As Ad Vendor Alleges Big Debts, Foreclosure Firm Calls Filing Frivolous
Mansfield Advertising, which is suing Udren Law Offices, has asked for a judge to appoint a receiver for the law firm.
August 29, 2018 at 03:49 PM
3 minute read
A new filing in an advertising company's case against a foreclosure law firm suggests that the firm's advertising fee debts are not the greatest of its worries as it prepares to close.
Mansfield Advertising, which is suing New Jersey foreclosure firm Udren Law Offices, has asked a judge to appoint a receiver for the law firm. Mansfield has alleged that Udren cannot transition its clients and close down its firm without supervision.
Udren Law Offices, however, has said this latest motion is frivolous.
The advertising company, also known as William J. Mansfield Inc., has alleged in its complaint that Udren Law failed to pay more than $139,000 in fees for foreclosure notices published since January of this year. Udren Law represents lenders and mortgage servicers on real estate matters in Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, according to its website.
In a statement Wednesday, the law firm said, it has “legitimate defenses and potential counterclaims” to the lawsuit, and “intends to vigorously defend the frivolous motion to appoint a receiver that was filed today.”
“Udren Law Offices P.C. values its relationships with all of its clients and vendors. William J. Mansfield Inc. is the lone vendor in the firm's 25-year history to file a lawsuit seeking payment of outstanding invoices,” the firm's statement said. “Each of the firm's other vendors are working with us during this transition.”
According to the emergency motion, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mark Mansfield visited Udren Law's headquarters in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, earlier this month “to follow up on several unreturned phone calls,” and spoke with employee Lorraine Geist.
“Geist said that Udren Law's obligation to Mansfield Advertising is not the firm's largest payable,” the filing said. She also solicited a settlement proposal, it said, but Udren Law has not responded to more recent attempts to discuss a resolution.
The filing also suggested that Udren Law's employee compensation “may be excessive” under the circumstances of the wind-down.
“Although Mansfield Advertising's right to payment is indisputable, Mansfield Advertising may be prevented from obtaining a complete recovery by wasteful spending of Udren Law's limited resources, for example, by maintaining excessive staff levels for the wind-down, or by exercising improper preference in paying its debts,” the motion said.
Mansfield, which is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania, attached the 86 unpaid invoices, all dated between Jan. 26 and Aug. 20 of this year, to its complaint. The plaintiff lists fees for ads in a number of publications around Pennsylvania, including several in The Legal Intelligencer. Mansfield is alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
READ MORE:
As It Prepares to Close, New Jersey Foreclosure Firm Sued for Ad Fees
Pa. Justices: Excessive Foreclosure Attorney Fees Actionable
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
© 2025 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 All
Phila. Personal Injury Mainstay Regroups After Founder's Untimely Death
5 minute read
Legal Tech Driving Rise in Business Executive Roles at Law Firms
'Natural' Haircare Products False Advertising Class Action Can Partially Continue, Pa. Federal Judge Rules
5 minute read
Bradley Arant Defends Coachcomm In Advertising Beef Over Headset
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
