NY State Officials Describe 'Squalid' Conditions in Suit Against Lease-to-Own Company
“The black mold problem is out of control at this home and may fail HUD requirements and o[u]r standards,” one inspector wrote.
August 01, 2019 at 04:16 PM
4 minute read
State officials from New York alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Thursday that Vision Property Management sold homes in need of severe repair to consumers without telling those buyers about many of the unsafe conditions documented about the property.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, Vision is alleged to have operated an illegal, unlicensed mortgage-lending business to execute those transactions.
The litigation was filed jointly by New York Attorney General's Office and the state Department of Financial Services, which regulates the mortgage-lending industry.
“As alleged in the complaint, Vision swindled vulnerable New Yorkers who wanted nothing more than the American dream of homeownership but instead got distressed properties with unsafe, squalid conditions and high-interest, predatory loans,” said DFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell.
Vision advertises itself as a lease-to-own company, which essentially allow buyers to make payments toward the value of a home with the option of purchase. The lawsuit filed Thursday alleged that Vision would buy severely distressed properties and market them at a much higher price with high-cost interest rates.
The suit claimed that Vision targeted low-income consumers eager to own a home, or who weren't able to take out a mortgage. Those homes often needed extensive repairs, which Vision is alleged to have ignored before marketing a home, and in many cases didn't disclose to consumers.
The combination of expensive repairs and high home costs was ultimately bad for business, the suit said. Vision apparently routinely evicted consumers, who had invested money into the homes, because they couldn't afford to keep up with costs.
The company's data indicated that more than 40% of the seller-financing agreements it signed with New York consumers ended in an eviction or surrender of the property, according to the lawsuit.
“For nearly a decade, Vision put profits above people — fraudulently targeting, preying upon, and exploiting aspiring homeowners, including people with disabilities, the elderly and those living on fixed income,” Attorney General Letitia James said. “These deceptive and abusive practices have trapped New Yorkers in mold-infested, dilapidated homes, and wrongfully placed the onus on consumers to pay the price.”
The lawsuit includes a handful of descriptions of the homes, which were inspected before they were marketed to consumers.
“The black mold problem is out of control at this home and may fail HUD requirements and o[u]r standards,” one inspector wrote. “This home would cost more in repairs, mold remediation, remodeling, and asbestos removal than current value of home.”
Despite the report, that home was offered to consumers, according to the lawsuit.
Vision made about 150 loans that qualify as subprime home loans under New York law, most of which that also qualified as high-cost loans under, according to the suit, but didn't comply with the state's banking law.
Aside from that law, the suit was brought under the Dodd Frank Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and various other state laws.
It's not the first time Vision has been under the scrutiny of government. Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored mortgage association, stopped selling homes to the company after an investigation into its practices in 2017.
A call for comment made to Vision on Thursday was not immediately returned. An attorney for the company has not been listed for the case, according to the federal filing system.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Court System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250