Michigan Attorney General Sues MV Realty, Alleging Cold Calls Sold Homeowners on 40-Year Agreements

The case is a civil lawsuit. Everything described below is an allegation that the state will have to prove in court. The companies have not been found liable for anything, and the claims remain unproven unless and until the state proves them in court.

The Alleged Program

According to the Attorney General's release, MV Realty presented itself as a real estate brokerage and aggressively marketed its Homeowner Benefit Program to Michigan consumers. The pitch, as the state describes it, was simple. MV Realty would pay homeowners cash with no obligation to repay it or to sell their homes. In exchange, homeowners only needed to consider using MV Realty as their agent if they ever chose to sell.

The state alleges the written agreements said something quite different. They granted MV Realty an exclusive 40-year right to represent the homeowner in any sale of the home. That right required either a commission of 3 to 6 percent on the sale or a predatorily structured early termination fee. MV Realty then recorded the agreements in the homeowners' chains of title, which the state says created a lien on the property.

According to the release, most consumers received between $300 and $500, and MV Realty entered into more than 1,000 Homeowner Benefit Agreements with Michigan consumers, and more than 900 remain active. The state also alleges that MV Realty does not hold a valid Michigan real estate broker's license and does not employ licensed staff to provide real estate services in Michigan.

Where the Phone Comes In

The press release focuses on the loan and lien theory. The complaint adds the marketing detail. It alleges that, in addition to internet marketing, MV Realty "cold called and/or sent mailers to consumers with deceptive sales pitches that misrepresented the true nature of the transactions those consumers later entered into with MV Realty."

The complaint describes two consumers. One, identified as Crystal J., allegedly received a mailer and then a cold call from a representative who said MV Realty would pay her a $400 "promotion fee" if she agreed to consider the company when she sold. According to the complaint, she learned of the 40-year term only when she sold her home in 2024. To close the sale, she allegedly had to give MV Realty 3 percent of the proceeds to release the memorandum.

The second, identified as Eugenia D., allegedly received a cold call offering $500 if she agreed to use MV Realty when she sold. The complaint says she was confused to get the call because she had not been thinking about selling. She was allegedly told her only obligation was to give MV Realty a six-month chance to sell the home. The complaint alleges no one told her the agreement ran 40 years or that a memorandum would be recorded against her home.

The Legal Claims

The state brings claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act. It also asserts public nuisance claims based on alleged violations of the Criminal Usury Act, the Interest Rates Act, and the Michigan Regulatory Loan Act.

The usury theory treats the cash payments as loans repaid through commissions or termination fees. The state alleges the effective interest rates exceed 25 percent per year and that the Interest Rates Act bars written interest rates above 7 percent annually.

The Attorney General asks the court to declare the alleged violations, enjoin future violations, award damages to some consumers, and rescind, strike, or limit every Michigan Homeowner Benefit Agreement. The state also seeks to bar MV Realty from collecting commissions or early termination fees on these agreements, disgorgement of fees already collected, restitution to consumers who paid early termination fees, and civil penalties.

Why This Matters for Telemarketers

This is not a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case. No TCPA claim appears in the state's filing. But the complaint ties the alleged deception directly to cold calls. That matters for anyone who sells a financial product by phone.

When a phone pitch describes a product one way and the contract says something else, the call itself can become evidence in a consumer protection case.

TCPA.com has covered MV Realty before, including a separate suit by the Minnesota Attorney General over phone pitches for the same type of agreement.

Businesses that market by phone should keep a few points in mind:

• Make sure scripts accurately describe the product, including its term and any lien or fee.
• Keep records of what representatives say on calls.
• Confirm that the business holds every license the product requires in each state where it calls.

MV Realty will have the opportunity to respond in court.

Source: Michigan Department of Attorney General, AG Nessel Sues MV Realty for Predatory, Deceptive Homeowners Loan Scheme.