Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a $2.25 million settlement with MV Realty of Massachusetts, LLC and its parent company MV Realty PBC, along with CEO Antony Mitchell and COO David Manchester, resolving allegations that the company used deceptive marketing and predatory mortgage practices to target financially vulnerable homeowners. The agreement marks the resolution of a major consumer protection case that began in 2022, when the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office filed suit against the Florida-based company for allegedly scamming homeowners into signing abusive contracts that tied up their homes with long-term mortgage obligations in exchange for relatively small cash payments.

Under the terms of the settlement, MV Realty and its CEO must pay $2.25 million to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, though $1.85 million of that amount will be suspended if the company complies with the terms of the agreement. The settlement also bars MV Realty from enforcing its disputed contracts with consumers and requires the company to permanently release mortgages it recorded on homeowners’ properties through those agreements. State officials estimate the release of those mortgages will save Massachusetts residents at least an additional $7 million.

Attorney General Campbell said the case underscores how predatory financial schemes can jeopardize what is often the most valuable asset many families own. For most Massachusetts residents, a home represents not only their largest financial investment but also long-term financial security. According to the Attorney General’s Office, MV Realty exploited homeowners in financial distress by aggressively marketing misleading financial products that stripped home equity and restricted homeowners’ ability to refinance or sell their homes.

The settlement concludes litigation that began in December 2022 when then-Attorney General Maura Healey filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court accusing MV Realty of operating a deceptive business model disguised as a real estate service. Healey’s complaint alleged the company marketed a product called a “Homeowner Benefit Agreement,” or HBA, which offered small upfront cash payments to homeowners—typically ranging from $500 to $5,000 and averaging about $1,150—in exchange for granting the company a 40-year exclusive right to serve as the homeowner’s listing brokerage if the property was sold.

According to the complaint, the agreements functioned as loans rather than brokerage contracts. In exchange for the upfront payment, homeowners were required to pay MV Realty a substantial fee—often ten times the amount advanced—when the property was sold or transferred. In many cases, the obligation was triggered even if the company never provided brokerage services. The agreements also allowed the company to collect payments if the home changed ownership due to events such as divorce, death, foreclosure, or other title transfers.

One example cited by investigators involved a homeowner who received $1,315 in cash but later had to pay more than $13,000 in an “early termination fee” when financial hardship forced a quick sale of the home. The payment was required even though MV Realty never acted as the broker in the transaction.

The Attorney General’s Office alleged that MV Realty secured its rights under these contracts by recording mortgages against homeowners’ properties. These mortgages encumbered the homes for decades and could potentially allow the company to initiate foreclosure if homeowners violated the contract terms. As a result, many homeowners unknowingly placed a long-term financial lien on their homes, which restricted their ability to refinance, obtain home equity loans, or sell their property without paying significant penalties.

Investigators also alleged that MV Realty’s marketing practices were designed to mislead consumers about the nature of the agreements. The company reportedly targeted homeowners searching online for financial assistance, including individuals looking for small loans or government aid programs. Advertisements frequently used search terms such as “government home improvement grant” and “help for seniors with home repairs,” and marketing materials suggested the program was similar to a government benefit or promotional giveaway.

The advertising often emphasized that the money was not a loan and required “no repayment,” which officials say reinforced the misleading impression that homeowners were receiving free financial assistance. In reality, the contracts imposed significant financial obligations tied to the homeowner’s property.

Once potential customers expressed interest, investigators said the company’s sales staff aggressively pursued them through repeated phone calls, text messages, and emails. Sales representatives allegedly pressured homeowners to quickly sign agreements before fully reviewing the documents. The complaint also alleged that MV Realty took deliberate steps to prevent consumers from understanding the terms of the contracts. Documents were not provided in advance, contracts were printed in small 8.5-point font, and mobile notaries unfamiliar with the product were sent to facilitate quick signatures.

In many cases, the transactions took place without an attorney present and occurred in informal settings such as consumers’ living rooms, on car hoods, or even at local coffee shops. Homeowners often did not receive copies of the signed documents until after the short cancellation period had expired.

The Attorney General’s Office also alleged that the contracts contained numerous hidden provisions that favored the company. These included clauses allowing MV Realty to assign the agreements to other companies without restriction, guaranteeing the company a minimum payment even if it overestimated the home’s value, and allowing the company to act only as a “non-agent facilitator” rather than a traditional real estate agent. Unlike a typical real estate agent, such facilitators are not required to seek the highest possible sale price or maintain the same duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the homeowner.

Officials further alleged that the company disproportionately targeted elderly and low-income homeowners who were searching for immediate financial assistance. By the time the lawsuit was filed, MV Realty had executed more than 500 Homeowner Benefit Agreements with Massachusetts residents across nearly every county in the state.

In March 2023, Attorney General Campbell secured a preliminary injunction preventing MV Realty from continuing these practices in Massachusetts. The court order prohibited the company from recording new mortgages tied to the agreements and required the release of existing mortgages. Under the newly announced settlement, those protections will become permanent once the agreement receives court approval.

The lawsuit alleged that MV Realty’s conduct violated multiple state consumer protection laws, including laws governing mortgages, lending, and deceptive business practices. The complaint also accused the company of engaging in the unlicensed practice of law and violating state laws regulating consumer loans and interest rates.

By forcing the release of existing mortgages and preventing the company from enforcing its contracts, the settlement is expected to provide significant relief for affected homeowners and restore their ability to refinance or sell their homes without facing steep penalties.

The case was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Eric Carnevale, Alda Chan, and Daniel Bahls, along with Senior Trial Counsel Peter Downing and members of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division. The Attorney General’s Civil Investigations Division also assisted with the investigation.

IF YOU NEED A LAWYER CONTACT ME