amount of $1395; and

WHEREAS C. S., upon reviewing a Visa account statement of A. S., learned that on January 13, 2009, A. S. was charged $1395 under the name Dynamic Financial, which is a division of Easy Financial Solutions, and asked her mother what the charge was for; her mother had no idea; and

WHEREAS in early February 2009 A. S. happened to receive a call from a representative of Easy Financial Solutions at a time when her daughter, C. S., was visiting, and A. S., being confused by the call, had her daughter talk to the representative; and

WHEREAS C. S. told the representative that her mother would not be needing or using the services of Easy Financial Solutions and demanded that her mother receive a full refund of charges against her Visa account; and

WHEREAS Easy Financial Solutions refused to make any refund of the $1395; although ultimately A.S.’s credit card company reversed the charge, and on April 21, 2009, C. S. received a call from Agnes Latka of the Quality Assurance Department of Easy Financial Solutions by which Ms. Latka wanted to be sure that A. S.’s account was refunded the $1395; and

WHEREAS by letter of March 4, 2009, the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection notified Easy Financial Solutions that it was engaged in debt management services, as defined by to 32 M.R.S.A. 6172(2), and that it was not registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection as a debt management service provider, as required by 32 M.R.S.A. 6173(2); and

WHEREAS the letter of March 4, 2009, the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection informed Easy Financial Solutions that the fee it had originally charged to A. S. exceeded the limitations of 32 M.R.S.A. 6174-A(1), (2)(A), (B), which provides that a debt management service provider can charge a one-time initial fee of no more than $75 for its services, followed by a monthly fee of no more than $40 or a fee that is a proportion of what the debt management service provider saves the consumer; and

WHEREAS Agnes Latka of Easy Financial Solutions, in a letter dated April 21, 2009, responded to the March 4, 2009, letter from the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection by denying that it actively seeks clients in the state of Maine and by denying, without explanation, that it was a debt management service provider;

NOW, THEREFORE, Easy Financial Solutions is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all activity subject to registration in the State of Maine as a debt management service provider, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Superintendent of the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection; and it is further

ORDERED that Easy Financial Solutions is to pay the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection $500 within 30 days of the date of this Order in reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation, pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6178(3).

NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS: Easy Financial Solutions may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on the Order within 30 days of the date of this Order by making that request in writing to the Administrator, or it may seek judicial review of this Order pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001-11008.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 12 day of May, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
The Hall Firm, LLC Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > The Hall Firm, LLC —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

The Hall Firm, LLC
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the The Hall Firm, LLC, a law firm and debt management services company located in New York City, New York, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated February 25, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified the The Hall Firm, LLC that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS The Hall Firm, LLC is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS The Hall Firm, LLC has contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees to negotiate new mortgage terms with the consumer’s mortgage lender. To do so without a debt management services registration violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS The Hall Firm, LLC violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS The Hall Firm, LLC has not responded to the Bureau’s February 25, 2009 letter; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, The Hall Firm, LLC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

The Hall Firm, LLC is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 30 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

The Hall Firm, LLC is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 30 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, and the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to The Hall Firm, LLC, and the amount of any refund paid by The Hall Firm, LLC to the consumer.

The Hall Firm, LLC is further ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 to the Bureau within 30 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

The Hall Firm, LLC may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Apply 2 Save, Inc. Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Apply 2 Save, Inc. —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Apply 2 Save, Inc.
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Apply 2 Save, Inc., a debt management services company located in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated March 5, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Apply 2 Save, Inc. that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Apply 2 Save, Inc. is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Apply 2 Save, Inc. has contracted with at least two Maine consumers and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Apply 2 Save, Inc. has failed to refund fees collected from said Maine consumers or to register as debt management services company; and

WHEREAS Apply 2 Save, Inc. violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Apply 2 Save, Inc. is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Apply 2 Save, Inc. is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Apply 2 Save, Inc. is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Apply 2 Save, Inc., and the amount of any refund paid by Apply 2 Save, Inc. to the consumer.

Apply 2 Save, Inc. is further ORDERED to pay $1,500.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Apply 2 Save, Inc. may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

Dated this 7th day of July, 2009.

William N. Lund, Superintendent Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection Administrator, Maine Consumer Credit Code

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
FHA All Day Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > FHA All Day —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

FHA All Day
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS FHA All Day, a debt management services company located in Boca Raton, Florida, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated March 4, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified FHA All Day that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS FHA All Day is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS FHA All Day has contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS FHA All Day has not registered as a debt management service company with the Bureau; and,

WHEREAS FHA All Day violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, FHA All Day is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

FHA All Day is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

FHA All Day is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to FHA All Day, and the amount of any refund paid by FHA All Day to the consumer.

FHA All Day is further ORDERED to pay $750.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

FHA All Day may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Helpmodifynow.com Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Helpmodifynow.com —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Helpmodifynow.com
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS HelpModifyNow.com, a debt management services company located in Newport Beach, California, is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS HelpModifyNow.com is soliciting Maine consumers for the purpose of negotiating with the mortgage lenders of Maine consumers with the intention of restructuring their current mortgage loans; and

WHEREAS HelpModifyNow.com must be registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS HelpModifyNow.com is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS HelpModifyNow.com has contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS HelpModifyNow.com violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, HelpModifyNow.com is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

HelpModifyNow.com is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

HelpModifyNow.com is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to HelpModifyNow.com, and the amount of any refund paid by HelpModifyNow.com to the consumer.

HelpModifyNow.com is further ORDERED to pay $500.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

HelpModifyNow.com may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

STATE OF MAINE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION KENNEBEC, SS

IN RE: MICHAEL THOMAS STOLLER, ESQ ) A/K/A ) CEASE & DESIST FRESH START MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE ) ORDER SOLUTIONS )

WHEREAS Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions, a debt management services company located in Beverly Hills, California and Clearwater, Florida respectively, were notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated February 12, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions are not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions have contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions has failed to refund the fees collected from said Maine consumer and to register as a debt management services company; and

WHEREAS Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions, and the amount of any refund paid by Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions to the consumer.

Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions is further ORDERED to pay $2,500.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Michael Thomas Stoller, Esq. a/k/a Fresh Start Mortgage Solutions may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Bills Made Simple.Com, Inc. Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Bills Made Simple.Com, Inc. —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Bills Made Simple.Com, Inc.
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Bills Made Simple.com, Inc, a debt management services company located in San Diego, California, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated November 18, 2008 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Bills Made Simple.com, Inc that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Bills Made Simple.com, Inc is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Bills Made Simple.com, Inc has contracted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Bills Made Simple.com, Inc have failed to refund fees collected from said Maine consumer or to register as debt management services companies; and

WHEREAS Bills Made Simple.com, Inc violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Bills Made Simple.com, Inc is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Bills Made Simple.com, Inc is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Bills Made Simple.com, Inc is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Bills Made Simple.com, Inc, and the amount of any refund paid by Bills Made Simple.com, Inc to the consumer.

Bills Made Simple.com, Inc is further ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Bills Made Simple.com, Inc may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Federal Loan Modification Law Center Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Federal Loan Modification Law Center —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Federal Loan Modification Law Center
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the Federal Loan Modification Law Center, a debt management services company located in Irvine, California, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letters dated March 4, 2009, June 11, 2009, and July 1, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letters notified the Federal Loan Modification Law Center that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS the Federal Loan Modification Law Center is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS the Federal Loan Modification Law Center contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees after notification from the Bureau that to do so violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the Federal Loan Modification Law Center contracted with at least two Maine consumers and solicited the payment of fees from those consumers violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the Federal Loan Modification Law Center has failed to refund fees collected from at least two (2) Maine consumers or to register as debt management services companies; and

WHEREAS the Federal Loan Modification Law Center violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, the Federal Loan Modification Law Center is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

The Federal Loan Modification Law Center is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

The Federal Loan Modification Law Center is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer and the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to the Federal Loan Modification Law Center, and the amount of any refund paid by the Federal Loan Modification Law Center to the consumer.

The Federal Loan Modification Law Center are further ORDERED to pay $2,500.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

The Federal Loan Modification Law Center may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Hope Now Modifications Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Hope Now Modifications —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Hope Now Modifications
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications, a debt management services company located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications is contracting with Maine consumers for the purpose of negotiating with the Maine consumers’ mortgage lenders to obtain modifications of mortgage loans; and

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications must be registered with the Bureau OF Consumer credit Protection (“the Bureau”) before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications has contracted with at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications has failed to refund fees collected from said Maine consumer or to register as a debt management services company; and

WHEREAS Hope Now Modifications violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Hope Now Modifications is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Hope Now Modifications is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Hope Now Modifications is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer. The service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Hope Now Modifications, and the amount of any refund paid by Hope Now Modifications to the consumer.

Hope Now Modifications is further ORDERED to pay $750.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Hope Now Modifications may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Joel L. Schwrtz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Shwartz Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Joel L. Schwrtz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Shwartz —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Joel L. Schwrtz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Shwartz
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz, a debt management services company located in Northfield, New Jersey, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated June 18, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Bills Made Simple.com, Inc is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz has contracted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz have failed to refund fees collected from said Maine consumer or to register as debt management services companies; and

WHEREAS Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Bills Made Simple.com, Inc, and the amount of any refund paid by Bills Made Simple.com, Inc to the consumer.

Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz is further ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Joel L. Schwartz, Esq. d/b/a Law Offices of Joel L. Schwartz may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC, a debt management services company located in Phoenix, Arizona was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letters dated April 27, 2009 that the companies are engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letters notified Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC has contracted with at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC has failed to refund fees collected from said Maine consumer or to register as debt management services company; and

WHEREAS Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC, and the amount of any refund paid by Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC to the consumer.

Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC is further ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Lewis Foreclosure Mediation Services, LLC may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Mason Capital Group, LLC Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Mason Capital Group, LLC —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Mason Capital Group, LLC
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC, a debt management services company located in Encino, California, is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC is contracting with Maine consumers for the purpose of contacting the mortgage lenders of Maine consumers for the purpose of negotiating a work-out agreement; and

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC must be registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC has contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC has failed to refund fees collected from said Maine consumer or to register as debt management services company; and

WHEREAS Mason Capital Group, LLC violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Mason Capital Group, LLC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Mason Capital Group, LLC is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Mason Capital Group, LLC is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Mason Capital Group, LLC, and the amount of any refund paid by Mason Capital Group, LLC to the consumer.

Mason Capital Group, LLC is further ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Mason Capital Group, LLC may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
National Foreclosure Counseling Services Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > National Foreclosure Counseling Services —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

National Foreclosure Counseling Services
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS National Foreclosure Counseling Services, a debt management services company located in Jacksonville, Florida, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letters dated February 5, 2009 that the companies are engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letters notified National Foreclosure Counseling Services that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS National Foreclosure Counseling Services are not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS National Foreclosure Counseling Services has contracted with at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS National Foreclosure Counseling Services has failed to comply with the Bureau’s requests as stated in the February 5, 2009 letter, specifically, to provide a list of any and all Maine consumers that have contracted with the company and to register as debt management services company; and

WHEREAS National Foreclosure Counseling Services violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, National Foreclosure Counseling Services is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

National Foreclosure Counseling Services is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

National Foreclosure Counseling Services is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to National Foreclosure Counseling Services, and the amount of any refund paid by National Foreclosure Counseling Services to the consumer.

National Foreclosure Counseling Services is further ORDERED to pay $750.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

National Foreclosure Counseling Services may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Ocean View Investment Services Co Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Ocean View Investment Services Co —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Ocean View Investment Services Co
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Ocean View Investment Services Co., a debt management services company located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated December 3, 2008 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Ocean View Investment Services Co. that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Ocean View Investment Services Co. is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Ocean View Investment Services Co. contracted with at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Ocean View Investment Services Co. has failed to comply with the Bureau’s requests as stated in the December 3, 2008 letter, specifically, to provide a list of any and all Maine consumers that have contracted with the company and to register as debt management services company; and

WHEREAS Ocean View Investment Services Co. violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Ocean View Investment Services Co. is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Ocean View Investment Services Co. is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Ocean View Investment Services Co. is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Ocean View Investment Services Co., and the amount of any refund paid by Ocean View Investment Services Co.

Ocean View Investment Services Co. is further ORDERED to pay $750.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Ocean View Investment Services Co. may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Pathway Financial Management Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Pathway Financial Management —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Pathway Financial Management
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS Pathway Financial Management, a debt management services company located in Stanton, California, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated January 22, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified Pathway Financial Management that they must be registered with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Pathway Financial Management is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS Pathway Financial Management has contracted with at least seven (7) Maine consumers and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS Pathway Financial Management stated on February 5, 2009, that “we intend to process the said license application not more than 3 calendar months from now.” ; and

WHEREAS Pathway Financial Management has failed to register as debt management services company and has failed to refund the fees paid by the seven (7) Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS Pathway Financial Management violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, Pathway Financial Management is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

Pathway Financial Management is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

Pathway Financial Management is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to Pathway Financial Management; the total amount of all payments made by Pathway Financial Management to the consumer’s creditors, and the amount of any refund paid by Pathway Financial Management to the consumer.

Pathway Financial Management is further ORDERED to pay $1,000.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Pathway Financial Management may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
United Hope Alliance Corp Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > United Hope Alliance Corp —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

United Hope Alliance Corp
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS United Hope Alliance Corp., a debt management services company located in Jacksonville, Florida, is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS United Hope Alliance Corp. is soliciting Maine consumers for the purpose of negotiating with the mortgage lenders of Maine consumers with the intention of restructuring their current mortgage loans; and

WHEREAS United Hope Alliance Corp. must be registered with the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS United Hope Alliance Corp. is not now nor have they ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS United Hope Alliance Corp. has contacted at least one Maine consumer and solicited the payment of fees from said consumer violates 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS United Hope Alliance Corp. violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that they could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact they could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, United Hope Alliance Corp. is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator.

United Hope Alliance Corp. is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be paid directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

United Hope Alliance Corp. is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order.

The list shall include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to United Hope Alliance Corp., and the amount of any refund paid by United Hope Alliance Corp. to the consumer.

United Hope Alliance Corp.is further ORDERED to pay $500.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

United Hope Alliance Corp. may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the undersigned administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 7th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
1st American Lenders; 133 Maine Mall Rd; South Portland, ME Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > 1st American Lenders; 133 Maine Mall Rd; South Portland, ME —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

1st American Lenders; 133 Maine Mall Rd; South Portland, ME
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (BCCP) is established to, among other things, receive and act on complaints, 9-A M.R.S. 6-104(1)(A), and may issue orders that direct a person to cease and desist from violating the Maine Consumer Credit Code, id. 6-108(1); and

WHEREAS the Maine Consumer Credit Code defines a supervised lender and supervised loan, id. 1-301(39), (40), requires that a supervised lender be licensed in order to make supervised loans, id. 2-301(1), and provides that the issuance of a license depends on a finding that a supervised loan business be operated honestly and fairly, id. 2-302(2); and

WHEREAS a company called 1st American Lenders maintains a website at www.1stamericanlenders.com, and the website lists a physical address of 133 Maine Mall Road in South Portland, Maine 04106, with a telephone number of 1-800-764-0418; and

WHEREAS 1st American Lenders advertises the availability of loans on the Internet to consumers for a variety of purposes without the need for a credit check and documentation that is typically required from other lenders and banks; and

WHEREAS a sample contract from the 1st American Lenders states, “Initial payments are not accepted in the office at the address above, for it is to be secured with the designated lender for the purchase of Lender’s Insurance to secure the loan”; and

WHEREAS such sample contract states that its ZIP code at 133 Maine Mall Road, South Portland, Maine is 03229—which is the ZIP code for Contoocook, New Hampshire; and

WHEREAS BCCP received calls from several consumers beginning the week of July 6, 2009, concerning 1st American Lenders stating that they had found 1st American Lenders on the Internet and had contacted 1st American Lenders about obtaining loans; and

WHEREAS all consumers who contacted BCCP were asked for personal financial information in order to qualify for a loan and were advised that they needed to make an initial payment, or downpayment, in order to receive a loan; and

WHEREAS BCCP learned from the consumers that the amount of the initial payment depends on the amount of the loan, but has been in the range of $400 to $1000; and

WHEREAS the consumers were advised by 1st American Lenders that the initial payment should be wired via money order to “King Coffee Snacks,” in Pickering, Ontario, Canada or to Calgary, Alberta, Canada; and

WHEREAS the consumers who wired money to the Canadian addresses have not received their loans as promised by 1st American Lenders; and

WHEREAS BCCP has investigated this lender and found that the address in South Portland, Maine is nonexistent and the company named as 1st American Lenders is neither licensed by BCCP nor a legitimate company;

NOW THEREFORE, 1st American Lenders is hereby ORDERED to cease and desist all advertising and contact with Maine consumers or any consumers while purporting to use any Maine address; and it is further

ORDERED that 1st American Lenders shall not offer loans to Maine consumers or from any address in Maine; and it is further

ORDERED that 1st American Lenders shall forthwith refund, within 30 days of the date of this Order, any and all payments, or downpayments, collected from Maine consumers or from any consumers while it has purported to use any Maine address; and it is further

ORDERED that such refunds shall be paid directly to the BCCP for distribution to consumers, whose names and addresses are to be provided to BCCP.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 10th day of July, 2009.

 

 

/s/Eric E. Wright
Eric E. Wright
Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc.  Assurance of Discontinuance : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc. — Assurance of Discontinuance

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc.
Assurance of Discontinuance
 
 

NOW COME the parties, and stipulate to the following facts:

  1. The Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection is responsible for enforcing the Maine Debt Management Service Provider Act, 32 MRSA 6171 et seq., which regulates the practices of debt management service providers conducting business in the state of Maine.

  2. Maine’s debt management service statute (32 MRSA 6171 et seq.), requires an organization, wherever located, desiring to act as a debt management service provider with respect to a consumer in the State of Maine, shall apply to the administrator for registration in accordance with Chapter 80-A. Debt management services include acting or offering to act as an intermediary between a consumer and one or more creditors of the consumer for the purpose of adjusting, settling, discharging, reaching a compromise on or otherwise altering the terms of payment of the consumer’s obligation.

  3. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc is not registered with the State of Maine to provide debt management services pursuant to 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.

  4. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc has solicited and contracted with Maine consumers to provide services covered by Maine’s statute.

  5. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc was notified of this violation in February 2009. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc has assured the Bureau that they do not intend and will no longer solicit and/or accept applications from Maine consumers.

NOW THERFORE, the parties agree as follows:

  1. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc will immediately discontinue offering debt management services to Maine consumers until the company has first registered with the State of Maine as a debt management service provider.

  2. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc will cease and desist from entering into contractual agreements with Maine consumers to provide debt management services.

  3. All payments and fees received from Maine consumers will be returned to said consumers with a letter of explanation stating that Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc is not licensed to conduct business with Maine consumers.

  4. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc assures the Bureau that there are currently no contractual agreements with any Maine consumers.

  5. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc acknowledges that additional activity with respect to Maine consumers, without the prescribed registration, will be subject to the remedies and penalties allowed for pursuant to 32 MRSA 6181.

  6. Beacon Debt Solutions, Inc will submit along with this Assurance of Discontinuance, a check in the amount of $500.00, payable to “Treasurer, State of Maine,” for payment of compliance and investigative costs pursuant to 32 MRSA section 6178(3) and 9-A MRSA 6-109.

Date: July 08, 2009 /s/David R. Stolt
David R. Stolt, Chief Field Investigator
Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection
 
Date: July 1, 2009 /s/Beacon Debt Solutions
Beacon Debt Solutions

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 8th day of July, 2009.

 

 

USA Home Loans Inc. SLM9813  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > USA Home Loans Inc. SLM9813 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

USA Home Loans Inc. SLM9813
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On June 15, 2009, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from The Hartford Fire Insurance Company informing the Bureau that the above named supervised lender’s bond would no longer be effective as of July 21, 2009.

2) June 17, 2009, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a letter requesting a replacement bond by July 19, 2009.

3) Having heard nothing from the company, on July 22, 2009, several unsuccessful telephone calls were made to a variety of telephone numbers in our file for this company.

4) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of July 22, 2009, the Bureau has not received a request to terminate USA HOME LOANS INC’s license nor has it received a replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective July 22, 2009.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22nd day of July, 2009.

 

 

Freedom Financial CSO6594  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Freedom Financial CSO6594 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-BND

 

In Re:

Freedom Financial CSO6594
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On March 4, 2009, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from NGM Insurance informing the Bureau that the above named mortgage broker’s bond would no longer be effective as of January 31, 2009.

2) On July 23, 2009, the Bureau attempted to contact the above-named broker by telephone at the phone number the broker had provided the Bureau, which was (207) 892-2963. The phone message received when the call was made stated; “This is the home of New England Pinball, John Reuter and Linda McGill.” A message was left stating that the Bureau was trying to reach Freedom Financial and asking them to return the call. A second call was made to the (207) 892-2963 number right after the first call and the same message was received. The Bureau did not receive a response to the voice mail message left on July 23, 2009.

Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of July 31, 2009, the Bureau had not received the lender’s replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Supervised Lender license of the above-named lender, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective January 31, 2009.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 31st day of July, 2009.

 

 

ELI Mortgage CSO8592  Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > ELI Mortgage CSO8592 — Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

Docket # 2009-BND

 

In Re:

ELI Mortgage CSO8592
Order Terminating License for Failure to Provide Bond
 
 

1) On December 4, 2008, the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) received a bond cancellation notice from Hartford Fire Insurance informing the Bureau that the above named Loan Broker’s bond would no longer be effective as of January 31, 2009.

2) On December 10, 2009, the Bureau sent to the above-named lender a certified letter requesting a replacement bond by January 31, 2009.

3) On December 26, 2009, the Bureau received the Certified Mail receipt back from the postal service signed by the recipient.

4) On June 15, 2009, the Bureau called and spoke with Mr. Wayne Thibaudeau at ELI Mortgage concerning the fact that no replacement bond had been received. Mr. Thibaudeau stated that he had closed his business and was no longer living in Maine. He stated that he had made no loans. He stated that he would decide within the next day or two if he was going to obtain a new bond or surrender his license.

5) On July 23, 2009, the Bureau called Mr. Wayne Thibaudeau again. He was not available, so a voice mail message was left asking him what his decision was in regard to obtaining a new bond.

6) On August 3, 2009, the Bureau called Mr. Wayne Thibaudeau again. He was not available, so a voice mail message was left advising Mr. Thibaudeau that his Loan Broker license was being revoked due to his failure to provide a bond.

7) Pursuant to the Maine Consumer Credit Code, a current valid bond is a condition of continued licensure in the State of Maine. As of August 3, 2009, the Bureau had not received the Loan Broker’s replacement bond.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Loan Broker license of the above-named company, and its ability to conduct lending and/or loan brokering activities with respect to Maine consumers, is hereby terminated, effective .

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 3rd day of August, 2009.

 

 

Sunshine Funding USA, LLC  Order : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Sunshine Funding USA, LLC — Order

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Sunshine Funding USA, LLC
Order
 
 

This matter came on for an administrative hearing on July 24, 2009 at the offices of the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation in Gardiner, Maine.

The sole issue to be determined is whether the decision by the staff of the Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) to deny a Supervised Lender license to Sunshine Funding USA, LLC was justified pursuant to the provisions of the Maine Consumer Credit Code (the Code).

Jim Collins appeared on behalf of Sunshine Funding USA, LLC (Sunshine Funding). Eric Wright, Staff Attorney, presented the case for the Bureau, and Bureau employees Kristine Fournier and Douglas Stark testified as witnesses.

Most of the facts in this case are not in dispute, and they are recited below:

  1. The application from Sunshine Funding USA, LLC for a license as a Supervised Lender was received by the Bureau on May 21, 2009. It listed an office address at 5 Industry Road, South Portland, Maine.

  2. The application listed Jack Grunfeld as the individual to contact for scheduling compliance examinations and for loss mitigation issues. It was signed by Laura Underweiser, VP. Ms. Underweiser was also listed as the contact person for consumer complaints.

  3. A review of the package revealed several items signed by Jim Collins. The “Application for Authority to do Business” filed with the Maine Secretary of State, was signed by “Jim Collins, V.P.” In addition, the surety bond submitted by the applicant was signed by “Jim Collins, Manager.”

  4. Question #6(B) of the supervised lender application requests information on “the top five (5) corporate officers, LLC shareholders or LLP Partners.” The response to that question listed the names of Mr. Grunfeld and Ms. Underweiser. The name of Mr. Collins, who as indicated above was listed in other documents as “V.P.” and “Manager,” was not listed in the response to this question.

  5. Question #8 of the application is designed to inform the Bureau whether any top officers of an applicant company have held similar positions in any current or past licensed company. In response to this question, the application stated “No,” that none of the top 5 LLC shareholders hold or have held major positions in other current or past licensed companies.

  6. Kristine Fournier, the Bureau’s senior staffer who was processing the Sunshine Funding application, recognized the name of Jim Collins. Mr. Collins was a principal with A&B Mortgage Corp., which was previously licensed as a Supervised Lender with the Bureau.

  7. The Supervised Lender license of A&B Mortgage was administratively revoked by the Bureau in September 2008, because the Bureau received notice from the company that provided A&B Mortgage’s surety bond that the bonding company was canceling A&B Mortgage Corp.’s bond. An active, valid bond is a requirement for all Supervised Lenders, and lack of bonding is grounds for license termination.

  8. In the course of its processing of the application, Bureau personnel telephoned the landlord of the South Portland property. The landlord indicated in leasing the property to Sunshine Funding, he had dealt exclusively with Jim Collins.

  9. Jim Collins contacted the Bureau offices on many occasions to request updates on progress of the license application.

  10. On June 15, 2009 the Bureau mailed to Mr. Grunfeld and Mr. Collins a letter denying the application for a Supervised Lender license. The letter listed a variety of reasons for the denial, including: 1) erroneous contact information (an incorrect phone number had been provided for Mr. Grunfeld); 2) inconsistencies in the information provided (the landlord for the building in South Portland named as the office location, was listed as “designated agent” for service of process, but when questioned by Bureau staffers he stated that he was unaware that he had been so named); 3) the existence of an Order to Show Cause against Mr. Collins’ former company, A&B Mortgage Corp., by regulators in neighboring New Hampshire, and a default judgment revoking the license of A&B Mortgage Corp. in that state; and 4) the staff’s belief that Jim Collins, who had been a principal in a company whose license had been revoked, was playing a major role in the operations of a new company, based on his preparation of the application, his obtaining of the bond, his filing with the Corporations Division as a Foreign Corporation, his arranging for the lease for the South Portland office, and the designations of himself as “V.P.” and “Manager” in the application materials submitted.

  11. Upon receipt of the denial letter, Mr. Collins requested a hearing. At the hearing the Bureau presented testimony first, and set forth the facts of the case as listed in paragraph #10, above. In response, Mr. Collins testified to the following:

A) He said he was neither a “V.P.” of Sunshine Funding nor its “Manager,” but was merely an interested third party attempting to assist Mr. Grunfeld, with whom he hoped to have continued business dealings;

B) He was not, and did not plan to be, involved with Sunshine Funding;

C) The cancellation of his bond with A&B Mortgage Corp. and the revocation of that company’s Maine license were surprises to him, and were the result of a mistake by his bonding company;

D) The actions by regulators in the State of New Hampshire were the result of a misunderstanding; and

E) He was not certain who would be the manager of the Sunshine Funding office if it opened in South Portland, Maine.

DETERMINATION

I find that the Bureau had just cause to deny the initial application based on the information provided. Mr. Collins was obviously playing a large role in the start-up of the company, having dealt with the bonding company, the landlord and the Secretary of State, Corporation’s Division. The license of A&B Mortgage Corp. had been revoked less than one year earlier by the Bureau based on failure to maintain a current bond. Mr. Collins identified himself alternately as “V.P.” and “Manager” for Sunshine Funding, yet the application did not reveal the extent of his involvement in the company. If in fact he was just a third party assisting Mr. Grunfeld, then the file was devoid of any evidence that Sunshine Funding had appointed him as agent or authorized him to speak or act for the applicant company.

REMEDIAL MEASURES REQUIRED

Sunshine Funding shall be permitted to file a new application, and the application fee submitted with the initial application shall be credited toward the new application. Certain existing documents (e.g., the revised bond form listing Mr. Grunfeld’s name, rather than that of Mr. Collins) can be used to support the new application. The new application must contain the following elements, in addition to any information and documentation otherwise required:

A) A balance sheet showing the net worth of the LLC (not simply of the principal, Mr. Grunfeld). The law requires that at least $25,000 be held by any applicant, and that sum must be liquid, and available for use by the lender.

B) Mr. Collins’ current and future role with Sunshine Funding, if any, must be stated clearly in a cover letter to the application. If he is authorized to file or manage the application process, then that assignment and authorization must be in writing from the applicant. If Mr. Collins will be involved in any future activities of the company, that plan must be described in writing.

C) The file may not contain any signatures or other information misrepresenting Mr. Collins’ position in the company (such as Manager or V.P.) unless he is given those titles in writing by the company.

D) The application must list the names of those who will be managing the South Portland office, since the testimony at the hearing was ambiguous as to whether Ms. Underweiser would or would not be the Office Manager.

Mr. Collins must clarify the status of A&B Mortgage Corp., either by applying for reinstatement of its license and providing bond coverage, or by agreeing that the current revocation may continue and by disclosing the number of arranged or funded loans since September 2008, and that he will not make or arrange loans in the future as A&B Mortgage Corp.

Mr. Collins must inform Maine regulators of the outcome of any regulatory action involving A&B Mortgage in New Hampshire, and must provide evidence of any final determinations by regulations in that state.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

Either party may appeal this Order by filing a petition for review in the Superior Court within 30 days of receipt of this Order pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. 11001-11008. If the Order is not appealed, it shall become binding on the parties at the end of the 30-day period.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 4th day of August, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
1 2 3 Fix My Loan, LLC Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > 1 2 3 Fix My Loan, LLC —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

1 2 3 Fix My Loan, LLC
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS 123 Fix My Loan, LLC, a debt management services company located in Sharon, Massachusetts, was notified by the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (“the Bureau”) by letter dated April 27, 2009 and by email on June 17, 2009 that the company is engaging in activities requiring registration as a debt management service provider pursuant to 32 Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (M.R.S.A.), Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS the letter notified 123 Fix My Loan, LLC that the company must register with the Bureau before providing debt management services to Maine consumers; and

WHEREAS 123 Fix My Loan, LLC is not now nor has it ever been registered to provide debt management services in Maine; and.

WHEREAS 123 Fix My Loan, LLC has contracted with at least two Maine consumers and solicited the payment of fees in violation of 32 MRSA 6171 et seq.; and

WHEREAS on June 25, 2009, 123 Fix My Loan, LLC misrepresented to the Bureau the total number of Maine consumers enrolled with the company; and

WHEREAS 123 Fix My Loan, LLC has failed to refund fees collected from at least one of said Maine consumers or to register as debt management services company; and

WHEREAS 123 Fix My Loan, LLC violated 32 MRSA Chapter 80-A, 6171 et seq. by representing to consumers that it could lawfully, offer, sell, or perform debt management services in Maine when, in fact it could not lawfully do so; and

WHEREAS unregistered activity is subject to administrative and civil penalties pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. 6181;

NOW THEREFORE, 123 Fix My Loan, LLC is hereby notified and ORDERED to cease and desist all debt management service activity subject to registration in the State of Maine, unless and until such time as registration is granted by the Administrator; and

123 Fix My Loan, LLC is further ORDERED to immediately refund any and all fees collected from Maine consumers within 45 days of the date of this Order. Said refunds to be shall be delivered directly to the Bureau for distribution to affected Maine consumers; and

123 Fix My Loan, LLC is further ORDERED to provide the Bureau with a list of all Maine consumers from whom monies were collected at any time during the preceding 24 months in connection with the offer and sale of debt management services within 45 days of the date of this Order;

The list is to include the full name and address of each consumer, the service purchased by the consumer, the total amount of all payments made by the consumer to 123 Fix My Loan, LLC and the amount of any refund paid by 123 Fix My Loan, LLC to the consumer; and

123 Fix My Loan, LLC is further ORDERED to pay $1,500.00 to the Bureau within 45 days of the date of this Order as reimbursement for reasonable costs of investigation pursuant to 32 MRSA 6178(3).

Notice of Hearing Rights

123 Fix My Loan, LLC may request the scheduling of an administrative hearing on this order within 30 days of the date of this order by making that request in writing to the above-signed administrator, or may seek review of this order pursuant to Maine’s Administrative Procedures Act, 5 M.R.S.A. 11001 et seq.

 

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION.

 

 

Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 12th day of August, 2009.

 

 

/s/William N. Lund, Superintendent
William N. Lund, Superintendent
Trinity Debt Group; 1180 LIncoln Ave, Ste 1; Holbrook, NY- Cease and Desist Order  : Office of Consumer Credit Protection

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

 
Maine.gov > PFR Home > Enforcement Actions & Consent Agreements Index > Trinity Debt Group; 1180 LIncoln Ave, Ste 1; Holbrook, NY- —Cease and Desist Order 

STATE OF MAINE

BUREAU OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION

 

In Re:

Trinity Debt Group; 1180 LIncoln Ave, Ste 1; Holbrook, NY-
Cease and Desist Order
 
 

WHEREAS the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (the Bureau) is established to, among other things, receive and act on complaints, 9-A M.R.S. 6-104(1)(A), and may issue orders that direct a person to cease and desist from violating the Maine Consumer Credit Act, id. 6-108(1); and

WHEREAS 32 M.R.S. 6173(2) requires one, wherever located, who provides or offers to provide a consumer in Maine with debt management services, as that concept is defined by 32 M.R.S. 6172(2)(A)-(D), to be registered; and

WHEREAS the Bureau in July 2009 received a complaint from two Maine consumers, R. and N. W., that R.W. had hired Trinity Debt Group to reduce their credit card debt to zero in four years, in return for a monthly fee of $245; and

WHEREAS R. W. had made an initial payment to Trinity Debt Group of $245; and

WHEREAS R. W. thereafter learned that Trinity Debt Group has a D- rating from the Better Business Bureau; that the money he and N. W. were going to be sending is put in an escrow account for payment to one’s creditors; that after four years Trinity Debt Group keeps the money and does not pay off one’s creditors; and that Trinity Debt Group is not registered in Maine as a debt management service provider; and

WHEREAS R. W. sought the return of his $245, which was returned to him by Trinity Debt Group; and

WHEREAS the Bureau has twice, by letters, notified Trinity Debt Group that it must register with the Bureau to conduct debt management services in Maine, and has offered to assist Trinity Debt Group with registration; and

WHEREAS Staff Attorney Eric E. Wright received a telephone message to call a Javier Apante at Trinity Debt Group, but Mr. Apante has not returned several messages left for him by Mr. Wright when attempting to answer Mr. Javier’s call; and

WHEREAS Trinity Debt Group has not otherwise responded to the letters sent by the consumer;

NOW THEREFORE, Trinity Debt Group, through any of its employees, agents, or representatives, is ORDERED not to offer debt management services for or in connection with any Maine consumer unless and until it has applied for registration as a debt management service provider by the Superintendent of the Bureau; and it is further

ORDERED that Trinity Debt Group shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, account to the Bureau by providing names and addresses of all Maine consumers who are customers or clients of Trinity