DS News

» VISIT US ONLINE @ DSNEWS.COM 93 firm. She also served as in-house counsel for a major national mortgage lender, overseeing the implementation of the recent TRID conver- sion and working to improve the settlement and post-closing services departments. Harrison's work has won recognition from multiple organizations. In 2015 she won the Leaders in the Law award, presented by Florida Association for Women Lawyers. Harrison was also a nominee for the 2015 Women Who Mean Business award from the Orlando Business Journal and a nominee for the 2016 Distinguished Leader Award, presented by the Central Florida Association for Women Lawyers. Aside from her litigation and in-house coun- sel work, Harrison is also involved in nonprofit work. Currently she sits on the advisory board for A Gift for Music (an organization that provides free music lessons to Title I school- aged children) and is also is a member of the Central Florida Real Estate Attorneys Counsel. Additionally, Harrison serves on the Florida Bar Senior Lawyers Technology Advisory Committee. Colorado Supreme Court Rules on Potential Deceptive Practices Colorado's Attorney General has won a procedural victory against one firm in her state over alleged deceptive foreclosure practices. According to two dissenting justices in the court, however, the firm's foreclosure practices may not have been deceptive after all. e Colorado Supreme Court said it would allow Attorney General Cynthia Coffman to introduce critical evidence at trial to demon- strate that the Castle Law Group of Colorado Springs used affiliated businesses to artificially inflate foreclosure-related costs. e decision overturned a trial court ruling that Coffman could not seek reimbursement and penalties for the deceptive profits retained by the affiliated businesses rather than the law firm itself, according to a statement by her office. e Supreme Court, however, concluded, based on the allegations in the case, that the affiliated businesses "themselves also benefited from the common scheme," and the defendants could be held accountable for the amounts retained by those businesses. "e Supreme Court further holds that evidence of the market rates charged by unaf- filiated vendors for foreclosure-related services is directly relevant to establishing whether the costs invoiced by the vendors were the actual or reasonable costs of such services," the decision stated. "e Supreme Court therefore reverses a trial court order excluding testimony concerning the market rate for foreclosure- related services." e Supreme Court also determined that the defendants are not immune from claims that their costs were deceptive merely because they dis- closed the inflated costs to lenders and the public. In her statement, Coffman said the deci- sion was an important victory in her fight to "hold the largest foreclosure law firm in Colo- rado accountable for allegedly charging grossly inflated costs in foreclosure proceedings." Coffman alleges that Castle and its prin- cipals, in concert with affiliated foreclosure- related businesses, systematically charged inflated and deceptive costs for routine services necessary to complete home foreclosures, while falsely representing that those costs were "actual, reasonable and necessary." e inflated costs—which she estimates exceed $12 million—"were passed on to homeowners, lenders, investors, and taxpayers," she said. Castle asserts that market rate evidence was irrelevant based on a November 2014 ruling from the trial court, as well as a series of rul- ings from November 2014 to January 2016 that also found market rate evidence was irrelevant. Two justices out of the seven on the Colorado Supreme Court dissented from the majority opinion. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Richard Gabriel wrote that in its peti- tion for an order to show cause pursuant to C.A.R. 21, the state asserted one week before the trial and without briefing or arguments from the parties that the district court issued two orders, ruling sua sponte that charging high prices is not deceptive or unjust if the prices were accurately disclosed. Gabriel wrote that the state claimed the district court's ruling reflected that the court had suggested the mar- ket rates for the services at issue were irrelevant to the state's case and that the rulings by the district court on the eve of the trial foreclosed the state from presenting its principal theory of the case. "Because the subsequent briefing that we received from the defendants in this case showed that the State's representations of the record were incorrect, and because it is not clear to me that the district court misunder- stood the claims as set forth in the State's amended complaint, I would vacate the order to show cause and dismiss this appellate pro- ceeding," Gabriel wrote. e case will now go back to Denver Dis- trict Court for trial. THE LEADER IN DEFAULT SERVICING NEWS Help shape the next issue of DS News. Drop us a line at Editor@DSNews.com.

• Cover