This matter arises from a federal enforcement case against Colony Ridge, a Houston-area land developer and lender accused of targeting Hispanic consumers with false statements and predatory seller-financed loans.
According to the underlying complaint, Colony Ridge marketed lots almost exclusively in Spanish, misrepresented key facts about the land, and steered buyers into high-interest loans that many could not afford. In violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the alleged scheme caused many families to lose money, land, and the chance at stable homeownership through repeated defaults and foreclosures.
After the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, the government and Colony Ridge proposed a settlement. But instead of providing direct relief to the people harmed by the alleged scheme, the proposed agreement directs $20 million toward increased immigration enforcement in the very communities where many of those borrowers live. The agreement does not provide meaningful financial relief to victims who lost substantial sums of money, nor does it reform or rescind existing predatory contracts for those already trapped in them.
A coalition of fair housing, civil rights, consumer protection, and immigration advocacy organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to reject that proposed settlement. The amici include the National Fair Housing Alliance, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Center for Responsible Lending, the National Consumer Law Center, UnidosUS, the Poverty & Race Research Action Council, Public Justice, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Democracy Forward represents the coalition alongside Relman Colfax PLLC and the National Fair Housing Alliance.
The brief argues that the settlement is unlawful because its immigration-enforcement provisions are unrelated to the case’s claims and do not further the purposes of the civil rights and fair lending laws under which the case was brought. Instead, the agreement would impose new harms on the same communities that were allegedly targeted by Colony Ridge’s discriminatory and predatory practices. Rather than compensating victims, the settlement could subject them to increased surveillance, detention, family separation, or deportation.
The coalition asks the court to deny the joint motion seeking court approval and enforcement of the settlement. In the alternative, the brief urges the court to strike or refuse to enforce the immigration-enforcement funding provision.
Timeline
-
Amicus brief was filed
