Forensic Contract Audit's terms read: "Cancellation/Refund Policy Quiet Title May receive a full refund. In the event proof can be shown that it does not work in the first 30 days of the company response of the first send out of our product paperwork. Depending on the purchase and who is with. We may or may not do a contract And other arrangements will be made."
While this verbiage is more or less illiterate word vomit, in my opinion its promise is clear - if the purchaser does not receive Quiet Title, they're entitled to a full refund. The refund applies even if the 'company' refuses delivery of the refund request. If the quality of the writing in the legal forms purchased is as amazingly terrible as the writing in the terms, I'm not at all surprised that Quiet Title was not received and/or the claimant couldn't begin to make sense of the $6,000 forms.
The claimant should make sure that they show this thoroughly entertaining and slippery nonsense to all regulatory agencies they take this complaint to.
There are so many red flags in this website and the company's response that I scarcely know where to start.
But let's start with the fact that they use a Gmail email address rather than a domain email address, and the level of literacy on their website is ... Ukraine? Russia? It's truly dreadful, from the misuse of terms and random capitalization to the fragmented sentences. They can't even write in complete sentences, and we're supposed to think they know how to get us out of debt?
Then we get the "donation" option via GoFundMe. Does GoFundMe know how this website operates? If not, it should. Is the GoFundMe link just there to lull the purchaser into thinking of the site as some vaguely benign do-gooder?
The Terms are supposedly from Rocket Lawyer. I'd be interested to know what Rocket Lawyer would say about their language being so poorly edited - if indeed it came from them.
The claimant says that mail was refused at the mailing address given on the site. Since this is a residence that is reported as being under someone else's name, either it's a rental and 'the company' is trying to avoid service of refund requests, or the 'company' doesn't really live there and the surprised owner naturally refused it.
Next, gentle reader, in case you're not familiar with this type of business, read the FTC's pithy page about "Forensic Mortgage Loan Audit Scams: A New Twist on Foreclosure Rescue Fraud." It doesn't matter how far this company tries to loophole around the law about upfront payments and the intent of the law - the FTC knows what's up!
"...the latest foreclosure rescue scam to exploit financially strapped homeowners pitches forensic mortgage loan audits, " says the FTC. Shameful.
I have no interest whatsoever in clicking on any of the attached Exhibits, but I did read Forensic Contract Audit's blustery responses, and that would be a hard LOL.
The claimant hasn't disclosed a thing, in my opinion, except that Forensic Contract Audit's process didn't work. However, Forensic Contract Audit may well be disclosing a lot in its exhibits, and the Florida Attorney General may well be very interested in all that.
Furthermore, Forensic Contract Audit should probably look up Florida's anti-SLAPP laws. That might be extremely instructive regarding any attempts to intimidate customers.
I would very much like to know which lawyers wrote the documents apparently supplied to the claimant and whether they're inclined to stand by their work. Can Forensic Contract Audit supply the names of the doubtless fine legal minds behind their documentation, so that we know whether these are bona fide legal documents by practicing lawyers?
Do I sound disgusted? Well, that would be because I am. People who are in financial trouble are vulnerable. During the last crash, I can't begin to tell you how many scummy "companies" were out there preying on desperate homeowners. And they're still at it.
In my opinion, Forensic Contract Audit should give the claimant their money back. If they're not inclined to do so, and the two parties can't come to an agreement, I would recommend that the claimant follow the FTC's advice and pursue this to the fullest extent of the law.