TRY ME!
Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Case
Summary
This case involves allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and financial misconduct. The financial advisor allegedly coerced the client into signing documents under false pretenses, leading to significant financial losses. The case also involves issues of illegal interest rates and debt collector misrepresentation. The client is seeking reconsideration of a court ruling based on new evidence and legal arguments. The case highlights the importance of understanding fiduciary responsibilities and the legal implications of financial advice. Legal counsel is recommended to navigate the complexities of this case and to explore options for appeal or further legal action.Full Conversation
If Mike, who Im researching and helping - his case was dismissed with prejudice becuase he missed a hearing and the judge granted it. the judge just ruled on his emergency motion to vacte - denied. In addition Mike filed two supplemtal emergency rule * 9B) New Evidence which he asent ruled on yet. The point that i think is harsh is to allow opposing counsel to try to get a leg up and not have the court look at the merits of the case and seek the dismissal with prejudice. Mike is a party to a case in a sate court with one of the parties in the r.i. case pending. Does this prejudice affect that case that is pending if the parties are different and the case is too?
The dismissal of Mike's case with prejudice typically means the case cannot be refiled in the same court. However, if the parties and the issues in the pending case in Rhode Island are different, the dismissal with prejudice in Massachusetts should not directly affect the Rhode Island case.
Could you provide more details about the Rhode Island case, specifically the parties and issues involved?
Could you provide more details about the Rhode Island case, specifically the parties and issues involved?
Breach of fiduciary duty. His advisor advised him to form a partnership with him and James tiernan. Through the course of the partnership that had him transfer of his shares to the business promising to return them and didnt. Then they told him to move from chapter * to chapt * liguidation on a commercial building with the promise that theyd put hios name back on and they didnt . So Mike filed a case in R>I. against the advisor and the the company they formed , Classic Group Inc. and the other partner james tiernana. the case in Massach. is gainst the advisor only which I am a aprty too.
It sounds like Mike's case involves significant allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation. Given the complexity and the involvement of multiple parties and jurisdictions, this could be a strong case for legal counsel.
Would you like any help drafting or editing any specific documents for this matter?
Would you like any help drafting or editing any specific documents for this matter?
He has an excellant case with material evidence. If it gets dismissed now Im looking at staute of limiatations set back as this case was filled in *. Mike ran out of money. WSo now hes been going pro se. Do you have any ideas how to refile it ?
Case Rating: *.
Since the case was dismissed with prejudice, refiling in the same court is not an option. However, Mike may consider the following steps:
- Appeal the dismissal: He can appeal the judge's decision to a higher court.
- File a new lawsuit: If new evidence or different claims exist, he may file a new case.
Would you like more information on how to pursue an appeal?
Since the case was dismissed with prejudice, refiling in the same court is not an option. However, Mike may consider the following steps:
- Appeal the dismissal: He can appeal the judge's decision to a higher court.
- File a new lawsuit: If new evidence or different claims exist, he may file a new case.
Would you like more information on how to pursue an appeal?
I think I will appeal. I understand that a higher court may look at the prejudice as harsh. the new evidence that I filed in this case is testimony that I recently discovered by one of the partners , Tiernan, saying that the advisor was Mike's accountant. This with the evidence of the Stock Pile shares that Mike was one third partnership shows a fiuciary and then in the doument it shows that he transferred his shares to Tiernan which shows the breach becuase it was not in Mike's best interest.
To appeal the dismissal, Mike needs to focus on presenting the new evidence effectively. Here are the steps to appeal in Massachusetts:
- File a Notice of Appeal: This must be done within 30 days of the judgment.
- Prepare the Record on Appeal: Include transcripts, evidence, and other relevant documents.
- Draft an Appellate Brief: Clearly outline legal errors and present new evidence.
Would you like more details on any specific step?
- File a Notice of Appeal: This must be done within 30 days of the judgment.
- Prepare the Record on Appeal: Include transcripts, evidence, and other relevant documents.
- Draft an Appellate Brief: Clearly outline legal errors and present new evidence.
Would you like more details on any specific step?
should I wait until the oder comes in from the judge on the motion he filed under rule 60b4 new evidence?
It's advisable to wait for the judge's order on the Rule *(b)(*) motion as it could impact your strategy moving forward. If the motion is denied, you can then proceed with the appeal. Would you like more information on preparing for an appeal if the motion is denied?
Higher courts dont like to overurn judge's rulings howver but does my new evidence strengthen this opinion?
New evidence can significantly strengthen an appeal. If the new evidence is compelling and demonstrates legal errors or a breach of fiduciary duty, it may increase the chances of the higher court overturning the ruling.
Does the new evidence directly contradict the judge's previous findings?
Does the new evidence directly contradict the judge's previous findings?
we havent gone to trial yet. I dont even think a trial is needed. he has enough evidence to show a breach of fiducuary duty without a trial. In his motion for rule * he asked for an evidentiary hearing. Howver the evidence directly contradicts the defendants who claim that no fiucuary duty existed.
The new evidence directly contradicting the defendants' claims is indeed significant. Here are some points for consideration:
- Evidentiary Hearing: If granted, this would allow the presentation of new evidence without a full trial.
- Motion for Rule *: If denied, you may still have grounds for an appeal.
Would you like more information on preparing for the evidentiary hearing?
- Evidentiary Hearing: If granted, this would allow the presentation of new evidence without a full trial.
- Motion for Rule *: If denied, you may still have grounds for an appeal.
Would you like more information on preparing for the evidentiary hearing?
why do you say, may verses that I do have grounds for an appeal. Isnt that a consturtional right?
You do have the right to appeal under the Constitution, but the success of an appeal depends on the specifics of your case and how well the new evidence supports your arguments. Would you like more information on how to effectively present your new evidence in the appeal?
I will right now that same advisor after he formed the partnership with mike got me to sign documents . I am filing a motion for rreconsideration, could you edit it if needed? Its long howvwer. maybe we could take it section by section? My worry is that I will be forced to go to another chat and have to start all over again.
Case Rating: *
Sure, I can help with that! Let's start with the first section. Could you please provide the initial part of your motion for reconsideration?
Sure, I can help with that! Let's start with the first section. Could you please provide the initial part of your motion for reconsideration?
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: The mortgage and note that I signed in * were obtained through fraudulent means and coercion. My financial advisor misled me into signing these documents without informing me of their true nature and implications. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. Therefore, these documents are void ab initio.
- Illegality: The terms and conditions of the note and mortgage were illegal, with an exorbitant *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders acted in bad faith, falsely claiming compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B.
Your motion for reconsideration looks strong, but let's refine it for clarity and effectiveness. Here's a revised version of the first part:
---
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: In *, I was misled by my financial advisor into signing a mortgage and note without understanding their true nature. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. These documents are, therefore, void ab initio.
- Illegality: The note and mortgage terms included a *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders falsely claimed compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B, acting in bad faith.
Would you like to proceed with editing the next section?
---
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: In *, I was misled by my financial advisor into signing a mortgage and note without understanding their true nature. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. These documents are, therefore, void ab initio.
- Illegality: The note and mortgage terms included a *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders falsely claimed compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B, acting in bad faith.
Would you like to proceed with editing the next section?
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: My financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Services, Inc., who had a fiduciary duty to act in my best interests, breached this duty by coercing me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in Warsofsky v. Sherman, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. The court must recognize that these documents never came into lawful existence.
Your argument on the breach of fiduciary duty is well-founded. Here’s a refined version of the next section:
---
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: My financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Services, Inc., who had a fiduciary duty to act in my best interests, breached this duty by coercing me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in *Warsofsky v. Sherman*, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. These documents, therefore, never came into lawful existence.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section?
---
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: My financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Services, Inc., who had a fiduciary duty to act in my best interests, breached this duty by coercing me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in *Warsofsky v. Sherman*, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. These documents, therefore, never came into lawful existence.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section?
this may be too long:*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA
According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), the term "debt collector" includes any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. This definition encompasses debt buyers. Debt buyers purchasing defaulted debt are subject to FDCPA regulations. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a debt buyer is considered a debt collector as they purchase and collect debts, even if they are not primarily in the business of debt collection.
Your section on the definition of a debt collector under the FDCPA is clear, but it can be more concise. Here's a refined version:
---
*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA:
According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), a "debt collector" includes any person whose principal business is collecting debts or regularly collects debts owed to another. This includes debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and are subject to FDCPA regulations.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section?
---
*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA:
According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), a "debt collector" includes any person whose principal business is collecting debts or regularly collects debts owed to another. This includes debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and are subject to FDCPA regulations.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section?
Furthermore, attorneys who collect debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
In Massachusetts, debt buyers are also considered debt collectors. Under Massachusetts law, all debt buyers are subject to both state and federal debt collection laws and regulations. They must be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB) and comply with the Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations.
The term "creditor" does not include any person to the extent that they receive an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another. Therefore, in my case, the debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are clearly defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to the regulations set forth by the FDCPA.
Here's a refined version of the information you provided:
---
Furthermore, attorneys collecting debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
In Massachusetts, debt buyers are also considered debt collectors. Under Massachusetts law, they must:
- Be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB)
- Comply with state and federal debt collection laws and regulations
The term "creditor" excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for collection purposes. Therefore, debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to FDCPA regulations.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section?
---
Furthermore, attorneys collecting debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
In Massachusetts, debt buyers are also considered debt collectors. Under Massachusetts law, they must:
- Be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB)
- Comply with state and federal debt collection laws and regulations
The term "creditor" excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for collection purposes. Therefore, debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to FDCPA regulations.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section?
*.Debt Collectors Establishment:
Initial Debt Collectors' Actions:
In and around *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., R.I., exploited my distress, claiming I was in an emergency that required immediate action to avoid losing my home. This pressure led me to unknowingly sign over my deed, without informing me that I was doing so and that the entities involved were debt collectors and not licensed lenders.
Being recently divorced from James M. Cronan (Mike), I was awarded two properties which Mike was responsible for paying for four years. Mike was having financial problems, and to address them, our financial advisor, Grieco, advised him to form a three-way business partnership with Grieco, Mike, and a friend of Grieco’s, James Tiernan, the debt collector in this case. This partnership was called the Classic Group Inc.
Here's a refined version of the next section:
---
*. Debt Collectors' Establishment and Initial Actions:
In *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., R.I., exploited my distress by claiming an emergency requiring immediate action to avoid losing my home. This pressure led me to unknowingly sign over my deed, without informing me that the entities involved were debt collectors, not licensed lenders.
Recently divorced from James M. Cronan (Mike), I was awarded two properties for which Mike was responsible for paying for four years. Facing financial difficulties, our advisor Grieco advised Mike to form a three-way business partnership with Grieco and his friend James Tiernan, the debt collector in this case. This partnership was named the Classic Group Inc.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section or need assistance with anything else?
---
*. Debt Collectors' Establishment and Initial Actions:
In *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., R.I., exploited my distress by claiming an emergency requiring immediate action to avoid losing my home. This pressure led me to unknowingly sign over my deed, without informing me that the entities involved were debt collectors, not licensed lenders.
Recently divorced from James M. Cronan (Mike), I was awarded two properties for which Mike was responsible for paying for four years. Facing financial difficulties, our advisor Grieco advised Mike to form a three-way business partnership with Grieco and his friend James Tiernan, the debt collector in this case. This partnership was named the Classic Group Inc.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section or need assistance with anything else?
When the partnership was formed, Mike and I were in default and did not qualify for a refinance. In addition to the divorce decree, to induce Mike into the partnership, Grieco assured us that the partnership would alleviate Mike’s burden and pay the monthly payments to the creditor. However, that was a direct misrepresentation. Rather, unknowingly to me, James Tiernan and another person, Grieco's brother-in-law Richard Fagan, bought the $*,* debt from the creditor and made me responsible for it. I had no knowledge of this and truly believed Grieco's promises.
Here's the refined version of the final section:
---
When the partnership was formed, Mike and I were in default and did not qualify for a refinance. Grieco assured us that the partnership would alleviate Mike’s burden and pay the monthly payments to the creditor. However, this was a direct misrepresentation. Unbeknownst to me, James Tiernan and Grieco's brother-in-law Richard Fagan bought the $*,* debt from the creditor, making me responsible for it. I had no knowledge of this and believed Grieco's promises.
---
Would you like any further assistance with this document or any other legal information?
---
When the partnership was formed, Mike and I were in default and did not qualify for a refinance. Grieco assured us that the partnership would alleviate Mike’s burden and pay the monthly payments to the creditor. However, this was a direct misrepresentation. Unbeknownst to me, James Tiernan and Grieco's brother-in-law Richard Fagan bought the $*,* debt from the creditor, making me responsible for it. I had no knowledge of this and believed Grieco's promises.
---
Would you like any further assistance with this document or any other legal information?
could uou try to reduce the font and send it back to me in one section? These debt collectors, without my knowledge and through deceit, placed liens on my properties: my home at * Brayton Woods, Rehoboth, MA, and * Oak Street, Norton, MA, my childhood home that I rented out. Placing liens on my properties without a court order or judgment is a direct violation of the FDCPA, specifically under * U.S.C. § 1692e(*) for false representation of the debt and * U.S.C. § 1692e(*) for threatening legal action without intent or ability to follow through.
- Furthermore, Grieco charged me an outrageous $*,* fee for "brokering" the loan, which he financed into the loan. I never received those services. With the addition of his fee, it increased the already high-cost *% interest rate by *%, making the loan usurious from its inception at a *% interest rate in violation of Chapter * Section *, without notifying the Attorney General, which constitutes another violation.
Certainly! Here it is in one section:
---
These debt collectors, without my knowledge and through deceit, placed liens on my properties: my home at * Brayton Woods, Rehoboth, MA, and * Oak Street, Norton, MA, my childhood home that I rented out. Placing liens on my properties without a court order or judgment is a direct violation of the FDCPA, specifically under * U.S.C. § 1692e(*) for false representation of the debt and * U.S.C. § 1692e(*) for threatening legal action without intent or ability to follow through.
- Furthermore, Grieco charged me an outrageous $*,* fee for "brokering" the loan, which he financed into the loan. I never received those services. With the addition of his fee, it increased the already high-cost *% interest rate by *%, making the loan usurious from its inception at a *% interest rate in violation of Chapter * Section *, without notifying the Attorney General, which constitutes another violation.
---
---
These debt collectors, without my knowledge and through deceit, placed liens on my properties: my home at * Brayton Woods, Rehoboth, MA, and * Oak Street, Norton, MA, my childhood home that I rented out. Placing liens on my properties without a court order or judgment is a direct violation of the FDCPA, specifically under * U.S.C. § 1692e(*) for false representation of the debt and * U.S.C. § 1692e(*) for threatening legal action without intent or ability to follow through.
- Furthermore, Grieco charged me an outrageous $*,* fee for "brokering" the loan, which he financed into the loan. I never received those services. With the addition of his fee, it increased the already high-cost *% interest rate by *%, making the loan usurious from its inception at a *% interest rate in violation of Chapter * Section *, without notifying the Attorney General, which constitutes another violation.
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments, not just my former husband.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. Please take judicial notice that a person would not voluntarily assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt, unless there was a very compelling reason. Additionally, there are no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
- The group established by my financial advisor, under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, engaged in criminal activities. This manipulation and deceit warrant a referral to the proper authorities for investigation.
Your motion for reconsideration looks strong and well-detailed. Here’s a concise version of the last section:
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents, believing their newly formed partnership would handle these payments.
- At the time, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. I would not have assumed new debt without a compelling reason. Furthermore, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note.
- The group established by my financial advisor engaged in criminal activities under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, warranting a referral to the proper authorities for investigation.
---
Would you like further assistance with any other sections or details?
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents, believing their newly formed partnership would handle these payments.
- At the time, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. I would not have assumed new debt without a compelling reason. Furthermore, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note.
- The group established by my financial advisor engaged in criminal activities under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, warranting a referral to the proper authorities for investigation.
---
Would you like further assistance with any other sections or details?
I think that this is repitious. Please edit deleting when necessary
Here's a refined version of your motion for reconsideration, combining and reducing repetitive elements:
---
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: In *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., misled me into signing a mortgage and note without understanding their true nature. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. These documents are void ab initio.
- Illegality: The note and mortgage terms included a *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders falsely claimed compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B, acting in bad faith.
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Grieco, who had a fiduciary duty to actin my best interests, coerced me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in *Warsofsky v. Sherman*, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. These documents, therefore, never came into lawful existence.
*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA
- According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), a "debt collector" includes any person whose principal business is collecting debts or regularly collects debts owed to another. This includes debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and are subject to FDCPA regulations.
- Attorneys collecting debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
- In Massachusetts, debt buyers must be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB) and comply with state and federal debt collection laws and regulations. The term "creditor" excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for collection purposes. Therefore, debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to FDCPA regulations.
*. **Debt Collect
---
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: In *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., misled me into signing a mortgage and note without understanding their true nature. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. These documents are void ab initio.
- Illegality: The note and mortgage terms included a *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders falsely claimed compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B, acting in bad faith.
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Grieco, who had a fiduciary duty to actin my best interests, coerced me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in *Warsofsky v. Sherman*, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. These documents, therefore, never came into lawful existence.
*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA
- According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), a "debt collector" includes any person whose principal business is collecting debts or regularly collects debts owed to another. This includes debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and are subject to FDCPA regulations.
- Attorneys collecting debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
- In Massachusetts, debt buyers must be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB) and comply with state and federal debt collection laws and regulations. The term "creditor" excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for collection purposes. Therefore, debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to FDCPA regulations.
*. **Debt Collect
I m sorry I meant this section has reptition please just edit this next section:*. Divorce Decree: - According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments, not just my former husband. - At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. Please take judicial notice that a person would not voluntarily assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt, unless there was a very compelling reason. Additionally, there are no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances. .
Here's the edited section with reduced repetition:
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments, not just my former husband.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. It is unreasonable to assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt without a compelling reason. Additionally, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
- My financial advisor's group, under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, engaged in criminal activities. This manipulation and deceit warrant a referral to the proper authorities for investigation.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further editing?
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments, not just my former husband.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. It is unreasonable to assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt without a compelling reason. Additionally, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
- My financial advisor's group, under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, engaged in criminal activities. This manipulation and deceit warrant a referral to the proper authorities for investigation.
---
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further editing?
should i say this at this time in the motion This manipulation and deceit warrant a referral to the proper authorities for investigation.?
It is generally appropriate to include statements about manipulation and deceit, especially if they support your arguments and demonstrate the severity of the misconduct. Here's a refined version for clarity:
---
Given the manipulation and deceit involved in this case, I respectfully request that the court refer the matter to the proper authorities for investigation.
---
Would you like any further assistance with your motion?
---
Given the manipulation and deceit involved in this case, I respectfully request that the court refer the matter to the proper authorities for investigation.
---
Would you like any further assistance with your motion?
This may be too long:*. Title: Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent
Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for paying a balloon payment, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for, maturing in 18 months. Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice. I was never expected to make monthly payments. If they had been true creditors, they would have billed me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
Here's the edited section and the new part combined for clarity and brevity:
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments, not just my former husband.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. It is unreasonable to assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt without a compelling reason. Additionally, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
*. Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent:
- Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for a balloon payment maturing in 18 months, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for.
- Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice, and I was never expected to make monthly payments. True creditors would havebilled me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section or need assistance with anything else?
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments, not just my former husband.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. It is unreasonable to assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt without a compelling reason. Additionally, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
*. Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent:
- Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for a balloon payment maturing in 18 months, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for.
- Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice, and I was never expected to make monthly payments. True creditors would havebilled me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
---
Would you like to proceed with editing another section or need assistance with anything else?
One must ask, why didn't these debt collectors ever bill me? If they were true creditors, as they want the court to believe, why was there no billing? The reason is that Mike, the co-signer of the note and my sole source of income, owned a Mill building worth over a million dollars at the time. If they had started billing me, their lie would have been discovered by both Mike and me. We would have immediately contested their assertion that I owed them anything, especially after the promise that the partnership was going to pay the monthly payments.
.
Here's a refined version of the sections:
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. It is unreasonable to assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt unless there was a compelling reason. Additionally, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
- My financial advisor's group, under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, engaged in criminal activities.
*. Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent:
- Despite being in default, I had significant equity in the properties on which they illegally attached liens. They made me responsible for a balloon payment maturing in 18 months, which I couldn't pay and wasn't responsible for.
- They never sent me any bills, invoices, or notices. True creditors would have billed me monthly, even for the interest they claimed I owed. Their lack of billing indicates they were not true creditors but debt collectors trying to deceive me. Mike, the co-signer and my sole source of income, owned a valuable Mill building. Billing us would have revealed their deception, leading us to contest the debt immediately, especially with the promise that the partnership would handle payments.
---
Would you like further edits or assistance with another section?
---
*. Divorce Decree:
- According to my divorce decree, my former husband was responsible for the mortgage payments. I was deceived by my financial advisor into signing documents under the belief that their newly formed partnership would now be responsible for these payments.
- At the time my financial advisor coerced me into signing a note and mortgage with debt collectors, I was not responsible for mortgage payments as per the divorce decree. It is unreasonable to assume new debt immediately after being awarded a judgment free of debt unless there was a compelling reason. Additionally, there were no legally required disclosures in the mortgage or note under these circumstances.
- My financial advisor's group, under the pretense of acting as my trusted advisor, engaged in criminal activities.
*. Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent:
- Despite being in default, I had significant equity in the properties on which they illegally attached liens. They made me responsible for a balloon payment maturing in 18 months, which I couldn't pay and wasn't responsible for.
- They never sent me any bills, invoices, or notices. True creditors would have billed me monthly, even for the interest they claimed I owed. Their lack of billing indicates they were not true creditors but debt collectors trying to deceive me. Mike, the co-signer and my sole source of income, owned a valuable Mill building. Billing us would have revealed their deception, leading us to contest the debt immediately, especially with the promise that the partnership would handle payments.
---
Would you like further edits or assistance with another section?
They couldn't send me a bill or act like a creditor because they needed to maintain the deceit to ensure that Mike would transfer his last valuable property, the coveted Mill building. Once this last task was done, Mike was literally thrown out of that Mill building, and I received my first default notice stating that they were creditors and that I had been in default since *. Therefore, the debt collectors never expected me to pay despite what they claim today. Had they intended for me to pay, they could have easily sent me a bill over the seven years. The fact that they did not indicates I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors. Rather, in *, given the significant amount of equity I had, they "bought" (stole) my houses and now seek the court’s assistance to claim all the equity that has accrued from * to *.
Here's a concise version of the section:
---
*. Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent:
- Despite being in default, I had significant equity in my properties. The debt collectors never sent me a bill or notice, indicating I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors.
- They avoided billing to maintain deceit, ensuring Mike transferred the Mill building. Afterward, they falsely claimed creditor status to seize my properties' equity.
- This misrepresentation and deceit warrant reconsideration of the court's previous ruling based on newly discovered evidence and legal arguments.
---
Would you like further assistance with this document or any other section?
---
*. Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent:
- Despite being in default, I had significant equity in my properties. The debt collectors never sent me a bill or notice, indicating I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors.
- They avoided billing to maintain deceit, ensuring Mike transferred the Mill building. Afterward, they falsely claimed creditor status to seize my properties' equity.
- This misrepresentation and deceit warrant reconsideration of the court's previous ruling based on newly discovered evidence and legal arguments.
---
Would you like further assistance with this document or any other section?
This misrepresentation and lack of creditor status further demonstrate their intent to deceive and defraud. Given these points and their actions, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its previous ruling in light of this newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented
Your revised motion looks strong and well-structured. Here's the final refined version combining all relevant sections:
---
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: In *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., misled me into signing a mortgage and note without understanding their true nature. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. These documents are void ab initio.
- Illegality: The note and mortgage terms included a *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders falsely claimed compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B, acting in bad faith.
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Grieco, who had a fiduciaryduty to act in my best interests, coerced me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in *Warsofsky v. Sherman*, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. These documents, therefore, never came into lawful existence.
*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA
- According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), a "debt collector" includes any person whose principal business is collecting debts or regularly collects debts owed to another. This includes debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and are subject to FDCPA regulations.
- Attorneys collecting debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
- In Massachusetts, debt buyers must be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB) and comply with state and federal debt collection laws and regulations. The term "creditor" excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for collection purposes. Therefore, debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to FDCPA regulations.
*
---
Dear Judge Michaud,
I respectfully submit this Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *(b)(*). I believe the court's previous ruling contains significant oversights and inaccuracies that must be addressed.
*. Void ab Initio: Fraud, Coercion, Illegality, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Fraud and Coercion: In *, my financial advisor, Ralph Grieco of Apponaug Business Service Inc., misled me into signing a mortgage and note without understanding their true nature. As established in the Ibanez and Bevilacqua decisions, recording an invalid document does not give it legal significance. These documents are void ab initio.
- Illegality: The note and mortgage terms included a *% interest rate, violating Massachusetts usury laws (Chapter *, Section *). The lenders falsely claimed compliance with G.L.c. * § 35B, acting in bad faith.
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Grieco, who had a fiduciaryduty to act in my best interests, coerced me into signing the mortgage and note. As established in *Warsofsky v. Sherman*, * Mass. * (*), a fiduciary relationship exists when confidence is reposed by one party in another, and this confidence is abused to obtain an advantage. These documents, therefore, never came into lawful existence.
*. Definition of Debt Collector under the FDCPA
- According to * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), a "debt collector" includes any person whose principal business is collecting debts or regularly collects debts owed to another. This includes debt buyers who purchase defaulted debts and are subject to FDCPA regulations.
- Attorneys collecting debts on behalf of debt collectors are also considered debt collectors under the FDCPA and must comply with its regulations.
- In Massachusetts, debt buyers must be licensed through the Division of Banks (DOB) and comply with state and federal debt collection laws and regulations. The term "creditor" excludes any person who receives an assignment or transfer of a debt solely for collection purposes. Therefore, debt buyers who purchased my defaulted debt are defined as debt collectors under both federal and state laws and must adhere to FDCPA regulations.
*
Please only edite revise Title: Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent and send it to me
Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent
Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for paying a balloon payment, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for, maturing in 18 months. Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice. I was never expected to make monthly payments. If they had been true creditors, they would have billed me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
One must ask, why didn't these debt collectors ever bill me? If they were true creditors, as they want the court to believe, why was there no billing? The reason is that Mike, the co-signer of the note and my sole source of income, owned a Mill building worth over a million dollars at the time. If they had started billing me, their lie would have been discovered by both Mike and me. We would have immediately contested their assertion that I owed them anything, especially after the promise that the partnership was going to pay the monthly payments.
They couldn't send me a bill or actlike a creditor because they needed to maintain the deceit to ensure that Mike would transfer his last valuable property, the coveted Mill building. Once this last task was done, Mike was literally thrown out of that Mill building, and I received my first default notice stating that they were creditors and that I had been in default since *. Therefore, the debt collectors never expected me to pay despite what they claim today. Had they intended for me to pay, they could have easily sent me a bill over the seven years. The fact that they did not indicates I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors. Rather, in *, given the significant amount of equity I had, they "bought" (stole) my houses and now seek the court’s assistance to claim all the equity that has accrued from * to *.
This misrepresentation and lack of creditor status further demonstrate their intent to deceive and defraud. Given these points and their actions, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its previous ruling in light of this newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
Would you like assistance with anything else?
Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for paying a balloon payment, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for, maturing in 18 months. Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice. I was never expected to make monthly payments. If they had been true creditors, they would have billed me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
One must ask, why didn't these debt collectors ever bill me? If they were true creditors, as they want the court to believe, why was there no billing? The reason is that Mike, the co-signer of the note and my sole source of income, owned a Mill building worth over a million dollars at the time. If they had started billing me, their lie would have been discovered by both Mike and me. We would have immediately contested their assertion that I owed them anything, especially after the promise that the partnership was going to pay the monthly payments.
They couldn't send me a bill or actlike a creditor because they needed to maintain the deceit to ensure that Mike would transfer his last valuable property, the coveted Mill building. Once this last task was done, Mike was literally thrown out of that Mill building, and I received my first default notice stating that they were creditors and that I had been in default since *. Therefore, the debt collectors never expected me to pay despite what they claim today. Had they intended for me to pay, they could have easily sent me a bill over the seven years. The fact that they did not indicates I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors. Rather, in *, given the significant amount of equity I had, they "bought" (stole) my houses and now seek the court’s assistance to claim all the equity that has accrued from * to *.
This misrepresentation and lack of creditor status further demonstrate their intent to deceive and defraud. Given these points and their actions, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its previous ruling in light of this newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
Would you like assistance with anything else?
please send it to me without the outline
Misrepresentation of Creditor Status and Intent
Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for paying a balloon payment, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for, maturing in 18 months. Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice. I was never expected to make monthly payments. If they had been true creditors, they would have billed me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
One must ask, why didn't these debt collectors ever bill me? If they were true creditors, as they want the court to believe, why was there no billing? The reason is that Mike, the co-signer of the note and my sole source of income, owned a Mill building worth over a million dollars at the time. If they had started billing me, their lie would have been discovered by both Mike and me. We would have immediately contested their assertion that I owed them anything, especially after the promise that the partnership was going to pay the monthly payments.
They couldn't send me a bill or act likea creditor because they needed to maintain the deceit to ensure that Mike would transfer his last valuable property, the coveted Mill building. Once this last task was done, Mike was literally thrown out of that Mill building, and I received my first default notice stating that they were creditors and that I had been in default since *. Therefore, the debt collectors never expected me to pay despite what they claim today. Had they intended for me to pay, they could have easily sent me a bill over the seven years. The fact that they did not indicates I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors. Rather, in *, given the significant amount of equity I had, they "bought" (stole) my houses and now seek the court’s assistance to claim all the equity that has accrued from * to *.
This misrepresentation and lack of creditor status further demonstrate their intent to deceive and defraud. Given these points and their actions, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its previous ruling in light of this newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
Although I was in default, I had over half a million dollars in equity between the two properties on which they illegally attached liens at the registry of deeds. They made me responsible for paying a balloon payment, which I couldn't possibly pay and wasn't responsible for, maturing in 18 months. Despite this, they never sent me a bill, invoice, or notice. I was never expected to make monthly payments. If they had been true creditors, they would have billed me monthly, even if only for the interest they claimed I owed. A debtor borrows money, and the creditor bills monthly.
One must ask, why didn't these debt collectors ever bill me? If they were true creditors, as they want the court to believe, why was there no billing? The reason is that Mike, the co-signer of the note and my sole source of income, owned a Mill building worth over a million dollars at the time. If they had started billing me, their lie would have been discovered by both Mike and me. We would have immediately contested their assertion that I owed them anything, especially after the promise that the partnership was going to pay the monthly payments.
They couldn't send me a bill or act likea creditor because they needed to maintain the deceit to ensure that Mike would transfer his last valuable property, the coveted Mill building. Once this last task was done, Mike was literally thrown out of that Mill building, and I received my first default notice stating that they were creditors and that I had been in default since *. Therefore, the debt collectors never expected me to pay despite what they claim today. Had they intended for me to pay, they could have easily sent me a bill over the seven years. The fact that they did not indicates I was never their debtor, and they were never my creditors. Rather, in *, given the significant amount of equity I had, they "bought" (stole) my houses and now seek the court’s assistance to claim all the equity that has accrued from * to *.
This misrepresentation and lack of creditor status further demonstrate their intent to deceive and defraud. Given these points and their actions, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its previous ruling in light of this newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
Only send me the following back without the outine polished and editted if necessary:*. Misrepresentation of Payments and Compound Interest:
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by that partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money,
*. Misrepresentation of Payments and Compound Interest:
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by that partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money, I never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by that partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money, I never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
I never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
Here is the refined text you requested:
---
*. Misrepresentation of Payments and Compound Interest:
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by that partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money, I never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal argumentspresented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
---
*. Misrepresentation of Payments and Compound Interest:
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by that partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money, I never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal argumentspresented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
see above
Here is the polished and edited section you requested:
---
Misrepresentation of Payments and Compound Interest:
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by the partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money, never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
---
Misrepresentation of Payments and Compound Interest:
While Mike worked in his partnership, I maintained my belief in Ralph Grieco and the partnership, believing that my mortgage was being paid by the partnership. This belief was confirmed by the lack of bills, indicating that the promise was being fulfilled. However, they were secretly compounding the interest rate generated from the illegal note that established simple interest. This compound interest rate rose to *%, or $* million in interest, that they expected me to pay from the original debt of $*,*, which they purchased from the bank. To clarify, this was not a refinance loan as I was in default and did not qualify for any type of loan. Additionally, I never received any money, never borrowed, and I was not working at the time. The debt collectors' actions were based on deceit and misrepresentation, and they never intended for me to repay the debt. Their failure to bill me and the subsequent compounding of interest without my knowledge further demonstrates their fraudulent intentions. Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
Please proceed in the same formatt as above. *. Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further editing?
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
Would you like assistance with any other sections or further editing?
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in
Here is the polished and edited section you requested:
---
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors, and they didnot seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined. There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
---
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors, and they didnot seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined. There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors, and they did not seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined.
There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
Here is the polished and edited section you requested:
---
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, instead of notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors, and they didnot seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined.
- There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
---
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, instead of notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors, and they didnot seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined.
- There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
see above
Certainly! Here is the polished and edited version of the section:
---
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors,and they did not seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined. There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
---
Additional Facts and New Evidence:
- At the time when the so-called mortgage debt became due or 18 months later, rather than notifying me, the financial advisor had Mike, the co-signer of the note, sign another illegal loan, getting him further into debt.
- Believing that both he and I were under the care of our financial advisor, Mike signed over his shares in the business to James Tiernan, the debt collector/lender, for tax shelter purposes, with the promise that his shares would be returned the following year. However, Mike received no money and never got his shares back.
- As their partnership proceeded, Mike moved from the protective shelter of the Chapter * bankruptcy case, filed under the representation of Grieco, the advisor, to a Chapter * liquidation, which resulted in the loss of title to a valuable commercial property in Rhode Island to Grieco and James Tiernan. This loss was grounded in unfulfilled promises and breaches of fiduciary duties.
- A forensic accountant's report establishes extensive commingling of funds, tax fraud, and embezzlement by Grieco and Tiernan. These partners were the private lenders/debt collectors,and they did not seek any type of payments during the life of the so-called loan. The amount of money stolen from Mike and me has not yet been determined. There has been no accounting yet to dissolve that partnership by a court. In *, Mike filed a case against the partnership in Rhode Island, and this case is still pending.
Given these points and the significant oversights in the court's previous ruling, I respectfully request that the court reconsider its decision in light of the newly discovered evidence and legal arguments presented.
---
Would you like assistance with anything else?
Start a new chat