Man wins $2.7-million mortgage-fraud verdict against brokers he says promised to help him stay in his house
A
In a verdict reached last month, the jury awarded
St. Louis, who left school in sixth grade, charged that Ghobadi told him that in exchange for selling her the three-family house, for
The three-family house had been in his ex-wife's family for 35 years, and she still lived in one of the units, while St. Louis lived with a roommate in another and his ex's brother lived in the third. St. Louis said that as part of the deal - made orally, with nothing on paper - Ghobadi agreed the ex-wife, daughter and brother could stay in their units for rent of
Instead, St. Louis said, just three months after he sold the house to Fitzgerald's firm, at a steep discount - not Ghobadi's separate firm - Fitzgerald sold the house to a Dorchester real-estate firm - then managed by Fitzgerald's daughter-in-law - for
Through the process, St. Louis charged, somebody repeatedly forged his signature on documents he never saw as part of the paperwork for the deals. Also, because he sold the house for far less than its assessed value, St. Louis suddenly owed the
Not long after taking over the house, the Dorchester firm - which St. Louis had originally sued as well, but which a judge dropped from the case before trial - ordered him and his family members out of the house and carelessly moved his stuff to a
In a pre-trial filing, his lawyer summed up his case for damages, including
"Plaintiff was the victim of a foreclosure rescue scam in which Defendant
"The Defendants have profited financially while the plaintiff and his family have lost their home and the tools required for the Plaintiff to make a living and continue on with his life."
In their own pre-trial statement, however, Ghobadi and Fitzgerald said the case was completely frivolous:
"The plaintiff had not made mortgage payments on the property in ten years. It was just a matter of time before the bank foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff took steps on two prior occasions to transfer the home by way of a short sale. He withdrew and changed his mind on both prior occasions. The third time (
"The plaintiff claims a lost of
"The plaintiff claims he suffered a loss of income of
"The plaintiff claims storage costs and loss of personal items. None of the defendants owned the property at the time the plaintiff is contending that he suffered a loss of personal items and had to incur storage fees."
The jury disagreed, setting the damages before interest at
AFL-CIO, 9 Collaborators Issue Public Comment to 3 Agencies
Trump corporate fraud case verdict delayed and expected in mid-February
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News