Read the 80 page class action RICO and unfair trade practices lawsuit filed October 1, 2025 in federal court in Orlando against oligopolist D.R. HORTON, INC. and DRI MORTGAGE COMPANY, Ltd., seeking triple damages and attorney fees after a jury trial:
-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 1 of 80 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
FRANKIE SANTIAGO, NICOLE
NERONHA, JOSEPH NERONHA,
MARIA NERONHA, and ONNY
JULES, on behalf of themselves, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No.:
CLASS ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
D.R. HORTON, INC., and DHI
MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD.
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Frankie Santiago, Nicole Neronha, Joseph Neronha, Maria Neronha,
and Onny Jules (together, “Plaintiffs,” or “Mr. Santiago” and the “Neronha Family”)
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Class” or “Class
Members”), file this Class Action Complaint against Defendants D.R. Horton, Inc.
(“D.R. Horton”); and DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd. (“DHI Mortgage”) (together,
“Defendants”), as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Defendant D.R. Horton, one of the country’s largest home builders,
operates a deceptive bait-and-switch scheme that conceals the true monthly cost of
purchasing its homes from unsuspecting homebuyers. This deception makes D.R.Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 2 of 80 PageID 2
Horton’s homes appear more affordable than competitors’ properties, while enabling
homebuyers to qualify for loans on homes that cost more than they understand they
can afford. To carry out its scheme, D.R. Horton works with its “preferred” mortgage
lender, DHI Mortgage, to entice prospective homebuyers—predominantly middle-
and working-class Americans—by promising them low, affordable monthly payments.
In reality, Defendants create artificially low monthly mortgage payment quotes by
deliberately including only a fraction of required property taxes in their payment
calculations, while knowingly excluding the remaining taxes. Through this “Monthly
Payment Suppression Scheme,
” D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage mislead homebuyers
into believing their total monthly housing costs will fit within their monthly budget.
But Defendants have actual knowledge of the true property tax amounts throughout
the entire home sales and financing process, and they know what homebuyers’
monthly payments will actually be; however, they prominently and repeatedly center
the suppressed monthly payment in all the paperwork provided to homebuyers. It is
not until well after closing that homebuyers learn the truth, when their monthly
payments increase by hundreds of dollars. By this time, DHI Mortgage has transferred
the loan, and a new mortgage servicer delivers the bad news.
2. Deepening the injury, many of Defendants’ customers are participants in
the Federal Housing Administration’s (“FHA”) mortgage program for working- and
middle-class Americans and are first-time homebuyers on tight budgets. For these
homebuyers, the surprise increase in their monthly payments causes serious hardship.
These homebuyers must now scrape together hundreds more dollars every month to
2Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 3 of 80 PageID 3
stay current, potentially risking foreclosure. And the overall value of their homes is
impacted by the true cost of the property taxes. For these very reasons, the FHA
program requires mortgage companies to include the full amount of property taxes in
the monthly payment—a requirement that Defendants ignore.
3. Defendants’ unfair and deceptive scheme enables them to market their
homes as more affordable than competitors’ properties through artificially low
monthly payment quotes. Typically, a monthly mortgage payment consists of
principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. Because homebuyers make purchase
decisions based on this total monthly payment amount, Defendants can manipulate
the disclosed tax component to make higher-priced homes appear affordable. For
example, if a homebuyer had a $2,500 a month budget to cover all four components
of a monthly mortgage payment, using a lower tax amount allows Defendants to
capture a larger share of that homebuyer’s budget for repayment towards the loan
principal.
4. Defendants are able to obscure their misleading property tax estimates
from borrowers because of their integrated business model, which allows for the
knowing cooperation of the home builder and seller, D.R. Horton, and its “preferred”
mortgage lender, DHI Mortgage. By working together, Defendants have devised
uniform marketing practices in which their sales agents focus homebuyers on
artificially suppressed monthly payments, a tactic that flows through every step of the
process, from the initial pitch to closing. Defendants jointly profit from the scheme,
through increased home prices and increased fees charged as a percentage of home
3Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 4 of 80 PageID 4
price. Consumers lose substantially. They overpaid for their homes and now must pay
substantially more out of pocket each month than they were promised.
5. For example, Defendants promised Plaintiff Frankie Santiago a monthly
payment of $2,164.68. Based on this payment, Mr. Santiago chose a D.R. Horton
home with a DHI Mortgage loan because the monthly payment was—according to
Defendants—lower than other homes with similar sales prices that he was considering.
But less than a year after closing, Mr. Santiago’s payment skyrocketed by nearly $1,000
per month from $2,164.68 to $3,136.33 when his new servicer conducted an escrow
analysis that included all of his property taxes as well as the amounts he now had to
cover for back taxes due to the scheme.
6. Similarly, Defendants promised Plaintiffs Nicole Neronha, Joseph
Neronha, Maria Neronha, and Onny Jules a monthly payment of $2,602.47. Based on
this payment, the Neronha Plaintiffs chose a D.R. Horton home with a DHI Mortgage
loan because the monthly payment was—according to Defendants—lower than other
homes with similar sales price that they were considering. Initial payments were
$2,597.84 per month. But less than two years after closing, Plaintiffs’ payment
skyrocketed by nearly $1,000 per month to $3,439.07 when their new servicer
conducted an escrow analysis that included all of their property taxes as well as the
amounts they now had to cover for back taxes due to the scheme.
7. On behalf of those victimized by Defendants’ Monthly Payment
Suppression Scheme, Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek redress
for Class Members, who are all homebuyers who purchased their homes with FHA
4Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 5 of 80 PageID 5
mortgages (referred to herein as “FHA Homebuyers” or “Homebuyers”), including
but not limited to damages, disgorgement of profits from Defendants for this illegal
scheme, and injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants comply with the law and cease
preying on unsuspecting buyers seeking their part of the American dream.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d) of the Class Action Fairness Act because the matter in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and it is a class action in which the parties
are minimally diverse.
9. This Court also has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because this action is brought by Plaintiffs pursuant, inter alia, to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961.
10. Minimal diversity exists. The Defendants are incorporated in Texas and
Plaintiffs are citizens of Florida.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants
conduct substantial business in this District, maintain registered agents in this state,
have sufficient contacts with this District, and otherwise avail themselves of the
markets in this District.
12. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c),
specifically, because the actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Orange County,
Florida.
5Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 6 of 80 PageID 6
III. PARTIES
13. Plaintiff Frankie Santiago is a natural person living in Howey in the Hills,
Florida. At all times material hereto, Mr. Santiago was a citizen of Florida.
14. Plaintiff Nicole Neronha is a natural person living in Davenport, Florida.
At all times material hereto, Ms. Nicole Neronha was a citizen of Florida.
15. Plaintiff Joseph Neronha is a natural person living in Davenport, Florida.
At all times material hereto, Mr. Neronha was a citizen of Florida.
16. Plaintiff Maria Neronha is a natural person living in Davenport, Florida.
At all times material hereto, Ms. Maria Neronha was a citizen of Florida.
17. Plaintiff Onny Jules is a natural person living in Davenport, Florida. At
all times material hereto, Mr. Jules was a citizen of Florida.
18. Defendant D.R. Horton, Inc.:
a. D.R. Horton is the largest homebuilding company in the United States
as measured by the volume of home sales closed and revenue. D.R.
Horton constructs and sells homes through its operating divisions in 125
markets across 36 states, primarily under the names of D.R. Horton,
America’s Builder, Emerald Homes, Express Homes, and Freedom
Homes;
b. D.R. Horton’s principal place of business is 1341 Horton Circle,
Arlington, Texas 76011. For citizenship purposes, D.R. Horton is a
citizen of the State of Texas; and
6Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 7 of 80 PageID 7
c. at all times material hereto, D.R. Horton owned and operated as a home
builder in Florida, buying, selling, and developing real estate throughout
the state, including within this district. D.R. Horton has purposefully
availed itself of Florida law and routinely profited from doing business in
Orange County and under the laws of the State of Florida. Accordingly,
D.R. Horton is subject to specific jurisdiction in this District.
19. Defendant DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd. (hereinafter “DHI
Mortgage”):
a. DHI Mortgage is a wholly owned subsidiary of D.R. Horton;
b. DHI Mortgage’s principal place of business is 1341 Horton Circle,
Arlington Texas 76011. For citizenship purposes, DHI Mortgage is a
citizen of the State of Texas;
c. at all times material hereto, DHI Mortgage served as a mortgage loan
originator across the country, serving primarily or exclusively as the
mortgage lender for D.R. Horton real estate transactions; and
d. DHI Mortgage has originated tens of thousands of loans across the state
of Florida including within this district. DHI Mortgage has purposefully
availed itself of Florida law and routinely profited from doing business in
Orange County and under the laws of the State of Florida. Accordingly,
DHI Mortgage is subject to specific jurisdiction in this District.
7Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 8 of 80 PageID 8
a. i. IV. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Defendants Market and Sell Homes and Mortgages to Homebuyers.
D.R. Horton Sells Newly Constructed Homes to FHA
Homebuyers.
20. Defendant D.R. Horton is the largest homebuilding company in the
United States. D.R. Horton’s common stock is included in the S&P 500 Index and
listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the ticker symbol “DHI.”
D.R. Horton’s business operations include homebuilding, rental, a majority-owned
residential lot development company (Forestar Group Inc.), financial services, and
other related activities.
21. D.R. Horton has established itself as the dominating builder in the starter
home market or as D.R. Horton refers to it, the “express” home space.
1 D.R. Horton
first rolled out its targeted starter home in 2015 and, since then, this product has
become the company’s primary driver of profits.2
22. D.R. Horton typically buys large parcels of land to develop as residential
neighborhoods, using its in-house team of agents to sell to prospective buyers.
23. According to its corporate filings, D.R. Horton’s “primary focus [is] on
the first time and first time move-up homebuyer, which accounts for the majority of
[its] home closings.” D.R. Horton 2024 Form 10-K. For the year ended September 30,
2024, D.R. Horton’s homes had an average closing price of $378,000. Id.
1 D.R. Horton, Home Series, https://www.drhorton.com/home-series
2Builder, Why D.R. Horton’s Express Homes are a Success (Apr. 29, 2015),
https://www.builderonline.com/money/profits/why-d-r-hortons-express-homes-are-a-
success_o.
8Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 9 of 80 PageID 9
ii. DHI Mortgage Provides Mortgage Financing, Including FHA
Mortgage Loans, to Consumers Buying D.R. Horton Homes.
24. A substantial majority of consumers buying a D.R. Horton home obtain
their mortgage loans from DHI Mortgage. For the year ending September 30, 2024,
DHI Mortgage provided mortgage financing services for 78% of the 89,690 homes
closed by D.R. Horton’s homebuilding operations. And nearly all DHI Mortgage’s
business involves originating loans for D.R. Horton properties.
25. A significant portion of Defendants’ mortgage loans are made through
the FHA program. For example, in 2024, 42.6% of DHI Mortgage’s 70,673 loan
originations were through the FHA program.
3
1. Overview of the FHA Program.
26. Congress created the FHA in 1934 when it passed the National Housing
Act. Through the FHA program, the federal government sought to make
homeownership accessible to working-class Americans by providing government-
backed financing, enabling them to build intergenerational wealth. Congress also
created the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) to allow for
the securitization of FHA-insured loans to encourage liquidity in the mortgage market,
so that lenders’ capital was not tied up for the entire duration of the lengthy mortgage
terms. In so doing, lending institutions would be able to issue loans into Ginnie Mae
securities so that they can recycle their capital into new loans.
3 See, Origination Data, DHI Mortgage Company Ltd. Rates, Fees & Info (Aug. 31, 2015),
https://originationdata.com/institution/5493001SXWZ4OFP8Z903#:~:text=Showing%20
1%20to%204%20of,15%20Year%2C%20with%20501%20originations
9Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 10 of 80 PageID 10
27. Today, FHA loans continue to make homeownership more accessible,
reduce the risk of foreclosure, make payments more affordable, and reduce the
exposure to changing interest rates by extending the terms of mortgage loans to twenty
and thirty years.
28. From 2006 to 2015, the number of FHA-insured loans increased from 3
million to 6.5 million.
29. Today, FHA loans are home mortgages insured by the government and
issued by a bank or other private lender. FHA loans require a lower minimum down
payment than many conventional loans, and applicants may have lower credit scores
than some mortgage lenders usually require. FHA loans are designed to help low- to
moderate-income families attain homeownership, and they are particularly popular
with first-time homebuyers.
30. Mortgage lenders are under no obligation to offer FHA mortgages.
However, many lenders to first-time buyers choose to offer FHA mortgages because
they are insured against loss and because lower-income and lower-wealth individuals
qualify for FHA loans, though they may not qualify for traditional loans.
2. As an FHA Lender, DHI Mortgage Must Adhere to
FHA Regulations and Standardized Practices.
31. A lender’s choice to avail itself of the benefit of the federal guarantee,
however, comes with an obligation to lend and service FHA mortgages in full
compliance with FHA’s lending and servicing rules, which are codified as law at 24
C.F.R. Part 203.
10Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 11 of 80 PageID 11
32. As an FHA lender, DHI Mortgage is legally required to comply with the
FHA regulations codified at 24 C.F.R. Part 203. Because DHI Mortgage originates
tens of thousands of FHA mortgages each year, it is familiar with the regulatory
scheme and understands its obligations.
33. FHA regulations apply to all FHA “mortgagees,” broadly defined to
include the original lender of any FHA-insured mortgage, as well as successors and
assigns. 24 C.F.R. § 203.251(f). Thus, DHI Mortgage and any subsequent servicer are
“Mortgagees” of the FHA mortgages that DHI Mortgage originates. As such, when
lending to Homebuyers, DHI Mortgage must adhere to U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development’s (“HUD”) lending and servicing regulations “with the same
force and to the same extent as if a separate contract had been executed relating to the
insured mortgage.” 24 C.F.R. § 203.257. As an FHA lender, DHI voluntarily assumes
a duty to act in compliance with the FHA regulations on each and every FHA qualified
loan that it provides.
3. The FHA Has Adopted Strict Regulations for the Proper
Escrow of Property Taxes, Which DHI Mortgage Must
Follow When Lending to Homebuyers.
34. To protect its interest in the property and guard against default, the FHA
requires mortgagees, including DHI Mortgage, to escrow the “estimated amount of all
property taxes,” as well as insurance and other required payments, and to ensure that
these are paid through the regular monthly mortgage payment. 24 C.F.R. § 203.23.
FHA regulations also require that the Mortgagee properly estimate and timely collect
11Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 12 of 80 PageID 12
these amounts, in accordance with the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act
(“RESPA”). 24 C.F.R. § 203.550.
35. The FHA reinforces the express language in the regulation through clear
guidance in its FHA Mortgage Handbook. Specifically, FHA Handbook 4000.1 states:
“The escrow account must be sufficient to meet the following obligations when they
become due: . . . real estate taxes . . . .” FHA Handbook 4000.1 at 375, available at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/40001-hsgh-update16-
5.pdf. The Handbook further explains that “[t]he Mortgagee must use accurate
estimates of monthly tax escrows when calculating the total Mortgage Payment. In
New Construction cases and Manufactured Homes converting to real estate, property
tax estimates must be based on the land and improvements.” Id at 361-62.
36. Using a true and reliable estimate of property taxes and other escrowed
sums, the originating lender is required to calculate the monthly escrow
payment by conducting an analysis. The lender determines the amount of the
taxes, insurance, and other escrowed sums and the timing of when these
amounts must be paid. The lender then conducts a trial analysis for the coming year
to determine how much must be paid monthly by the consumer into the escrow
account, plus any amount that must be paid at closing as an escrow deposit, to ensure
the taxes and other escrowed sums will be paid timely and that the account not
only never falls into a negative but also maintains the required cushion amount at all
times. All monthly payments for taxes and insurance that are included in the total
monthly payment are placed into an escrow account, from which the ultimate loan
12Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 13 of 80 PageID 13
servicer disburses funds to pay the property taxes and other escrowed costs when those
payments come due—which may be months after the Homebuyer closes on the home.
If all the calculations are done correctly, there should be sufficient funds in escrow to
pay the property taxes.
37. If the initial estimate is low, there can be dire consequences for the
Homebuyer. When an accurate escrow analysis is eventually completed, the
Homebuyer’s payment will sky-rocket, causing substantial payment shock—their new
monthly payment will not only include the higher monthly payment for the actual
taxes, but also the required cushion as a percentage of that higher payment and
amounts to cover the shortfall for the past months they have owned the home and paid
too little into escrow.
b. Defendants Know that The Total Monthly “PITI” Payment is a Key
Driver in Homebuyers’ Home-Buying Decisions, and to Attract
Homebuyers, Engage Their Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
38. When looking to buy a home, the price of the home is a major
consideration. But for FHA Homebuyers, the total monthly housing payment is
particularly material.
39. For all FHA mortgages, the monthly mortgage payment consists of four
components known as “PITI”: loan principal (P); interest on the loan (I), property
taxes (T), and homeowner’s insurance (I). The principal and interest payments are
13Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 14 of 80 PageID 14
applied to the loan itself, and the property taxes and insurance payments are deposited
into an escrow account. Accordingly, they are referred to as the escrow payment.4
40. In making homebuying decisions, Homebuyers focus on the monthly
payment as a whole to determine if they can afford a home, not the amounts of the
individual PITI components. For example, two $300,000 homes in different tax
jurisdictions could result in vastly different monthly payments because the property
tax component alone can vary dramatically. Similarly, a Homebuyer with a $2,500
monthly budget can afford a more expensive home in a low-tax jurisdiction than in a
high-tax area, since the lower property taxes keep the total monthly payment within
their budget constraints.5
41. Understanding this dynamic, Defendants seek to maximize the price they
receive for their homes while ensuring they appear to offer monthly payments within
Homebuyers’ budgets.
42. Because FHA Homebuyers are a large part of both Defendants’ customer
bases, Defendants understand that monthly payment affordability is these
Homebuyers’ primary concern. Defendants’ marketing strategy emphasizes low
monthly payments and affordability to attract Homebuyers. In reality, Defendants
systematically work together to obscure the true cost of the home from Homebuyers
4 Escrow payments can also include homeowners’ association fees, mortgage insurance, and
other amounts.
5 https://itep.org/housing-affordability-and-property-taxes-how-to-actually-move-the-
needle/; https://www.riskwire.com/how-property-taxes-shape-home-values-and-
affordability/
14Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 15 of 80 PageID 15
by including only a fraction of the required property taxes in the Homebuyers’ monthly
PITI payment, in violation of FHA requirements.
43. Defendants execute this scheme through a deliberate bait-and-switch,
designed to avoid detection until after purchase. Specifically, in calculating the
estimated escrow amount in the initial payment disclosures, DHI Mortgage creates
two separate escrow estimates. First, Defendants share a “Suppressed Estimate” with
Homebuyers that uses the low property tax assessment for the unimproved land before
D.R. Horton built the home. Defendants know that this Suppressed Estimate is not
correct for the property after the home is built, but rather, dramatically, and falsely
depressed. Second, Defendants create an internal “True Estimate” that reflects the
substantially higher property taxes that will actually apply to the completed, improved
property. While the “True Estimate” is contained in some misleading documents,
Defendants do not use it to calculate the Homebuyer’s monthly payment. Instead,
Defendants quote the Homebuyer an artificially suppressed monthly payment based
on the Suppressed Estimate that is hundreds of dollars lower than what they will
ultimately be required to pay each month.
44. Not only do Defendants use the incorrect Suppressed Estimate when
DHI Mortgage makes the initial quotes to the Homebuyers, Defendants continue
using that Suppressed Estimate in all paperwork through closing. And DHI Mortgage
uses that Suppressed Estimate when setting up the initial escrow account, contrary to
FHA requirements and RESPA.
15Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 16 of 80 PageID 16
45. Defendants know that the Suppressed Estimate reflects an amount that
is consistent with then-current local actual property tax records for the unimproved
land. They also know that the taxing authority will reassess the property later (often
months later), and at that point, the Homebuyer will be responsible for a monthly
property tax payment equivalent or very close to the True Estimate. At some point
after the reassessment, the taxes become due at the new substantially higher amount,
which the new servicer pays out of the escrow account. But because the escrow
account was not calculated based on the True Estimate, when the new taxes are paid,
there is a substantial shortfall in the account. Thereafter, the servicer will conduct a
new escrow analysis, requiring the Homebuyer to pay not just the higher amount, but
also the shortfall, and a new substantially higher cushion. For the Homebuyer, this
looks like a sudden, dramatic increase in their regular monthly payment.
46. Through their Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme, Defendants
systemically cut the amount escrowed for property taxes by up to 80% annually. For
example, DHI Mortgage might include in the escrow payment taxes of $1,500 per year
instead of a good faith and legally required estimate of $7,500 per year that it
reasonably anticipates will be charged, based on other homes in the D.R. Horton
development and the area generally, as well as its experience in the industry. The end
result is that the monthly payment estimate is off by up to $500 per month or $6,000
per year—plus any extra cushion the servicer can collect to ensure the escrow account
is not underfunded and any amount necessary to cover any shortfall.
16Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 17 of 80 PageID 17
47. The Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme benefits both Defendants by
allowing them to close more sales and loans and generate more revenue. Meanwhile,
Homebuyers suffer when their payments skyrocket well after they have committed to
the home, and they are forced to scrape together enough money to keep their family’s
home or risk foreclosure.
48. The mortgage lending and servicing industry is well-aware of the
problems that occur, including increased risk of foreclosure, when there has been an
escrow shortage. This is why FHA lenders are required to escrow the full amount of
the taxes using a true, good-faith estimate and the standard industry practice is to
include a “cushion” in the escrow estimates to guard against any surprises.
c. D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage Work Together to Carry Out Their
Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
49. Defendants have been successful in carrying out their Monthly Payment
Suppression Scheme because of their partnership.
50. Defendants advertise an appealing and easy “one-stop shop” for home
buyers. Defendants know that FHA Homebuyers are typically first-time homebuyers
with moderate incomes. Together, Defendants make affordability, and specifically, the
monthly payment, a key part of their marketing strategy. And Defendants lean on
Homebuyers’ inexperience in purchasing homes by designing a one-stop shopping
process that funnels Homebuyers through to closing in a way that causes them to never
feel the need to seek out any sort of independent experienced lenders and agents who
could detect the Scheme.
17Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 18 of 80 PageID 18
i. Defendants Employ an Integrated Marketing Strategy to Attract
Prospective Homebuyers by Touting Affordability.
51. DHI Mortgage and D.R. Horton work together to market their homes
and FHA loans to Homebuyers. They have a coordinated advertising strategy
designed to promote both services, regardless of which Defendant is doing the
advertising. In addition to nationwide advertising, throughout the class period,
Defendants created social media pages and accounts for various geographic areas in
which they have homes for sale, and together, they created ads that appeal to
prospective Homebuyers by promoting their FHA lending services and their ability to
meet borrowers’ budgets.
52. For example, D.R. Horton posted the following advertisement on a
Facebook page created for the Orlando area to target Homebuyers for buying D.R.
Horton homes and DHI Mortgage FHA loans:
18Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 19 of 80 PageID 19
53. In other advertisements, Defendants, and in particular, DHI Mortgage,
appeal to those just entering the home buying process for the first time, by providing
simple explanations and tips about home buying, reflecting an understanding that
prospective Homebuyers may have concerns about affordability. For example, DHI
Mortgage ran promotions on Facebook in January 2025, providing advice to
19Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 20 of 80 PageID 20
homebuyers in the form of a multi-step process, including “Step #2 – Know what you
can afford” and “Step #3: Create a solid budget.”
54. In addition to online advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and other
social media sites, as well as through the MLS listing service and real estate sites such
as Zillow, D.R. Horton conducts local advertising to alert consumers of its new
Residential Developments and the range of homes for sale. These ads included flyers,
signage, and placement in local media.
55. Often, when D.R. Horton runs advertisements, it includes a link or QR
code to direct consumers to its website, where prospective Homebuyers can see more
information about the homes for sale in their communities. When prospective
Homebuyers visit those pages, they find not only information about the homes, but
also advertising for DHI Mortgage, including being directed to a page that touts
benefits for Homebuyers, which DHI Mortgage and D.R. Horton jointly publish.
There, consumers will see that DHI Mortgage and D.R. Horton are working together,
as well as the possible estimated monthly payment associated with the home, as shown
below:
20Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 21 of 80 PageID 21
56. From their Texas headquarters, and throughout the class period,
Defendants have communicated with one another and with their various
representatives in Texas and around the country to design advertisements similar to
those described in the preceding paragraphs and to disseminate them over interstate
wires to Homebuyers around the country. Each Defendant disseminated the ads with
the shared goal of attracting Homebuyers to purchase D.R. Horton homes with funds
borrowed from DHI Mortgage and did so while knowing that they would be engaging
in the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
57. Once prospective Homebuyers are interested in a D.R. Horton property,
they can contact D.R. Horton through online forms or by phone and wait for D.R.
Horton to contact them after completing a form along the lines of the above. From its
21Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 22 of 80 PageID 22
Texas headquarters, D.R. Horton oversees a large sales staff based around the country,
where it has new residential developments with homes for sale. D.R. Horton trains its
sales staff to assist Homebuyers with their questions and help them make appointments
to view homes. In so doing, D.R. Horton ensures that even those who have not yet
obtained a real estate agent are immediately put on a path to private appointments to
view homes and obtain financing from DHI Mortgage.
58. During the initial interactions with prospective Homebuyers, D.R.
Horton directs its sales personnel to focus on affordability and one-stop shopping,
touting that D.R. Horton can assist them every step of the way. Upon information and
belief, D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage agreed that D.R. Horton’s sales personnel
should emphasize how their “preferred” partner, DHI Mortgage, offers deals for
Homebuyers through its FHA lending program. When performing intakes with
Homebuyers who are currently renting, D.R. Horton sales representatives ask how
much they are paying per month for rent.
59. Once D.R. Horton learns the prospective Homebuyer’s target monthly
payment, D.R. Horton schedules appointments to show homes, schematics, or model
homes in their portfolio for which it knows DHI Mortgage will be able to design a
lending package that appears to fit with the Homebuyer’s monthly budget.
ii. Once Prospective Homebuyers Are Interested in a Property,
Defendants Prepare Misleading Estimates that Suppress the
True Monthly Cost.
60. When a prospective Homebuyer expresses an interest in moving forward
and looking at homes or learning more about DHI Mortgage’s options, D.R. Horton
22Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 23 of 80 PageID 23
works with DHI Mortgage to design information for the Homebuyer to show how the
home will fit into their budget, systemically employing the Monthly Payment
Suppression Scheme to make the house seem more affordable than it is.
61. While many buyers rely on lenders they find through personal referrals
or their own real estate agent, Defendants know and intend for their business model
to result in Homebuyers contracting with DHI Mortgage without looking for an
independent lender. To further this scheme, D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage work
together to present false monthly payment projections, which appear to reflect a good
deal, making it so these Homebuyers have little reason to shop around.
62. In connection with open houses, showings, and appointments, D.R.
Horton often presents prospective Homebuyers with more information on financing
through DHI Mortgage, and assures them that with DHI Mortgage, the total monthly
payment on the house will fit into their budget.
63. If, for example, the starter express series home in a development sells for
$400,000 with a DHI Mortgage estimated monthly payment of $2,600, but the
prospective Homebuyer tells D.R. Horton that they can afford $3,000 per month, D.R.
Horton will then take the Homebuyer to view an elevated model that would max out
the prospective Homebuyer’s budget, even if Defendants will need to employ the
Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme to do so.
64. To prepare these false monthly PITI payment projections, DHI
Mortgage, with agreement from D.R. Horton, uses the Suppressed Estimate when
calculating the monthly payment, even though it has the substantially higher True
23Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 24 of 80 PageID 24
Estimate in hand. In so doing, Defendants create a monthly payment estimate that
appears to fit in the prospective Homebuyer’s budget, while allowing D.R. Horton to
capture more of the prospective Homebuyer’s budgeted monthly payment in the form
of principal, and by extension, charge a higher amount for the home. Defendants
transmit these false PITI payment projections to one another and to prospective
Homebuyers using interstate wires.
65. Following Defendants’ training and directives, D.R. Horton sales agents
around the country communicate these artificially low monthly payments and other
home buying information to prospective Homebuyers, sometimes in person and
sometimes over the phone or via email.
66. When the prospective Homebuyer decides to move forward, D.R.
Horton’s sales agents refer them to DHI Mortgage.
iii. Defendants’ Integrated Business Model Allows Them to
Obscure Their Unfair and Deceptive Practices During the Initial
Loan Onboarding Process and Through Closing.
67. After the Homebuyer expresses interest in a home and begins working
with DHI Mortgage for a loan, D.R. Horton offers a series of incentives, such as
$10,000 towards closing costs, new appliances, window blinds, and even a rate buy-
down to entice the buyer to use DHI Mortgage.
68. DHI Mortgage and D.R. Horton work together, and in most instances,
with D.R. Horton’s subsidiary title company, to complete the uniform disclosures and
other closing documents. Because each of these companies are aware of and
24Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 25 of 80 PageID 25
participate in the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme, the artificially low monthly
payment is repeatedly confirmed to the Homebuyer throughout the multi-step loan
application and closing process.
69. Step 1: Application and Approval. The Homebuyer, together with DHI
Mortgage, completes a loan application, providing detailed financial information.
DHI Mortgage exchanges these application documents between its Texas
headquarters and local affiliates using interstate wires, typically through DocuSign in
California or other third-party e-signature vendors. Shortly thereafter, DHI Mortgage
runs credit checks over interstate wires and reviews the application. If lending
standards are met, DHI Mortgage pre-approves the Homebuyer for the loan. From its
Texas headquarters, DHI Mortgage uses the interstate wires to transmit the approval
to D.R. Horton and to the Homebuyer.
70. Step 2: Initial Loan Estimate. DHI Mortgage then prepares and
provides the Homebuyer with a “Loan Estimate.” Importantly, the Loan Estimate
prominently displays the artificially low monthly payment, created using the
Suppressed Estimate, which matches the Homebuyer’s budget and conforms to the
payment discussed with the D.R. Horton sales agent. DHI Mortgage obtained this
information from D.R. Horton to prepare the initial Loan Estimate. The Loan
Estimate is prepared on a standardized form and is an official document from the
lender purporting to reflect a good faith, true estimated cost of the loan and home
purchase. An excerpt from an exemplar Loan Estimate appears below:
25Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 26 of 80 PageID 26
71. Defendants intend for the prospective Homebuyer to rely on the
“Estimated Total Monthly Payment” amount, which they use the Suppressed
Estimate to calculate. The Loan Estimate document does not disclose the True
Estimate that Defendants know will be the actual property taxes but instead discloses
the Suppressed Estimate. While it states that the “Estimated Taxes, Insurance &
Assessments” “can increase” over time, Homebuyers understand this statement to
refer to normal longer-term increases. In reality, Defendants know at the time the Loan
Estimate is provided to the Homebuyer that the property taxes are significantly higher
than what is disclosed, as indicated by their statement that only “some” property taxes
are included in escrow. This vague statement does not disclose to the Homebuyer that
the estimated payment is artificially low. The statement is confusing and is not
otherwise discussed or explained by Defendants. Further, while the Loan Estimate
states in small print “[y]ou must pay for other property costs separately,” Defendants
26Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 27 of 80 PageID 27
do not disclose what these costs may be nor do they disclose that DHI Mortgage will
not escrow sufficient funds to cover actual estimated property taxes, which Defendants
knew would be thousands of dollars higher. While Homebuyers might be aware that
certain amounts (i.e., homeowners associations dues) would not be included in their
escrow account, they have no reason to expect that they would only pay some property
taxes as part of their monthly payment and would have to pay a part of the same tax
bill to the taxing authority directly.
72. The Homebuyer signs the Loan Estimate and transmits it back to DHI
Mortgage over the interstate wires using the third-party e-signature platform.
73. Step 3: Other Initial Loan Paperwork. After the Homebuyer completes
Step 2, DHI Mortgage sends more than a dozen additional documents to review and
sign to move forward with the loan and home purchase. These documents fall into
three categories, discussed below. These documents are exchanged between DHI
Mortgage in Texas and its local affiliates and Homebuyers electronically over
interstate wires, often using DocuSign in California or other third-party e-signature
vendors.
74. The first category of documents to review and sign are consumer-
protective disclosures and authorizations, many of which are mandated by state or
federal law, such as (i) at least two different mandatory FHA notices; (ii) a notice of
business affiliation advising them that D.R. Horton’s title company will perform
certain work; (iii) an Equal Credit Opportunity Act disclosure; (iv) an authorization to
release the Homebuyer’s credit score to process the loan; (v) an authorization to release
27Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 28 of 80 PageID 28
the Homebuyer’s tax return information to process the loan; (vi) an authorization to
release the Homebuyer’s Social Security Number to process the loan; (vii) an
acknowledgement of the appraisal; (viii) a Privacy Act notice; (ix) a Fair Lending
Notice; (x) a translation notice; (xi) instructions regarding a waiting period in advance
of closing; (xii) a PATRIOT Act disclosure; and (xiii) where applicable, various
disclosures required by state law. None of these documents in the first category contain
any information that materially alter the terms of the loan or home purchase.
75. The second category of documents are two documents warning the
Homebuyer of their legal obligations. In one, the Homebuyer must warrant the truth
of the information they are providing; in another, DHI Mortgage provides them with
an occupancy fraud warning. Like the first category of documents, these documents
do not contain any information that materially alter the terms of the loan or home
purchase.
76. Hidden in this massive collection of documents to review and sign, DHI
Mortgage includes a document entitled “Important Property Tax Notice,
” or “Tax
Notice.
” This cryptic document is prepared by DHI Mortgage in Texas, with D.R.
Horton’s knowledge and agreement, and shared over interstate wires with local DHI
Mortgage affiliates to transmit to Homebuyers over interstate wires via third-party e-
signature platforms, including DocuSign in California. The information contained in
the Tax Notice could materially alter the terms of the loan or home purchase and is
problematic in at least five ways.
28Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 29 of 80 PageID 29
77. First, the Tax Notice contains confusing language that a Homebuyer
would not understand to be relevant to them. It states “[i]f your Property is assessed
as ‘unimproved’ or ‘partially improved’ and it is anticipated that the next payment of
real property taxes will be based on such unimproved or partially improved
assessment, both the analysis of the Escrow Impound Account and the collection of
funds for same at closing will be based on estimated or actual ‘unimproved’ or
‘partially improved’ taxes.” After some additional language regarding the potential for
an increase in property taxes and escrow options, it closes by asking the Homebuyer
to acknowledge the use of “estimated or actual unimproved or partially improved taxes
due to establish the Escrow/Impound Account” and the risk taxes might increase.
Homebuyers are not aware of how the property has been assessed by the taxing
authority at the time of sale, and the hypothetical writing in the introduction creates
the impression that it is not relevant to those Homebuyers purchasing fully constructed
homes, as opposed to an undeveloped or partially developed lot.
78. Second, the Tax Notice is misleading to Homebuyers because DHI
Mortgage provides this notice after the Homebuyer has been told the total estimated
monthly payment and agreed to proceed with the loan. The purpose of supplemental
notices after the Initial Loan Estimate is to provide additional details about the terms
to which the Homebuyer based their decision to move forward with the loan and home
purchase, not to correct falsities in the Initial Loan Estimate. Thus, Homebuyers
would have no reason to believe that later fine print disclosures would contain
information that would render the initial estimate materially false.
29Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 30 of 80 PageID 30
79. Third, by providing the Tax Notice to Homebuyers in conjunction with
sixteen or more other forms for Homebuyers to review and sign, it is insufficient to put
Homebuyers on notice of any deception. Indeed, other than the Tax Notice, every
other document Homebuyers sign as part of Step 3 is not one that materially alters the
terms of the loan and home purchase. DHI Mortgage intentionally includes this
information into the large stack of the other two categories of documents so that
Homebuyers understand it as routine paperwork and not something carrying a
material surprise.
80. Fourth, as discussed in paragraph 71 above, Defendants know how to
calculate and obtain the True Estimate and could conduct property tax estimates with
using the True Estimate at the time the Loan Estimate is provided. There is no
legitimate reason to elect to use the Suppressed Estimate. Moreover, the notice does
not provide the actual estimate of the true monthly payment, based on the True
Estimate, in order to actually inform the Homebuyer of the impact of Defendants’
conduct.
81. Fifth, Defendants are legally obligated by FHA regulations and guidance
to create an escrow account that escrows all property taxes and by RESPA to conduct
an accurate escrow analysis. These regulations do not provide Defendants the right to
obtain a waiver of these obligations, nor does the Tax Notice constitute a knowing and
effective waiver, particularly given how misleading it is.
82. Step 4: Preparation of the FHA Approval Paperwork. After DHI
Mortgage internally pre-approves the FHA loan, it sets forth preparing the necessary
30Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 31 of 80 PageID 31
FHA paperwork. This includes, for each Homebuyer, the HUD form titled
“Conditional Commitment Direct Endorsement Statement of Appraised Value.”
There, DHI Mortgage lists information including the estimated value of the property
and monthly expense estimate, for which it uses the True Estimate of the property
taxes. DHI Mortgage does not use these accurate figures in the calculating payment in
the Loan Estimate and other disclosures that are simultaneously provided to the
Homebuyer. These forms do not include a total estimated monthly cost, so when they
are provided to the Homebuyer, the Homebuyer does not see any information that
would alert them to a material change to their out-of-pocket costs or monthly PITI
payment.
83. Step 5: Additional Estimates and Pre-Closing Disclosures. In between
loan approval and closing, DHI Mortgage often provides Homebuyers with additional
disclosures. These disclosures include revised Loan Estimates, which follow the same
form as discussed in paragraphs 70–72. They might contain minor variations as closing
costs and other details become finalized. When providing these updated Loan
Estimates, DHI Mortgage knows the True Estimate of property taxes, as evidenced by
its completion of the Conditional Commitment form. But in each of these disclosures
of the Homebuyer’s monthly payment, DHI Mortgage continues to use the Suppressed
Estimate.
84. Closer to the loan closing, DHI Mortgage also provides the Homebuyer
with a formal Closing Disclosure document, which is on a federal form and appears
similar to the Loan Estimate. The Closing Disclosure utilizes the Suppressed Estimate,
31Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 32 of 80 PageID 32
despite DHI Mortgage’s knowledge of the true property tax amount. The estimated
monthly payment appears on the first page in large font and is consistent with or below
the monthly payment the Homebuyer initially requested and with the estimates in the
Loan Estimate documents.
85. Obscured on page 4 of the Closing Disclosure, DHI Mortgage lists
escrowed and non-escrowed amounts, but nowhere in this document is it clear that the
Homebuyer must pay these amounts and do so separately. And at no time does either
Defendant explain that the “Estimated Total Monthly Payment” is inaccurate because
of this extra amount that would have to be paid. As an example, page 4 of the Closing
Statement says:
32Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 33 of 80 PageID 33
86. This document states that there will be an escrow account and does not
explain what “Non-Escrowed Property Costs” means, nor does it advise a Homebuyer
how or where they might pay these costs, even if they understood what this language
meant. This document does not explain that the amount listed as “Estimated Total
Monthly Payment” was inaccurate and will be significantly higher when correctly
calculated.
87. Upon information and belief, no other mortgage lender in the United
States engages in the practice of partially escrowing property taxes by deliberately
33Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 34 of 80 PageID 34
including only a small portion of a Homebuyer’s property taxes in their monthly
payment.
88. The additional Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures are exchanged
between DHI Mortgage in Texas and its local affiliates and Homebuyers electronically
over interstate wires, often using DocuSign in California or other third-party e-
signature vendors.
89. Step 6: Closing. At least several weeks after approving the loan, DHI
Mortgage arranges a real estate closing to finalize the deal. Around this time, using
interstate wires, DHI Mortgage creates the loan obligating the Homebuyer. DHI
Mortgage also creates an escrow account using the Suppressed Estimate for the
upcoming year. And Defendants and D.R. Horton’s subsidiary title company prepare
the paperwork.
90. On closing day, the Homebuyer arrives at an office to sign all the
prepared documents. Defendants know that Homebuyers arrive at closing expecting
that all documents conform to their prior expectations, built from their prior
representations regarding the monthly payment for the property. They also know that
virtually no borrower walks away from a closing, particularly as doing so will cause
them to lose any earnest money or other non-refundable fees paid, as well as jeopardize
other terms of the loan and potentially the home itself.
91. Consistent with Homebuyer expectations, numerous documents
presented at closing conform with the Homebuyer’s expectations. The Homebuyer is
provided with a Closing Disclosure, utilizing the Suppressed Estimate to create a
34Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 35 of 80 PageID 35
monthly payment amount that conforms with prior estimates. In addition, at the
closing, numerous other standard documents are provided to the Homebuyer to sign,
including a document verifying they received the house keys, the mortgage and deed,
the promissory note, various riders and addendum, and other disclosures.
92. Hidden in the stack of documents for the Borrower to sign at closing,
DHI Mortgage includes a “First Payment Letter.” The top half of this payment letter
displays a breakdown of the total monthly payment and a total amount that is
consistent with the amount appearing on the Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures,
uses the Suppressed Estimate for taxes, and states when the first payment is due.
Beneath that, DHI Mortgage includes for the first time that the estimated taxes owed
on the home exceed what is included in the breakdown and recommends that the
Homebuyer make additional payments to their escrow account. It also states that the
Lender will not accept partial payments.
93. Defendants know that the First Payment Letter will not cause
Homebuyers to walk away from closing. The first half of the Letter, where the monthly
payment appears, conforms to Homebuyers’ expectations about the monthly payment,
built through DHI Mortgage’s repeated reinforcement of that amount through Loan
Estimates and Closing Disclosures over many weeks. And Homebuyers do not expect
that closing will be a bait-and-switch, where the terms of the transaction materially
differ from what they have been conditioned to expect—indeed, these disclosures are
required by federal law (RESPA and the Truth in Lending Act) precisely to ensure that
there are no surprises at closing. Even for those few Homebuyers who read the letter,
35Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 36 of 80 PageID 36
the statement that partial payments are not permitted is at odds with the statement that
additional funds beyond the monthly payment must be paid.
94. Further, Homebuyers have every reason to focus and rely on the monthly
payment that Defendants have thus far disclosed orally, in the Loan Estimates, and in
the Closing Disclosures—which Defendants know. Homebuyers are invested in the
dream of home ownership. Some may have given notice to their landlords and not
have a place to live. They may have paid non-refundable earnest money or other costs
to Defendants, or have incurred other non-refundable costs, like moving expenses.
They have spent considerable time and energy getting to this moment when they are
about to be handed the keys to their home. Regardless of the reason, Defendants know
that this First Payment Letter will not cause anyone to walk away, even if that person
would have rejected the deal on the home had Defendants used the True Estimate in
the earlier Loan Estimates.
95. At this point, the Homebuyer completes the paperwork, D.R. Horton
transfers the deed to the Homebuyer, and DHI Mortgage places a deed of trust or
mortgage on the property preserving DHI Mortgage’s interest in the property.
iv. Homebuyers Discover the Scheme Months Later When Their
Payments Skyrocket.
96. After the closing, at Defendants’ direction, D.R. Horton’s subsidiary title
company ensures that the funds from DHI Mortgage and the Homebuyer’s
downpayment is transferred to the proper parties, including paying D.R. Horton the
36Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 37 of 80 PageID 37
purchase price of the home with the DHI Mortgage loan proceeds and paying DHI
Mortgage for the costs and fees associated with originating the loan.
97. Shortly after the closing, DHI Mortgage transfers the mortgage to Ginnie
Mae and sells the servicing rights to a new servicer. DHI Mortgage no longer owns the
loan, its liquidity is restored, and it can proceed to make more mortgage loans and
repeat its scheme.
98. Meanwhile the new servicer begins collecting the Homebuyer’s monthly
payment. Eventually, the new servicer will have to conduct a new escrow analysis on
the loan. Often this happens when property taxes come due, which could be many
months after closing. When the servicer sees that the amount in escrow is insufficient
to cover the amount due, the servicer will notify the Homebuyer. Under the new
analysis, the Homebuyer’s monthly payments often skyrocket. The Homebuyer must
not only pay more in property taxes going forward, but servicers collect more than
what is required to have the required cushion in the escrow account, which is often
substantial. In addition, the Homebuyer is required to repay the shortage or deficiency
caused by the underpayment of the escrow amount. This new payment—even leaving
out the need to cure the deficiency or shortage—far exceeds the payment that the
Homebuyer sought and that Defendants promised. Often, the higher payment is more
than the Homebuyer can actually afford.
99. Thus, only after closing and transfer of the loan, when the new servicer
conducts an appropriate escrow analysis, do Homebuyers learn that the monthly
payment they were promised was a lie, and instead, they owe hundreds more a month
37Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 38 of 80 PageID 38
because Defendants had only included a small portion of their actual monthly tax
obligation in their monthly payment. These additional amounts put many
homeowners at risk of default and foreclosure. In addition, when the correct property
tax measurement is taken into account, the home value may have declined or not have
appreciated in a way that keeps pace with the market.
100. By artificially depressing the total monthly mortgage payment by
manipulating the estimated property taxes, Defendants unlawfully trap homeowners
into homes that are more expensive than they can afford, at great loss to homebuyers—
and great gain to Defendants.
101. Ultimately, the result of Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression
Scheme is that Plaintiffs and the Homebuyer class do not get what they were promised.
They are forced to pay far more per month for the same house after specific
misrepresentations were made about the monthly costs of the home purchase and
corresponding FHA loans. D.R. Horton has given itself an unfair advantage in the
marketplace at the expense of Plaintiffs and the class by presenting its homes as more
affordable on a monthly basis than they truly are. In turn, Defendants generate record
sales, record profits, and consistently charge greater and greater sums for their
properties than they would have commanded on the open market.
V. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS
a. Plaintiff Santiago
102. Plaintiff, Frankie Santiago (“Mr. Santiago”) is thirty-five years old and a
claims adjuster for Progressive Insurance. Mr. Santiago and his wife, Carolina
38Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 39 of 80 PageID 39
Gonzada de Aguiar Santiago, have three children aged 5, 2, and 1. Mr. Santiago was
born in Miami, Florida, where he lived with his family until 2023.
103. The Santiagos’ third child was born with special needs which required
Mrs. Santiago to stop working to stay home and care for their child full-time.
104. Mr. Santiago, like many Americans, struggled with the dramatic increase
in rent from 2020 to 2023. By 2023, Mr. Santiago was paying $2,700 per month for a
two-bedroom apartment in Miami, Florida. Because of his growing family and the
decline in household income, Mr. Santiago was forced leave Miami.
105. Mr. Santiago first began looking for homes on Zillow, entering his phone
number as “interested” in several new build homes and non-new build homes. After
Mr. Santiago looked at Zillow, he began receiving advertisements for D.R. Horton
homes on social media.
106. Mr. Santiago found an up-and-coming neighborhood outside of Orlando
that had a school that addressed the specific developmental disability needs of his
youngest child. The neighborhood was Howey-in-the-Hills, which is located in Lake
County, Florida. Mr. Santiago visited Howey-in-the-Hills and felt that he had found a
place where he could fulfill his dream of homeownership, good schools, and building
a financially stable life for his family.
107. When Mr. Santiago started looking for homes in Howey-in-the-Hills that
could fit his growing family; he quickly found several new-build homes from builders
such as Lennar and D.R. Horton, as well as existing homes on the market.
39Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 40 of 80 PageID 40
108. When Mr. Santiago called about seeing a D.R. Horton home that he saw
in an online advertisement that was targeted to first time home buyers and starter
homes, he spoke with a representative of D.R. Horton, Shantavia Whittleton. Ms.
Whittleton is a D.R. Horton home sales specialist in the Orlando area, according to
her LinkedIn profile. Ms. Whittleton represented D.R. Horton in its efforts to sell
homes located in Howey-in-the-Hills and other areas and was authorized by
Defendants to promote DHI Mortgage to prospective buyers like Mr. Santiago.
109. As a part of the initial call, Ms. Whittleton asked Mr. Santiago basic
information about his income, family size, and what he was looking for in a home.
Ms. Whittleton asked Mr. Santiago what monthly payment he could afford and
specifically asked him how much he paid per month for rent in Miami. Mr. Santiago
informed Ms. Whittleton that he could afford a home with a monthly payment
between $2,200 to $2,400. Mr. Santiago explained that he was currently paying $2,700
in rent in Miami and that his budget was stretched to the limit. To account for
additional costs of home ownership, such as appliance repair, Mr. Santiago preferred
a home that was at the lowest end of that range. Mr. Santiago also informed Ms.
Whittleton that he was looking for a home that had 3 bedrooms for his family.
110. On or about December 2023, Ms. Whittleton took Mr. Santiago to see a
unit that was nearly complete in the Venezia Community located in Howey-in-the-
Hills Florida.
111. After touring a nearly finished unit located at 1234 Lido Drive, Howey-
in-the-Hills, Florida (the “Property”), on behalf of D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage,
40Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 41 of 80 PageID 41
Ms. Whittleton went to work selling Mr. Santiago not only on the unit itself, but on
the D.R. Horton sales “process.” Ms. Whittleton told Mr. Santiago of the benefits that
D.R. Horton’s “one-stop-shop” for the home, the financing, and the title work could
provide. Ms. Whittleton offered Mr. Santiago incentives and discounts if he agreed to
use DHI Title and DHI Mortgage. The incentives included $10,000 of “seller credits”
that could be used to cover closing costs, appliances, and window blinds.
112. Ms. Whittleton advised Mr. Santiago that his estimated total monthly
payment would be $2,100 for the D.R. Horton new- build home. Mr. Santiago
compared that monthly price to the monthly price of an existing non-new build home
and determined that the D.R. Horton home was a good value.
113. Prior to this purchase, Mr. Santiago had never purchased real estate
before. Mr. Santiago was unfamiliar with the process of obtaining financing for
purchase of a home.
114. Mr. Santiago agreed to buy the home built by D.R. Horton, with DHI
Mortgage to provide the financing and DHI Title and DHI Title of Florida to provide
the title work. To Mr. Santiago, the differences in these entities were not apparent and
appeared that all the people and paperwork were from D.R. Horton.
115. On or about February 15, 2024, Karey Larkins called Mr. Santiago to
process his financing. Ms. Larkins is a loan officer for DHI Mortgage. After filling out
a loan application, DHI Mortgage and Ms. Larkins informed Mr. Santiago that his
best financing option would be an FHA mortgage.
41Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 42 of 80 PageID 42
116. The same day, Defendants and Mr. Santiago undertook Steps 1, 2, and 3
as described in Paragraphs 69–95, whereby each of the documents described therein
was provided by DHI Mortgage and its local Florida representatives to Mr. Santiago
to sign over the interstate wires, using DocuSign in California to exchange the Loan
Estimate, loan application, interest rate lock form, and other initial loan paperwork.
117. In Step 1, Mr. Santiago filled out a loan application that identified the
following key information about Mr. Santiago:
a. Mr. Santiago currently paid $2,700 per month in rent representing 41.5%
of his monthly income;
b. The loan amount sought was $296,524 and the sale price of the home
was $301.995.
118. As part of Step 2, also on February 15, 2024, DHI Mortgage prepared
and provided Mr. Santiago with a Loan Estimate that estimated Mr. Santiago’s “Total
Monthly Payment” would be $2,230 per month, consistent with the lower end of his
budget. In so doing, and unbeknownst to Mr. Santiago, DHI Mortgage used the
Suppressed Estimate instead of the True Estimate.
119. The Loan Estimate states in small print “You must pay for other property
costs separately,” they do not disclose what these costs may be nor do they disclose
that DHI Mortgage would not be escrowing enough property taxes to cover the actual
estimated property taxes on the home, which Defendants knew would be thousands
of dollars more. At the time it prepared the Loan Estimate, and later that day, when
transmitting the Tax Notice document described in paragraphs 76–79, DHI Mortgage
42Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 43 of 80 PageID 43
knew that Mr. Santigo would be assessed much higher property taxes than what was
in the Suppressed Estimate, and either knew the True Estimate or knew how to obtain
the True Estimate.
120. After approval, DHI Mortgage initiated Step 4. On or around February
29, 2024, DHI Mortgage completed the HUD form described in Paragraph 82. There
it listed the True Estimate of monthly taxes of $438.02. It did not revise its Loan
Estimate or otherwise inform Mr. Santiago of the change.
121. Between loan approval and closing, Defendants undertook Step 5. For
example, on March 6, 2024, DHI Mortgage prepared and provided Mr. Santiago a
new Loan Estimate, as well as with a Closing Disclosure. Each estimated Mr.
Santiago’s “Estimated Total Monthly Payment” would be $2,164.68, again utilizing
the Suppressed Estimate. DHI Mortgage used DocuSign in California to transmit the
documents to Mr. Santiago, who signed these documents and returned them that day
via interstate wires.
122. As the Closing Disclosure also conformed to his expectations about his
total monthly payment amount, Mr. Santiago understood that even with some minor
variations, his monthly payments would fit comfortably in his budget.
123. On March 20, 2024, the day before the closing was supposed to take
place, Mr. Santiago received a final Closing Disclosure from DHI Mortgage over the
interstate wires that again disclosed an “Estimate Total Monthly Payment” identical
to the one on March 6, 2024, in the amount of $2,164.68. At no time was Mr. Santiago
43Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 44 of 80 PageID 44
informed that this monthly payment was inaccurate or would be higher due to
Defendants’ failure to escrow the majority of the estimated property taxes.
124. On March 21, 2024, Mr. Santiago attended the closing, and completed
the documents described in Step 6, Paragraphs 89–95.
125. At no point during the sales pitch from Ms. Whittleton nor the financing
discussions with Ms. Larkins, nor in any other communication, did any D.R. Horton
or DHI Mortgage representative mention that Mr. Santiago would owe substantial
additional property taxes beyond those property taxes included in his monthly PITI
payment nor that his payment would be more than $400 more per month than the
amount that was listed as his “Estimated Total Monthly Payment.”
126. Within sixty days of closing, Mr. Santiago’s loan was sold by DHI
Mortgage and servicing was transferred to LoanCare. DHI Mortgage received
proceeds from that sale via the interstate wires.
127. From May 1, 2024, through December 1, 2024, Mr. Santiago paid
$2,164.68 per month as stated on each bill he received from LoanCare.
128. On December 12, 2024, Mr. Santiago received notice from LoanCare
that his monthly mortgage payment had increased by nearly $1,000 per month to
$3,136.33. Mr. Santiago’s escrow account had a negative balance of $4,417.43, less
than one year after closing on his home. The deficiency was the result of a $5,719.38
property tax bill that LoanCare paid on Mr. Santiago’s behalf on November 26, 2024.
129. DHI Mortgage used the Suppressed Estimate of $613.08 in property taxes
per year to calculate Mr. Santiago’s monthly payment, meaning that Mr. Santiago’s
44Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 45 of 80 PageID 45
escrow payment should have been nine times the amount that it was escrowed by DHI
Mortgage to avoid a deficiency. DHI Mortgage knew that this was the case, but it
chose to artificially suppress the payment by failing to include the full amount of the
taxes it knew would be due.
130. At the time Mr. Santiago compared a D.R. Horton home and the
monthly payment to the payment on an existing home that was similarly priced, the
D.R. Horton home appeared to be several hundred dollars cheaper per month. That
difference influenced his purchasing decision. In reality, the D.R. Horton home was
not less expensive than the other homes that Mr. Santiago was considering, it just
appeared that way due to Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
131. Defendants intended to mislead Mr. Santiago. The Loan Estimates and
Closing Disclosures provided to Mr. Santiago were prepared using forms created by
the federal government and transmitted at various points in advance of closing in
accordance with federal law to ensure home buyers have accurate and truthful
information about the mortgage loan. D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage knew that a
budget-sensitive Homebuyer like Mr. Santiago would focus on the monthly payment
amount, and by repeating that the suppressed monthly amount many times, in
contravention of both law and mortgage lending best practices, Defendants did not use
those forms to disclose the truth. Instead, Defendants created other paperwork that
reinforced the intentional nature of the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
45Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 46 of 80 PageID 46
132. Mr. Santiago will not be able to continue making monthly payments that
are 31% higher than the payment that that Defendants presented to him and that he
agreed to pay.
133. Mr. Santiago was injured by Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression
Scheme. He agreed to purchase a home with a Monthly Payment equal to $2,164.68,
with minor and reasonable fluctuations as the home value and local tax rates changed.
But at all times, Defendants knew the cost of the home would be substantially more,
independent of changes to the home value and local taxes. Had Defendants had taken
timely and proper steps to provide him with a monthly payment estimate utilizing the
True Estimate of property taxes in accordance with the duties and obligations of a
FHA mortgage lender and set up the account to escrow all taxes, Mr. Santiago would
not have moved forward with the purchase, or at a minimum, would have paid less
for the house.
134. As a result, Mr. Santiago has suffered damages including but not limited
to purchasing a home that he would not have purchased but for the fraudulent scheme,
paying an inflated price for his home, diminished home value, lost opportunity to
purchase alternative homes within his budget, increased out of pocket monthly
expenses in the form of a higher PITI, and other consequences, such as an increased
risk of foreclosure and late fees.
b. The Neronha Plaintiffs
135. Plaintiffs Nicole Neronha, Joseph Neronha, Maria Neronha, and Onny
Jules (collectively, the “Neronha Plaintiffs”) form a multi-generational household.
46Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 47 of 80 PageID 47
Nicole Neronha is married to Onny Jules. Joesph Neronha and Maria Neronha are
Nicole’s parents and live with the couple, along with Nicole Neronha’s and Mr. Jules’
three children.
136. Both Nicole Neronha and Mr. Jules work at a local resort. Nicole
Neronha works at a retail shop located in the resort. Mr. Jules works as a security
guard at the resort.
137. Like many Americans, Nicole Neronha and Mr. Jules struggled with
high rent, a growing family, and difficulty securing financing approval to buy a home.
Maria Neronha and Mr. Jules attempted to qualify to buy a home on their own, but
they did not earn enough to buy a home anywhere in the greater Orlando area. Nicole
Neronha and Mr. Jules turned to the idea of buying a home with Maria Neronha and
Mr. Neronha, hoping that together they might qualify to buy a home that the family
of seven could live in together.
138. Maria Neronha and Mr. Neronha are retired. Mr. Neronha worked as a
pastor for many years in Rhode Island before he and his wife moved to Florida to be
closer to Nicole Noronha, Mr. Jules, and their grandchildren. Together the Neronha
family agreed that buying a home together was their best chance at finding financial
security.
139. On or about July 22, 2022, the Neronha Plaintiffs applied for financing
with the Bank of England. With the combined income of the entire Neronha Plaintiffs,
they received approval for an FHA 30-year loan up to $392,755. Bank of England
estimated that the total monthly payment on a loan in this amount would be $2,910.13.
47Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 48 of 80 PageID 48
140. With their approval in hand, the Neronha Plaintiffs began searching for
a home. They hired real estate agent Savannah Wyker and informed Ms. Wyker that
they could afford a monthly payment of $2,600 per month. They viewed two homes
but learned that the monthly payments on both would exceed $3,000 and were out of
their budget.
141. The Neronha Plaintiffs visited a D.R. Horton model unit located near
1239 Berry Lane, Davenport, Florida 33837. The Neronha Plaintiffs first met with
D.R. Horton sales representative, Heather Crider. As part of the initial meeting on or
about August 1, 2022, Ms. Crider asked the Neronha Plaintiffs what they could afford
to pay per month. The Neronha Plaintiffs stated that they were looking to spend
approximately $2,600 per month.
142. After Ms. Crider ran the numbers on the D.R. Horton new-build home
compared to an existing non-new build homes on the market, the Neronha Plaintiffs
learned that the brand-new D.R. Horton home was significantly cheaper on a monthly
basis than an existing home. A brand-new home for a cheaper monthly payment
seemed like a fantastic deal.
143. Prior to this purchase, Nicole Neronha and Mr. Jules had never
purchased real estate before. Mr. Neronha and Maria Neronha had purchased and
sold one home in another state over 15 years prior to this transaction. The Neronha
Plaintiffs were unfamiliar with the process of obtaining financing for purchase of a
home.
48Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 49 of 80 PageID 49
144. Ms. Crider informed the Neronha Plaintiffs that the transaction would
be much easier if the Neronha Plaintiffs agreed to use DHI Mortgage to finance the
transaction and DHI Title to conduct the title work and prepare the closing documents.
In addition, Ms. Crider offered the Neronha Plaintiffs $6,500 towards closing costs if
they used DHI Mortgage.
145. Trusting that D.R. Horton had their best interests in mind, the Neronha
Plaintiffs agreed to buy the home, located at 1239 Berry Lane, Davenport, Florida
33837, even though it was still under construction by D.R. Horton, with DHI
Mortgage to provide the financing and DHI Title and DHI Title of Florida to provide
the title work. To the Neronha Plaintiffs, all these various entities were simply D.R.
Horton.
146. Shortly after the meeting, the Neronha Plaintiffs spoke with Thomas
Soehn, a DHI Mortgage closing agent, and they filled out a loan application.
147. The same day, Defendants and the Neronha Plaintiffs undertook Steps
1, 2, and 3 as described in Paragraphs 69–81, whereby each of the documents described
therein was provided by DHI Mortgage and its local Florida representatives to the
Neronha Plaintiffs to sign over the interstate wires, using DocuSign in California to
exchange the Loan Estimate, loan application, interest rate lock form, and other initial
loan paperwork.
148. In Step 1, the Neronha Plaintiffs filled out a loan application.
149. As part of Step 2, DHI Mortgage prepared and provided the Neronha
Plaintiffs with a Loan Estimate that estimated their “Total Monthly Payment” would
49Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 50 of 80 PageID 50
be around $2,600 per month, consistent with their budget. In so doing, and
unbeknownst to the Neronha Plaintiffs, DHI Mortgage used the Suppressed Estimate
instead of the True Estimate.
150. The Loan Estimate states in small print “You must pay for other property
costs separately,” they do not disclose what these costs may be nor do they disclose
that DHI Mortgage would not be escrowing enough property taxes to cover the actual
estimated property taxes on the home, which Defendants knew would be thousands
of dollars more. At the time it prepared the Loan Estimate, and later that day, when
transmitting the Tax Notice document described in paragraph 76–81, DHI Mortgage
knew that the Neronha Plaintiffs would be assessed much higher property taxes than
what was in the Suppressed Estimate, and either knew the True Estimate or knew how
to obtain the True Estimate.
151. After approval, DHI Mortgage initiated Step 4. DHI Mortgage
completed the HUD form described in Paragraph 82. It did not revise its Loan
Estimate or otherwise inform the Neronha Plaintiffs of the change.
152. Between loan approval and closing, Defendants undertook Step 5. For
example, DHI Mortgage prepared and provided the Neronha Plaintiffs with at least
one Closing Disclosure. Each estimated Neronha Plaintiffs “Estimated Total Monthly
Payment” would be approximately $2,600. DHI Mortgage used DocuSign in
California to transmit the documents to each Neronha Plaintiff, who signed these
documents and returned them that day via interstate wires.
50Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 51 of 80 PageID 51
153. As the Closing Disclosure also conformed to their expectations about
their total monthly payment amount, the Neronha Plaintiffs understood that even with
some minor variations, the monthly payments would fit comfortably in their budget.
154. Although the Neronha Plaintiffs signed the contract for sale of the
property located at 1239 Berry Lane, Davenport, Florida 33837 for $389,990 in August
2022, construction was delayed for several months and the closing did not take place
until January 31, 2023.
155. In the weeks leading up to January 31, 2023, the Neronha Plaintiffs
received a final Closing Disclosure from DHI Mortgage over the interstate wires that
again disclosed an “Estimate Total Monthly Payment” identical to the one on January
31, 2023, in that amount of $2,602.47. At no time were the Neronha Plaintiffs
informed that this monthly payment was inaccurate or would be higher due to
Defendants’ failure to escrow the majority of the estimated property taxes.
156. On January 31, 2023, the Neronha Plaintiffs attended the closing, and
completed the documents described in Step 6, Paragraphs 89–95.
157. At no point during the sales pitch from Ms. Crider nor the financing
discussions with Mr. Soehn, nor in any other communication, did any D.R. Horton
or DHI Mortgage representative mention that the Neronha Plaintiffs would owe
additional property taxes beyond those property taxes included in the monthly PITI
payment, nor that their payment would be $326.94 higher per month than the amount
that was listed as in their “Estimated Total Monthly Payment” stated in the Loan
Estimate and Closing Disclosures.
51Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 52 of 80 PageID 52
158. Within sixty (60) days of closing, the Neronha Plaintiffs’ loan was sold
by DHI Mortgage and their new loan servicer was Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC
(“Carrington”). DHI Mortgage received proceeds from that sale via the interstate
wires.
159. From February 1, 2023, through November 1, 2024, the Neronha
Plaintiffs paid $2,597.84 per month, as stated on each bill they received from
Carrington and approximately the amount that had been listed in each Loan Estimate
and Closing Disclosure.
160. On November 29, 2024, the Neronha Plaintiffs received a notice from
Carrington in the mail that their monthly mortgage payment was going to increase by
$841.23 per month and that their escrow account had a negative balance of $5,597.12.
The deficiency was the result of a $7,255.43 property tax bill that Carrington paid on
the Neronha Plaintiffs’ behalf on November 14, 2024. The new monthly mortgage
payment of $3,439.07 represented a 32% increase.
161. DHI Mortgage used the Suppressed Estimate of property taxes to
calculate the Neronha Plaintiffs’ monthly payment, meaning that the escrow payment
should have been seven times the amount that was escrowed by DHI Mortgage to
avoid a deficiency. DHI Mortgage knew that this was the case but chose to artificially
suppress the payment by failing to include the full amount of the taxes it knew would
be due.
162. At the time the Neronha Plaintiffs compared a D.R. Horton home and
the monthly payment to the payment on an existing home, the D.R. Horton home
52Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 53 of 80 PageID 53
appeared to be several hundred dollars cheaper per month. That difference influenced
their purchasing decision. In reality, it was not less expensive than the other homes
that the Neronha Plaintiffs were considering, it just appeared that way due to
Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
163. Defendants intended to mislead the Neronha Plaintiffs. The Closing
Statements and Loan Estimates provided to them were prepared using forms created
by the federal government and transmitted at various points in advance of closing in
accordance with federal law to ensure home buyers have accurate and truthful
information about the mortgage loan. D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage knew that
budget-sensitive Homebuyers like the Neronha Plaintiffs would focus on the monthly
payment amount, and by repeating that amount many times, in contravention of both
law and mortgage lending best practices, Defendants did not use those forms to
disclose the truth. Instead, Defendants created other paperwork that reinforced the
intentional nature of the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
164. The Neronha Plaintiffs will not be able to afford a payment that is 32%
higher than the payment Defendants presented to them and that they agreed to pay.
The Neronha Plaintiffs were injured by Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression
Scheme. They agreed to purchase a home with a Monthly Payment equal to $2,602.47,
with minor and reasonable fluctuations as the home value and local tax rates changed.
But at all times, Defendants knew the cost of the home would be substantially more,
independent of changes to the home value and local taxes. Had Defendants taken
timely and proper steps to provide them with a monthly payment estimate utilizing
53Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 54 of 80 PageID 54
the True Estimate of property taxes in accordance with the duties and obligations of a
FHA mortgage lender and set up the account to escrow all taxes, the Neronha
Plaintiffs would not have moved forward with the purchase, or at a minimum, paid
less for the house.
165. As a result, the Neronha Plaintiffs have suffered damages including but
not limited to purchasing a home that they would not have purchased but for the
fraudulent scheme, paying an inflated price for their home, diminished home value,
lost opportunity to purchase alternative homes within their budgets, increased out of
pocket monthly expenses in the form of a higher PITI, and other consequences, such
as an increased risk of foreclosure and late fees.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
166. Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The
proposed Class (the “Class”) is defined as follows:
All individuals in the United States who, during the Class Period, (1)
purchased a D.R. Horton home; (2) with an FHA-insured loan originated by
DHI Mortgage; and (3) for which for which the property taxes set forth on
the HUD Conditional Commitment Direct Endorsement Statement of
Appraised Value form is higher than the amount of taxes included in the
initial escrow analysis as reflected on the final Closing Disclosure, within
the applicable statute of limitations.
167. Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The
proposed “Florida Sub-class” is defined as follows:
54Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 55 of 80 PageID 55
All members of the Class defined above who purchased a home located
within the State of Florida.
168. Expressly excluded from the Class are:
a. any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and members
of their immediate families;
b. defendants and any entities in which Defendants have a controlling
interest, or which has a controlling interest in Defendants and its legal
representatives, assigns and successors; and
c. all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion
from the Class.
169. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition at the Class
Certification stage of the litigation if further investigation and discovery indicates that
the Class definition should be narrowed, expanded, or otherwise modified.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) Criteria
170. Numerosity. The exact number of Class Members is unknown as such
information is in the exclusive control of Defendants. However, due to the number of
closings that Defendants conduct annually, the nation-wide class is believed to be in
the high tens of thousands, possibly greater than 100,000. Due to the number of
closings Defendants conduct annually in Florida, the number of Florida Sub-class
members is expected to be in the tens of thousands. Thus, the Class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable.
55Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 56 of 80 PageID 56
171. Commonality. Common questions of law and fact affect the rights of
each Class Member, and common relief by way of damages is sought for Plaintiffs and
Class Members. Common questions of law and fact that affect Plaintiffs and the Class
include, but are not limited to:
a. whether Defendants formed a RICO enterprise and conspiracy;
b. whether Defendants’ alleged use of the mail and interstate wires to (i)
disseminate advertisements over social media and the internet generally
targeting FHA Homebuyers; (ii) transmit and exchange information
and documents relating to the homebuying process, such as estimates,
quotes, Homebuyer information, loan documents, and other forms,
between one another, and with Homebuyers, often utilizing third-party
e-signature platforms; (iii) transmit and exchange funds associated with
the homebuying process and subsequent sale and transfer of the loans
between one another and any third parties who later acquire the loans,
in furtherance of the their Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme and
systematic bait-and-switch scheme to deceive Homebuyers about the
true cost of homeownership constitutes a pattern of wire fraud under
RICO;
c. whether Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme misled the
class into purchasing their homes;
56Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 57 of 80 PageID 57
d. e. f. g. h. i. j. whether Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme
constitutes a per se violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trades
Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.;
whether Defendants Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme is unfair
and/or deceptive in violation of the Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive
Trades Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.;
whether Defendants’ Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme
constitutes a per se violation of FDUTPA;
whether Defendants’ conduct was negligent;
whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by the Monthly Payment
Suppression Scheme;
whether Defendants’ conduct damaged Plaintiffs and class members,
including, but not limited to, by causing them to pay an inflated price
for their home, experience diminished home value, lose opportunities to
purchase alternative homes within their budgets, suffer increased out of
pocket monthly expenses in the form of a higher PITI, and face other
consequences, such as an increased risk of foreclosure and late fees, and
otherwise depriving them of the benefit of the bargain; and
whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to treble damages,
equitable relief, civil penalties, punitive damages, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.
57Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 58 of 80 PageID 58
172. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(c)(4) with
respect to one or more of the above issues or such other issues as may be identified in
the future.
173. Typicality. The claims and defenses of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims
and defenses of the Classes because Plaintiffs were subjected to the same uniform sales
practices, documents, and conduct as that of the Class.
174. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately assert
and protect the interests of the Class. First, Plaintiffs have hired attorneys who are
experienced in prosecuting class action claims within the State of Florida and across
the United States, and who will adequately represent the interests of the Class. Second,
Plaintiffs have no conflict of interest that will interfere with the maintenance of this
class action as their claims are the same as the Class Members they seek to represent.
Further, Plaintiffs understand their obligations to the Class, are committed to
vigorously litigating this matter, and will fairly and adequately protect and represent
the interests of the Class.
Rule 23 (b)(3) Criteria
175. The common questions of law and fact set forth herein predominate over
any questions affecting only individual Class Members. A class action provides a fair
and efficient method for the adjudication of this controversy for these reasons and is
superior to the alternative methods involved in individual litigation.
176. Although the Class is numerous enough to meet the numerosity
requirement, the proposed Class does not create manageability problems because the
58Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 59 of 80 PageID 59
claims turn on common legal determinations. Either Defendants violated RICO, were
unjustly enriched, violated FDUTPA, and/or were negligent, or they did not. Either
the home values were inflated or they were not. There are no unusual legal or factual
issues that would create manageability problems as the issues turn on a single
interpretation of Defendants’ uniform conduct regarding their home sales and
origination of FHA mortgages in relation to Plaintiffs and others in similar instances.
177. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class
would create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications against Defendants when
confronted with incompatible standards of conduct.
178. Despite the sizeable sum of money unlawfully collected and retained by
the Defendants, the claims of the individual Class Members are, nevertheless, small in
relation to the expenses of individual litigation, making a class action the only
procedural method of redress in which Class Members can, as a practical matter, and
recover their damages. Further, the issues raised in this litigation are complex such
that an individual’s recovery is small in relation to the amount of effort, cost, and
expertise necessary to obtain said recovery.
179. Class Members are readily identifiable and ascertainable given the nature
of Defendants’ business practices and using their business records.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise Through a
Pattern of Racketeering Activity
(RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) (“RICO”)
59Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 60 of 80 PageID 60
180. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Classes against All Defendants)
Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 179 as if set forth fully
herein.
181. Section 1962(c) makes it:
[U]nlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise
engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s
affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity ...
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
The Enterprise
182. The Enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) consists of an
association-in-fact of, at a minimum, D.R. Horton and its wholly-owned subsidiary
DHI Mortgage (the “Enterprise”).
183. Each Defendant is an entity within the meaning of “person” as defined
in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) because each is capable of holding, and does hold, “a legal or
beneficial interest in property.”
184. Each Defendant is legally distinct from the other, in that each is
separately incorporated, and each operates different businesses. D.R. Horton’s
business is to build and sell homes, and it does so with or without financing from DHI
Mortgage and with or without FHA mortgages. DHI Mortgage operates as a separate
lending institution with its own mortgage origination business. DHI Mortgage’s
business is to make home-secured loans, both FHA-backed and conventional, and it
60Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 61 of 80 PageID 61
does so for homes sold by D.R. Horton as well as other individual and corporate home-
sellers and refinancing existing loans on owner-occupied homes.
185. Each Defendant has distinct regulatory and legal obligations, licensing
requirements, and insurance considerations. In executing the Monthly Payment
Suppression Scheme, each Defendant performs different roles in the Enterprise,
relying on a web of contractual and business relationships designed to execute the
Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
186. Connection to Interstate Commerce: The Enterprise is engaged in
activities that affect interstate and foreign commerce. Defendants each participate in
and operate the Enterprise from their respective headquarters in Texas and through
their agents and representatives around the country. They conduct home sales and
mortgage originations across multiple states and, as discussed below, rely on the
interstate wires to further their goals.
187. Relationship: Each member of the Enterprise has a relationship to each
other. D.R. Horton is the parent corporation of DHI Mortgage. They have agreed with
one another to execute the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme.
188. Common Purpose: Each member of the Enterprise associated together
for the common purpose of selling homes to FHA Homebuyers at higher prices than
these buyers would otherwise be willing to pay. Each member of the Enterprise has
an interest in furthering the common purpose. D.R. Horton obtains more money for
the sale of each home, and DHI Mortgage can command a higher price for the loan
that it sells after origination. And because of the Monthly Payment Suppression
61Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 62 of 80 PageID 62
Scheme, Defendants each increased their total number of closings by making the deal
look better than it actually is, enticing Homebuyers to buy homes they would not
otherwise buy. Each Defendant benefited financially from its scheme to defraud the
Class, receiving monies which they would not have received but for the existence of
the scheme.
189. Longevity: Beginning before the Class Period and continuing to this
day, Defendants have engaged in the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme as to
thousands of Homebuyers. The names, locations, and dates of each Homebuyer’s
injuries are in the exclusive control of Defendants. Defendants, through the Enterprise,
continue to expand and operate pursuant to agreements entered into between and
amongst Defendants and other unnamed co-conspirators. The RICO Enterprise has
functioned as a continuing unit.
Each Defendant Conducts and/or Participates in the Affairs of the
Enterprise
190. Defendants each had the specific intent to participate in the overall RICO
Enterprise and the scheme to defraud Plaintiff and the Class, and each participated
and controlled in the enterprise as follows:
191. Defendant D.R. Horton directs, controls, and participates in the activities
of the Enterprise in a variety of ways as set forth herein, including:
a. building the home, and listing the home for sale;
62Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 63 of 80 PageID 63
b. c. d. e. running advertisements nationwide and locally, using the interstate
wires, that promote both D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage, including its
FHA mortgage lending business;
employing and training the sales representatives that:
i. communicate with potential buyers including Plaintiffs and Class
Members;
ii. promote to Class Members its relationship with DHI Mortgage,
the benefit of one-stop shopping when purchasing a home, and
both Defendants’ ability to work within a budget;
iii. solicit the monthly payment or PITI that the buyer can afford;
iv. showing homes to Class Members that it knows it will price at an
amount that exceeds their budget; and
v. offer the buyers incentives to use DHI Mortgage for their
financing.
determining the inflated price on the home, with the knowledge that
DHI Mortgage will structure an estimated monthly payment with
suppressed amount of property taxes, to make the home appear more
affordable to the Class Member;
facilitating the Class Member’s relationship with DHI Mortgage, all
while knowing that DHI Mortgage will structure an estimated monthly
payment with a suppressed amount of property taxes, enabling it to
charge a higher amount for the home, by:
63Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 64 of 80 PageID 64
i. directing the Class Member to a specific DHI mortgage sales
professional for financing, and
ii. communicating with DHI Mortgage regarding Homebuyers’
budgets and pricing on its homes.
f. coordinating with DHI Mortgage on the determining the Suppressed
and True Estimates for property taxes on the homes;
g. undertaking efforts to finalize the paperwork associated with the sale
and closing; and
h. receiving the proceeds of the sale of the home at an inflated price via
interstate wires.
192. Defendant DHI Mortgage directs, controls, and participates in the
activities of the enterprise in a variety of ways as set forth herein, including but not
limited to engaging in the following:
a. authorizing D.R. Horton to run advertisements on its behalf and
promote the benefit of one stop shopping to Class Members;
b. communicating with Class Members about DHI Mortgage’s FHA
lending options;
c. communicating with D.R. Horton regarding the price at which the
home should be sold, the Class Members’ budgets, and the Suppressed
and True Estimates of associated property taxes to design a lending
package that uses a higher home price to capture an outsized share of
64Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 65 of 80 PageID 65
d. e. f. g. the Class Member’s monthly payment in the form of principal and
interest;
obtaining and review loan applications, including the expected monthly
payment of the buyer;
completing the escrow calculation in coordination with D.R. Horton;
drafting, completing, transmitting each of the documents identified in
Paragraphs 69–95, including the Loan Estimates and Closing
Disclosures, and collecting signatures from Class Members, utilizing
suppressed monthly payment amounts;
undertaking efforts to finalize the paperwork associated with the sale
and closing; and
receiving profits from the closing of Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’
loan through inflated fees and through the sales of servicing rights for
the loans through interstate wires.
Defendants Committed Multiple Acts of Wire Fraud
in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 in Furtherance of the Enterprise
193. Defendants each conducted the Enterprise’s affairs through “a pattern of
racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and (5). During the
ten (10) years preceding the filing of this action and to the present, Defendant did
cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of three (3) or more of the predicate
acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962(d), as described in this Complaint. This pattern consists of numerous related acts
h. 65Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 66 of 80 PageID 66
of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) committed in furtherance of the Monthly Payment
Suppression Scheme.
194. The acts set out below (“Racketeering Acts”) had the same pattern and
purpose to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class for the benefit of Defendant. Each
Racketeering Act involved the same or similar methods of commission and
participants and affected the Class similarly. Without the repeated predicate acts, the
ability to conduct their fraud using the interstate telecommunications wires, the
Enterprise’s goal of carrying out the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme would
not have succeeded. The separate Racketeering Acts all relate to each other in that
they were part of concerted actions by Defendants to use the endorsement and
channels of the enterprise to operate their business to fraudulently induce Plaintiffs
and the Class to purchase D.R. Horton homes with DHI Mortgage and originated
FHA loans at a cost that they would not have agreed to but for the scheme.
195. Defendants voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in a
scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and the Class out of money, in reliance on interstate wires.
Defendants committed these acts with the intent to defraud Plaintiff and the Class.
196. In engaging in the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme, it was
reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used.
197. Each Defendant could not have furthered their fraud without the ability
to use the telecommunications wires to share documents, information, and money
with the other Defendant, co-conspirators, Homebuyers, and others.
66Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 67 of 80 PageID 67
198. The acts of wire fraud include, but are not limited to, each of the
transmissions designed to induce Plaintiffs and the Class to enter the home sales and
financing transactions with Defendants which do not conform with industry practices,
borrower expectations, and/or FHA requirements. As the Class, the acts of wire fraud
follow the same format set forth in Paragraphs 69–95, and the precise dates, locations,
and identities of each of Class Members associated with each act are known to
Defendants and are in their exclusive control. The Plaintiffs all experience acts of wire
fraud following the same format as the Class, and where readily known to Plaintiffs,
the precise details of the various acts of wire fraud are set forth in Paragraphs 116–124
(Mr. Santiago) and 147–156 (the Neronha Plaintiffs).
199. In addition, the acts of wire fraud include Defendants’ receipt of funds
from the sale of loans procured via the Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme. With
respect to D.R. Horton, that includes funds received from DHI Mortgage shortly after
Mr. Santiago’s closing in March 2024, and shortly after the Neronha Plaintiffs’ closing
in January or February 2023, and shortly after the closings of Class Members, the dates
of which are in the exclusive control of Defendants. With respect to DHI Mortgage,
this includes funds received and retained from the loan proceeds shortly after Mr.
Santiago’s closing in March 2024, and shortly after the Neronha Plaintiffs’ closing in
January or February 2023, and shortly after the closings of Class Members, the dates
of which are in the exclusive control of Defendants; as well as funds received from the
sale each loan’s servicing rights and funds received related to the transfer of the loans
to Ginnie Mae, including funds received from LoanCare shortly after Mr. Santiago’s
67Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 68 of 80 PageID 68
closing in March 2024, and funds received from Carrington shortly after the Neronha
Plaintiffs’ closing in January or February 2023, and funds received from servicers
shortly after the closings of Class Members, the identities and dates of which are in the
exclusive control of Defendants.
The Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme Proximately Caused Injuries to
Plaintiffs and the Class
200. Defendants’ RICO scheme, including its ongoing pattern of racketeering
activity, was reasonably calculated to deceive Plaintiffs and Class members, all of
whom are of ordinary prudence and comprehension, through the execution of their
complex and illegal scheme to misrepresent the true monthly payments for the home
purchases and related loans. The scheme has injured and continues to injure Plaintiffs
and the Class.
201. Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased the homes or
entered the loans on the terms presented but for the illegal racketeering scheme
operated by Defendants.
202. Defendants’ wrongful conduct has caused injury to Plaintiffs and the
Class, remains part of their ongoing business practices, and remains a continuing
threat to Plaintiffs, the Class, and the general public.
203. Plaintiffs and the Class suffered economic harm by reason of the said
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), including but not limited to purchasing a home that
they would not have purchased but for the fraudulent scheme, paying an inflated price
for their home, diminished home value, lost opportunity to purchase alternative homes
68Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 69 of 80 PageID 69
within their budgets, increased out of pocket monthly expenses in the form of a higher
PITI, and other consequences, such as an increased risk of foreclosure and late fees,
and otherwise depriving them of the benefit of the bargain. The amounts of these
damages will be proven at trial.
204. By reason of the damages directly sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class
from the injuries to their business and/or property, they are entitled to treble damages,
equitable relief, as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964(c).
COUNT II
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”)
Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Florida Sub-class)
205. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 179 as though fully set forth
herein.
206. Plaintiffs bring this claim against Defendants under Florida’s Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act § 501.201, et seq (“FDUTPA”).
207. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of
Florida Statute § 501.203(7).
208. Defendants were engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of
Fla. Stat. § 501.203(8) throughout the class period.
209. Florida Statute § 501.204(a) provides: “Unfair methods of competition,
unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
69Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 70 of 80 PageID 70
conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” §501.204, Fla. Stat.
(2022).
210. The Florida Legislature has mandated that FDUTPA be liberally
construed. § 501.204, Fla. Stat. (2022).
211. FDUTPA seeks to protect legitimate consumers, like Plaintiffs and Class
Members, from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or
unconscionable, deceptive, and/or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade
or commerce.
212. Defendants violated FDUTPA in three distinct ways, each of which,
standing alone, is a violation of FDUTPA: (i) Defendants engaged in per se violations
of rules; (ii) Defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices; and/or (iii) Defendants
engaged in unfair acts or practices, committed an unfair, immoral, and unethical
practice that is substantially injurious to consumers.
Per Se FDUTPA Violations
213. A defendant per se violates FDUTPA in one of two ways: (1) if the law,
statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance ‘expressly constitutes a violation of FDUTPA’
or (2) if the law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance ‘proscribes unconscionable,
deceptive, or unfair acts or practices and therefore operates as an implied FDUTPA
predicate.’” Steven Michael Cox v. Porsche Fin. Services, Inc., 16-23409-CIV, 2020 WL
837167 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2020); see § 501.203(c), Florida Statutes.
214. FHA Mortgagees (i.e., the original lender, and later the Holders and
Servicers of the loans) are required to escrow “all” property taxes, as well as insurance
70Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 71 of 80 PageID 71
and other required payments, and to ensure that these are escrowed appropriately
pursuant to RESPA. 24 C.F.R. § 203.23. See also FHA Handbook 4000.1 at 361-62,
375.
215. This provision is intended to ensure that Homebuyers are made aware of
the monthly payment associated with the loan, that the loan is affordable, and that
borrowers have the ability to repay the loan. The provision thus proscribes the unfair
or deceptive acts of suppressing the true cost of the home purchase and loan from
borrowers and/or misrepresenting the true costs of the transaction, causing payment
shock for Homebuyers.
216. As described in paragraphs 34–37, Defendants violated the letter and
intent of this provision by only failing to escrow all property taxes, and instead only
including a small portion of the property taxes in the escrow account and thus
artificially suppressing the monthly payment, thereby inducing borrowers into the
transactions.
217. RESPA requires that, at the time of origination, the borrower must be
provided “a statement clearly itemizing the estimated taxes . . . that are reasonably
anticipated to be paid from the escrow account during the first 12 months after the
establishment of the account . . . .” 12 U.S.C. § 2609(c)(1)(A); see also 12 C.F.R. §
1024.17.
218. The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) requires that the Closing Disclosure
must accurately disclose projected payments, including accurately estimated escrow
payments. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.38(c).
71Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 72 of 80 PageID 72
219. Neither RESPA nor TILA permit the inclusion of a portion, but not all,
of the estimated property taxes in the escrow account.
220. These provisions are intended to ensure that borrowers are made
meaningfully aware of all the monthly payment associated with the loan to assist them
in making informed decisions about whether to enter the transaction. The provision
thus proscribes the unfair or deceptive acts of suppressing the true cost of the home
purchase and loan from borrowers and/or misrepresenting the true costs of the
transaction, causing payment shock for Homebuyers.
221. As described in paragraphs 34–37, Defendants violated the letter and
intent of these provisions by only including a small portion of the property taxes in the
escrow account and thus artificially suppressing the monthly payments, thereby
inducing borrowers into the transactions.
222. By violating FHA, RESPA, and/or TILA, Defendants engaged in a per
se violation of FDUTPA.
223. Defendants knowingly and willingly committed these unfair and/or
deceptive acts and practices for their own profit and for the profit of their shareholders.
224. The unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices took place in this State
because Defendants operate in this State and because the underlying home sales were
for homes in Florida.
225. Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive conduct occurred, and continues to
occur, in the course of Defendants’ business.
72Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 73 of 80 PageID 73
226. Defendants’ actions were the direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of
the damages that Plaintiffs and the Florida Sub-class members have sustained.
227. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct and
violations of the FDUTPA, Plaintiffs and the Florida Sub-class were injured and
suffered actual damages, including but not limited to paying an inflated price for their
home, diminished home value, lost opportunity to purchase alternative homes within
their budgets, increased out of pocket monthly expenses in the form of a higher
monthly payment, to be proven at trial, as a result of Defendants’ scheme.
228. Plaintiffs and the Florida Sub-class members seek actual damages,
equitable relief including an injunction to halt Defendants’ unlawful practices, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees from Defendants. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.211.
Unfairness and/or Deception
229. In addition, or in the alternative to the per se violations Defendants’
practice of misrepresenting the true monthly payment and failing to escrow the full
property taxes is “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially
injurious to consumers.” Cummings v. Warren Henry Motors, Inc., 648 So. 2d 1230, 1233
(Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Spiegel, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm., 540 F.2d 287, 293 (7th
Cir.1976)).
230. Defendants’ aforementioned actions, including those detailed in
paragraphs 69–95, led to, and continues to lead to, consumers entering transactions
they otherwise would not have if Defendants had not suppressed the true monthly
housing cost, including through misleading Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures.
73Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 74 of 80 PageID 74
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the homes had they known that the monthly cost
would be more expensive than advertised at closing, or at a minimum, would have
paid less.
231. Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive actions of using misleading Loan
Estimates and Closing Disclosures to obscure the full and true price of its homes, and
the full monthly cost of the mortgage is likely to deceive consumers into purchasing
the homes with DHI mortgages because the estimated monthly cost is material to the
average, ordinary, and reasonable consumer. Defendants knew consumers would rely
on the estimated payment. By using a partially escrowed property tax calculation in
its monthly payment estimate, Defendants have demonstrated that this lower monthly
payment is material to consumers. As a result of their deceptive acts and practices,
Defendants have sold thousands of homes. If Defendants had performed the escrow
calculation truthfully and in a non-misleading fashion, Plaintiffs, and the Florida Sub-
class Members, would not have purchased the homes or would not have paid as much.
232. Defendants’ actions in failing to escrow the full property taxes, as
described herein, are unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
business trade or commerce. Defendants’ actions are unfair and/or deceptive because
Defendants conduct led customers into believing their monthly payment or PITI
would be significantly lower than it was.
233. This scheme is unfair because it gives Defendants a disproportionate
advantage over other competitors in the industry that do not employ the same illegal
practices. Additionally, Defendants have an unfair advantage over Plaintiffs and the
74Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 75 of 80 PageID 75
Florida Subclass as well, as they were not fully informed of the details of the
transaction at the time they compared the monthly payment or PITI of an existing
home with the D.R. Horton home.
234. Although not required by Florida law, Plaintiffs and the Florida Subclass
members reasonably relied on Defendants’ material misrepresentations, omissions,
and deceptive policies and practices, and would not have purchased the homes from
Defendants, or would not have paid as much for said homes, had they known the truth
about Defendants’ policies and practices. See Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc., 394 So. 3d 666,
669 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2024) (“[U]nlike fraud, a party asserting a deceptive trade practice
claim need not show actual reliance on the representation or omission at issue.”).
235. Defendants knowingly and willingly committed these unfair and/or
deceptive acts and practices for their own profit and for the profit of their shareholders.
236. The unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices took place in this State
because Defendants operate in this State and because the underlying home sales were
for homes in Florida.
237. Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive conduct occurred, and continues to
occur, in the course of Defendants’ businesses.
238. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct and
violations of the FDUTPA, Plaintiffs and the Florida Sub-class were injured and
suffered actual damages, including but not limited to paying an inflated price for their
home, diminished home value, lost opportunity to purchase alternative homes within
75Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 76 of 80 PageID 76
their budgets, increased out of pocket monthly expenses in the form of a higher
monthly payment, to be proven at trial, as a result of Defendants’ scheme.
239. Plaintiffs and the Florida Sub-class members seek actual damages,
equitable relief, an injunction to halt Defendants’ unlawful practices, and reasonable
attorneys’ fees from Defendants. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.211.
COUNT III
240. Negligence
(On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 179 as though fully set forth
herein.
241. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and Class members in
Defendants’ marketing and sales of homes; and in Defendants’ marketing, sales, and
origination of FHA home loans.
242. Defendants breached this duty by failing to accurately calculate the PITI
payment, by failing include all taxes in the escrow analysis; and by thereby failing to
disclose an accurate payment to borrowers.
243. Defendants further breached this duty by choosing to make FHA loans
and representing to homebuyers that they were complying with FHA requirements,
when in fact they were failing to do so.
244. Plaintiffs and the class were damaged by this breach, including but not
limited to paying an inflated price for their home, diminished home value, lost
76Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 77 of 80 PageID 77
opportunity to purchase alternative homes within their budgets, increased out of
pocket monthly expenses in the form of a higher monthly payment, to be proven at
trial, as a proximate result of Defendants’ breach.
245. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to actual damages and all other appropriate
relief.
COUNT IV
246. Unjust Enrichment
(On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)
Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1 through 179 as though fully set forth
herein.
247. Defendants unlawfully conducted their Monthly Payment Suppression
Scheme with the express intent of profiting from closing more home sales and loans
and inflating the profits realized from these sales and loan originations.
248. Plaintiffs and the Class thus conferred a benefit on Defendants by paying
Defendants for the homes and the loans.
249. Defendants had knowledge of the benefits conferred on them.
250. Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained these benefits.
251. The circumstances, as alleged herein, including that Defendants
suppressed the true monthly payment from Plaintiffs and the Class and led Plaintiffs
to believe that the monthly payments would be substantially lower, leading ultimately
to payment shock for Plaintiffs and the Class, make it inequitable for Defendants to
77Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 78 of 80 PageID 78
retain the benefits of their scheme.
252. Plaintiffs thus request that the Court order that Defendants disgorge all
amounts by which they were unjustly enriched.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment
in their favor and in favor of the Class, and against Defendants for:
a. an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action, designating
Plaintiffs as the Class representatives, and designating the undersigned
attorneys as Class Counsel;
b. actual damages and interest;
c. treble damages and interest;
d. a declaration that Defendants’ conduct is unlawful as set forth herein;
e. injunctive relief requiring Defendants to cease all such unlawful
conduct;
f. equitable relief including but not limited to disgorgement of
Defendants’ profits;
g. attorney’s fees and costs; and
h. such further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
78Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 79 of 80 PageID 79
Jury Demand
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: October 1, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Newsome, II
Jeffrey L. Newsome, II: 1018667
Brian W. Warwick; FBN: 0605573
Janet R. Varnell; FBN: 0071072
Christopher J. Brochu: 1013897
Pamela Levinson, 538345
400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
Kristen G. Simplicio (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Roke Iko (pro hac vice forthcoming)
1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 998-2299
ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com
riko@clarksonlawfirm.com
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
Jennifer Wagner (WVSB # 10639) (pro hac
vice forthcoming)
Shennan Kavanagh (MA BBO # 655174) (pro
hac vice forthcoming)
7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02144
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
79Case 6:25-cv-01904-JSS-NWH Document 1 Filed 10/01/25 Page 80 of 80 PageID 80
Fax: (617) 542-8028
jwagner@nclc.org
skavanagh@nclc.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
Class
