News
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Victims strike back at shady lenders
The companies promised foreclosure protection only to wind up taking the homes themselves.
By JEFF TESTERMAN, Times Staff Writer
Published October 13, 2007
Correction: Christopher Tomasulo consulted for Safe Harbour Foundation but was not involved in forming that company or a related firm called Silverstone Lending, as was alleged in a federal lawsuit filed Oct. 12.
TAMPA - Calvin Lewendowski, a 55-year-old Sarasota house remodeler, turned to the Safe Harbour Foundation last year after he was promised the nonprofit would save his home from foreclosure.
Instead, Lewendowski found himself in the jaws of a loan shark. Safe Harbour referred Lewendowski to a second company, Silverstone Lending, which used illegal fees and usurious interest to take away the home, an action Lewendowski called cold-blooded.
On Friday, Lewendowski and other victims struck back, filing a $40-million federal lawsuit against 18 individuals and companies, including Safe Harbour, Silverstone Lending and Peter C. Porcelli, a Clearwater businessman who operated the lending business despite being banned by a federal judge in 2004 from offering such credit products to consumers.
The lawsuit, filed in Tampa by attorney Michael A. Wasylik, tracks a St. Petersburg Times investigation of the questionable loan operation published in May.
The suit accuses Porcelli and his associates of engaging in racketeering by making false promises through the mail in order to obtain borrowers' homes through fraud. The suit alleges that Porcelli and others arranged bailout loans with usurious rates as high as 500 percent, violated truth-in-lending laws and charged illegal brokerage or servicing fees.
The plaintiffs seek millions in actual and punitive damages, an injunction declaring usurious loan deals unenforceable and an order restoring ownership of homes to the original owners.
Also named as defendants are Bonnie Harris and Christopher Tomasulo, who formed Safe Harbour and Silverstone with Porcelli, and Thomas C. Little, an attorney who served as registered agent for the two companies and represented Porcelli when he was handed the lifetime federal prohibition against offering loans or other credit products.
Porcelli, his attorney Lee Atkinson and the other defendants could not be reached for comment Friday.
Porcelli, 55, made a name for himself as a direct mail and telemarketing tycoon who owned the Tampa Bay Smokers, a fast-pitch softball team he took to two world championships.
He turned to mortgage lending after the Federal Trade Commission cracked down on his boiler room telemarketing, finding it took $200 apiece from thousands of victims and left them with little more than dummy credit cards backed with phony magnetic strips.
Porcelli was indicted on conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud charges this year in connection with the credit card telemarketing. He pleaded guilty to reduced charges and agreed to cooperate with an ongoing government investigation. At a sentencing set for Oct. 29, Porcelli faces a prison term of 121/2 to 191/2 years.
The FTC has collected only $50,000 of a $12.4-million judgement lodged against Porcelli and his telemarketing companies in 2004, so collecting damages in the new federal suit may be a long shot. But some plaintiffs hope for something more basic.
"It was a shoddy thing, a terrible thing to do to somebody," Lewendowski said. "I don't want to ruin (Porcelli) or his family. I just want my house back."
[Last modified November 12, 2007, 13:00:36]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by REED
|
01/23/08 02:33 PM
|
|
GUESS WHAT? I PAY MY MORTGAGE AND I DO NOT NEED A LAWYER! HOW IS THAT FOR STRATEGY? DID THE LAWYER DISCUSS THIS OPTION? BET YOU HE DIDN'T.
|
|
by Victor
|
01/23/08 01:05 PM
|
|
Where's the Beef? That this company saved the couples from assured loss of their house? enter the attorney and gum it up. I am sure the company would work with these couples if given the chance.
|
|
by Melissa
|
01/23/08 11:10 AM
|
|
This is not the headline grabber that the SP Times has tried to make it into. It looks like a contractual dispute where the attorney has pursued the theory of safety in numbers. Only the numbers do not add up.
|
|
by John E.
|
01/23/08 03:32 AM
|
|
Many a finger get pointed,yet few turn out to be substantiated in practice. This looks like another one of those come ride with me come-ons by an attorney who has the homeowners reaching for the stars,while lining the attorney's pockets with cash.SAD
|
|
by BUTCH
|
01/22/08 08:41 PM
|
|
LENDERS ARE BEING LOOKED AT BIG TIME, BUT NOT FOR THE WILD WILD WEST STUFF THIS LAWYER HAS CONCOCTED. GIVE IT A REST, COUNSELOR, NO SOAP HERE! LENDERS VIOLATIONS ARE TECNICAL NOT RACKETEERING IN NATURE!
|
|
by Chester
|
01/22/08 11:55 AM
|
|
What happened to good faith dealing? This lawyer has grabbed the spotlight at the expense of his clients and the company he is targeting. I think he will fail miserably.
|
|
by Helen
|
01/22/08 10:27 AM
|
|
when we read about attorneys getting their hands on companies who take the risk of dealing in this market, they risk the fact that others will not want to come in. We should consider that fact before broadcasting this kind of silliness by the lawyer.
|
|
by Brad
|
01/22/08 10:25 AM
|
|
There have been many scams involving the foreclosure market.I have read this and it appears the victims might be the lender who got double crossed by the people they lent money to.Lawyers have a way of twisting the truth and giving false hope.NO SOAP
|
|
by HARRY
|
01/22/08 10:23 AM
|
|
HE HAD THE GUTS TO HELP THESE PEOPLE AND THEY WERE NOT RICH PEOPLE WHO HAD A LOT OF MONEY. DON'T GO MESSING WITH SOMEBODY THAT TRIES TO HELP OTHERS!
|
|
by Brendan
|
01/22/08 10:20 AM
|
|
It has been three months since this story broke and I have yet to see anything about it in my favorite newspaper. I think the message is clear this went over like a lead baloon and the homeowners have lined the pockets of the lawyer,nothing more.
|
|
by Linda
|
01/22/08 10:17 AM
|
|
Let's not get too carried away with ourselves,it is the lawyer who tries to hype this so that his clients will get sympathy.That is if you sympathize for the homeowners.This is just one of many CIVIL suits.No big deal,usually go nowhere at all,a dud!
|
|
by Leonard
|
01/22/08 10:07 AM
|
|
We should learn a lesson from Dr. M.L. King and try to work together instead of fighting in court and making the wrong people rich in the process. These comanies tried to help and now look bad. That is not right.
|
|
by Marie Elena
|
01/22/08 10:05 AM
|
|
I have seen many men do to people who aren't educated good things to help. If they have a good heart and make mistakes that they dont know are outside their knowledge of law and still tried to do good.How can any put blame?I think that's what is here
|
|
by Lauren
|
01/22/08 10:03 AM
|
|
We as a society have to feel like we can all strike back. But this is not the way to go about it. These homeowners have no right to complain after they had a chance to save their homes, the company that saved them now gets bit? Not right! Dismiss.
|
|
by Charade
|
01/21/08 10:10 AM
|
|
If this homeowners are going to sue, I think they should have had a true cause of action, this malarchy does not ring true and looks to be the charade it probably is. I blame the attorneys for trying to make a fast dollar at the expense of everyone!
|
|
by TOMMY G
|
01/19/08 09:55 PM
|
|
HERE COMES THE BIG CRIME OF THE CENTURY!! CAN HARDLY WAIT!! THIS IS SO MUCH OF A BORE, I MUST THINK THE NEWSPAPERS HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING A GOOD LEAD THESE DAYS. THIS IS NOT NEWS THIS IS PURE UNADULTERATED EXAGGERATION AND I DONT EVEN KNOW MUCH!
|
|
by Shane
|
01/19/08 05:56 PM
|
|
I don't care if I never again see another lawyer try to trump up a simple dispute into something larger than life. where does he think he has this big case? so big they have to drag FTC red herrings across the Newspaper to make their point,disgusting
|
|
by Norman
|
01/17/08 07:39 PM
|
|
Why is there a bunch of dirt about the Federal Trade Commission in this? I'll bet there are plenty of skeletons on the other side too! At least be fair and just give us the facts of the case, not all of this hype!!! Bad Article! No Pulitzer for you!!
|
|
by Cliff
|
01/17/08 11:32 AM
|
|
Reading this makes me think that somebody here has a wild imagination, and it is probably the guy who stands to make the most out of this. UH, that would be the brave attorney whose greed knows no bounds.Get rid of this crap right now!!
|
|
by BARBARA
|
01/17/08 10:23 AM
|
|
LET'S STOP THE SUE SUE SUE MENTALITY AND WORK THINGS OUT WITH THOSE WE SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH!! THIS IS GARBAGE!!!
|
|
by Tommy
|
01/17/08 09:27 AM
|
|
It looks as though this man's actions have gotten himself into some pretty deep litigation if you follow the reporter's thinking and have any respect for the lawyer involved.But many of these turn out to be roman candles that just fizzle like fizzies
|
|
by Jose
|
01/16/08 05:32 PM
|
|
I am anxious for this play out.I wonder what really happened,and if the allegations are really as true as the lawyer for the homeowners seems to think.Most of the time lawyers make a lot more out of a case than it really is,so why is this different?
|
|
by Gilbert
|
01/16/08 03:33 PM
|
|
Racketeering is a serious allegation.do you think Bugs Malone was involved? I think the whole thing is pretty far fetched to claim a racket went after broke homeowners?Get real!Find a story with some truth!Sounds like a petty contract dispute at most
|
|
by TURNER
|
01/16/08 01:57 PM
|
|
DONT MESS WITH THE LENDERS, WITHOUT THEM WE CAN'T GET MONEY,DROP THIS BICKERING!
|
|
by Victoria
|
01/16/08 10:41 AM
|
|
Don't confuse us by including things that have nothing to do with the suit.I suppose you would think the weather has something to do with it as well. Get off of it.I now have strong suspicions that this whole thing is a come on for the cheesy lawyer.
|
|
by Morgan
|
01/15/08 03:23 PM
|
|
If you do not wish to recover money in a suit, why the heck sue? Saying you want something more basic is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of! What kind of nut is this lawyer? I will bet he doesn't get paid in"more basic," he gets money! Ha
|
|
by Brittany
|
01/15/08 09:45 AM
|
|
There seems to be much supprt for the lender here as though the borrowers are misguided. Are they? If so it is probably at the coaxing of attorneys who will do anything to make a fast buck these days and usually at the expense of their clients. Sad!
|
|
by Mike D
|
01/14/08 02:46 PM
|
|
I am sure when it is all over the lenders will prevail and the other defendants will be exonerated and the newspaper won't want to print the fact they were dead wrong along with the lawyer about the whole thing, just you watch, been there done that!!
|
|
by Deirdre
|
01/14/08 09:13 AM
|
|
Better be sure of what you are saying before you go accusing the lenders. I think that the lawyer has been puffing up the ideas if the borrowers just to make a fast buck. That is what these kind of lawyers do, just spread poison to their clients.
|
|
by Brad
|
01/13/08 02:38 PM
|
|
Maybe if the lenders got together and didn't risk their time and effort there would be no lawyers to sit on a branch like vultures and wait for some worthless reason to start a lawsuit.Lawyers just want money from anyone they can talk into giving it!
|
|
by Hoffy
|
01/12/08 12:29 PM
|
|
We read about things like this and I sincerely hope this does not discourage other lenders from helping out customers who get into foreclosure just because the lender here is being put through this as a result of a greedy lawyer who does not mind!
|
|
by Loan Officer
|
01/11/08 05:00 PM
|
|
There is not a single lender that does not get overly greedy lawyers trying to steal the lender's hard and honest earned money. This is no different.I hate to see blood sucking litigators try to prey on good lenders who help people out of foreclosure
|
|
by Christine
|
01/10/08 11:37 PM
|
|
How can anyone complain if this company got them out of foreclosure? It is very much to the credit of the lender to risk their money so families can stay in houses!They deserve to be rewarded for such Valor not sued by a grubby money grabbing lawyer!
|
|
by Matthew
|
01/09/08 03:48 PM
|
|
Loan problems like this happen all the time where one party gets into a deal they do not like and then they think they have some recorse. That is very common.What is uncommon is if the reporter elevates it to what he thinks is newsworthy,this is not!
|
|
by Robert H.
|
01/08/08 06:30 PM
|
|
I have been around the block a few times so I take much with a grain of salt.I see this company has been singled out by the lawyer as an easy target,certainly no great good for the public will come of this suit.Given that,lender is probably blameless
|