IBJNews

1,300 Hoosiers eligible for United Financial restitution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller says more than 1,300 Hoosiers are eligible for restitution from United Financial Systems Corp. in the wake of a court ruling against the Indianapolis-based company.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled last year United Financial Services violated state law by selling estate plans without a license to practice law.

The court determined that United Financial and related companies were liable for refunding fees to the victims and appointed the attorney general's office to assist with the refund procedure.

Zoeller said Friday that state residents must apply for restitution from the company by Oct. 15, 2011, to qualify.

Consumers who qualify and have not received a prepaid claim card in the mail from Zoeller's office should call the attorney general's Consumer Protection Division at (317) 232-6330 or 1-800-382-5516, he said.

The Supreme Court ordered United Financial in April 2010 to cease its unauthorized law practice and reimburse clients who paid fees after June 6, 2006. The court’s order applied to 1,306 clients who collectively must be repaid more than $3 million.

The company also faces at least two class-action suits that could involve 4,000 or more Indiana clients who paid fees before June 6, 2006.

Richard Kennard filed a class-action suit March 16 in Marion Superior Court against United Financial, which in 2002 sold him a $2,500 estate-planning package, along with two annuities. Kennard is represented by Indianapolis-based law firm Cohen & Malad.

Like many United Financial clients, Kennard had a will in effect when a saleswoman visited his home in 2002. His suit claims she persuaded him to buy "inappropriate" power-of-attorney and living-will and trust documents, which were drafted by a lawyer that the firm contracted. Kennard’s probate lawyer later revised the work.

In January, a Logansport law firm also filed a class-action lawsuit against United Financial on behalf of thousands of residents for what attorneys estimate could be $10 million to $20 million in damages.

The lawsuit by Starr Austen & Miller alleges constructive fraud, contractual claim violations, conversion, and disgorgement of fees due to the unlawful practice of law. . The suit named Donald A. Bonnell of Kewanna as the sole plaintiff, but it contends a larger class of 2,000 or more people could have valid claims.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT