Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Schuett

November 2, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHARLOTTE SCHUETT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Charlotte Schuett pled guilty to a charge of mail fraud. In this decision, the Court considers a disputed Sentencing Guidelines issue.

Schuett's plea agreement set forth the following factual basis for her guilty plea: Beginning no later than in or about March 2004 and continuing until at least in or about May 2005, defendant CHARLOTTE SCHUETTdevised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and material omissions. Specifically, SCHUETT caused loan applications to be falsified in order to meet the requirements of mortgage lenders, including creating false sources of income such as rental properties and gifts, and falsifying the source of down payments. As a result, these mortgage lenders were fraudulently induced to fund approximately $3,227,350 in loans to SCHUETT and her investors.

It was part of the scheme that SCHUETT was associated with two companies called Wall Street Mortgage Acceptance Corporation ("WSM") and Blue Moon Properties ("Blue Moon"). SCHUETT, through WSM, advertised in local newspapers and on billboards a service that allegedly allowed home owners facing foreclosure to keep their residences.

Through WSM, SCHUETT offered a sale-leaseback program that, in its essence, required the home owners to sell their properties. SCHUETT represented that the sale would be to an investor, who would not live in the house, but instead lease it back to the homeowner for a year to 18 months. During this time, the homeowner paid a monthly rent. At the end of the established time period, the investor would sell the house back to the homeowner at the same price as the investor originally paid.

SCHUETT represented to the homeowner that the 12 to 18 month time period was necessary to allow them to get back on their feet financially and establish better credit by making timely monthly rent payments. SCHUETT caused loan applications in the name of investors to be falsified in order to meet the requirements of mortgage lenders, including creating false sources of income for the investors, such as rental properties and gifts. SCHUETT facilitated the closing of sales involving investors, by fraudulently making it appear that the investors were paying the down payments when, in fact, the down payments were funded from defendant SCHUETT's accounts at Amcore Bank, and no money was in fact paid from the investors.

For example, on or about May 26, 2005, defendant SCHUETT caused to be submitted as part of the closing documents for the sale of 2211 Cheshire Drive, Aurora, Illinois, a gift letter from investor Deborah W. that falsely inflated the amount of the gift to the investor from approximately $10,000 to $26,000, an Illinois Residential Lease Agreement listing a monthly rent to Deborah W. that was also false in that the property was not owned by Deborah W., and a Uniform Residential Loan Application that falsely listed a bank account and a rental property that were not owned by Deborah W.

On or about September 27, 2004, in the Northern District of Illinois, for the purpose of executing the above-described scheme to defraud, defendant SCHUETT knowingly caused to be deposited from Imperial Land Title a letter with attached closing documents for Loan #XXX-XXXX8743 to be sent an delivered by a private interstate carrier to Peoples Choice Home Loan, Attention: Closing Department, 7515 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, California 92618.

Plea Agr. ¶ 6.

In the plea agreement, the parties agreed to disagree about the loss amount for purposes of the advisory Sentencing Guideline calculation. The government took the position that the loss amount should include "the approximately $777,755 worth of equity defendant obtained from approximately thirteen homeowners." Id. ¶ 9.b.ii. Schuett took the position that the "equity was not fraudulently obtained and should therefore not be included in the loss calculations." Id. Both parties reserved the right "to dispute at sentencing their positions regarding inclusion of the $777,755 in the loss amount, as well as the fair market value of the properties." Id.

The Court held a two-day evidentiary hearing concerning the disputed loss amount issues and heard argument by counsel on a later date. At the hearing, the government called four homeowners who had dealt with Schuett, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation case agent, who testified regarding her interviews of other homeowners and summarized certain documents. The defense called an investigator with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Schuett herself. Both sides also introduced numerous exhibits.

Discussion

The agreed-upon factual basis for Schuett's guilty plea concerned a fraud perpetrated on lending institutions. The factual basis included a reference to Schuett's dealings with homeowners but did not include any statement or admission that she had defrauded any homeowners. Rather, the plea agreement clearly reflected that was a disputed issue upon which there was no mutual understanding and no admission by Schuett.

The government contends that in addition to defrauding lenders, Schuett defrauded certain homeowners with whom she dealt. Schuett denies this. This dispute was the subject of the hearing.

Schuett had what might loosely be called a mortgage-rescue business. She advertised that she could help homeowners faced with foreclosure to keep their homes. As the plea agreement briefly referenced, Schuett used a sale-leaseback arrangement. The customer's home was sold to a third party (in some instances, Schuett herself), and the existing mortgage was paid off from the proceeds of the sale. The purchaser leased the property back to the homeowner for a period of time, typically twelve months. During that period, the homeowner would pay rent, and an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.