National Amendment Assistance and the CARES Act Letters That Weren't From the Government

A federal court has temporarily halted National Amendment Assistance, also doing business as N.A.A., along with a network of affiliated companies and their officers, over allegations that the operation misled homeowners nationwide into paying illegal upfront fees for mortgage relief that never materialized.DOCUMENTED

The temporary restraining order, entered in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, freezes the defendants' assets, places the businesses into receivership, and gives investigators immediate access to company records while the underlying case proceeds.DOCUMENTED

Letters designed to look official

According to the complaint, the defendants have mailed solicitations to homeowners across the country claiming they qualified for mortgage relief tied to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, using language referencing a "CARES-Act Homeowner Assistance Fund" or a lender-specific mortgage adjustment program.DOCUMENTED The letters directed recipients to call a phone number for additional information, at which point the complaint alleges homeowners were told they were "confirmed" for a specific, substantial reduction in their monthly mortgage payment.REVIEWED

The complaint alleges the defendants promised mortgage loan modifications that would make consumers' payments more affordable, claimed their services were associated with a federal government homeowner assistance plan, instructed consumers that they did not have to — or should not — make monthly mortgage payments during a supposed processing period, and collected upfront payments before any modification was actually secured.DOCUMENTED

The advice that made things worse

Beyond the upfront fees, the complaint's most consequential allegation involves what homeowners were told to do next: the defendants allegedly instructed consumers that they did not have to, or should not, continue making their regular mortgage payments while the supposed relief was being processed.DOCUMENTED For homeowners who followed that instruction, the consequences compounded quickly — missed payments accrue against a mortgage regardless of what a third party promises, and several consumers who relied on the advice have reportedly fallen behind on their loans, with some now facing foreclosure or default.DOCUMENTED

"When Americans look for ways to cut costs and lower their monthly bills, they shouldn't have to worry about being targeted by mortgage scammers," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, announcing the case.DOCUMENTED According to the complaint, the defendants ultimately obtained no mortgage relief for any of the consumers who paid them, keeping the upfront fees and the financial information consumers provided during the sign-up process.DOCUMENTED

Consumers were told they were "confirmed" for a specific mortgage payment reduction and instructed not to keep paying their lender in the meantime — advice that, for those who followed it, turned a marketing pitch into a foreclosure risk.

Why the specific advance-fee ban exists

Federal rules governing mortgage assistance relief services specifically prohibit a company from collecting any payment before a homeowner has actually signed a new agreement with their lender or servicer reflecting the terms the company promised to obtain.REVIEWED That structure exists precisely to prevent the sequence the complaint describes: a company collects payment based on a promised outcome, and only afterward does the homeowner discover whether that outcome was ever actually within the company's power to deliver.REVIEWED By requiring the modification itself to come first, the rule is designed to eliminate the financial incentive to overpromise before any real relief has been secured.REVIEWED

A recurring shape for mortgage relief fraud

The mechanics described in the National Amendment Assistance complaint — invoking a real federal law by name, implying a government-run assistance fund, and instructing consumers to stop paying their actual lender — mirror a pattern regulators have pursued repeatedly since the CARES Act itself was enacted in 2020, as the underlying legislation's name has continued to carry public recognition years after its original pandemic-relief provisions expired.REVIEWED That continued recognition is precisely what makes the CARES Act name useful to a deceptive operator: a homeowner who remembers the law from news coverage of pandemic relief may reasonably assume a program still exists under that name, without realizing the specific mortgage-adjustment fund referenced in the solicitation was never real.REVIEWED

What the receivership means for the case going forward

With the businesses now under a court-appointed receiver and the defendants' assets frozen, the immediate practical effect is that National Amendment Assistance and its affiliated entities cannot continue soliciting new customers while the litigation proceeds.REVIEWED The receiver's role includes preserving whatever assets remain for eventual distribution to harmed consumers, a step regulators typically take early in cases involving active, ongoing solicitation to prevent further dissipation of funds before a final judgment can be reached.REVIEWED

Because the matter is still in its early stages, following a temporary restraining order rather than a final judgment, the allegations against Van Zweeden, Rub, Bustamante, and the named corporate entities remain unproven, and the case will continue to be litigated in federal court.REVIEWED Homeowners who believe they were contacted by National Amendment Assistance or a similarly named entity can file a complaint at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, and should verify any mortgage-assistance program directly with their loan servicer or through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before making any payment.REVIEWED

For homeowners currently struggling with mortgage payments, the safest first call remains a servicer directly or a HUD-approved housing counseling agency, both of which can discuss legitimate modification or forbearance options without requiring any upfront fee — a baseline that distinguishes every legitimate mortgage-assistance channel from the kind of advance-payment model described in this complaint.REVIEWED

The case also illustrates why a scheme's reach can be difficult to gauge from the outside: because the defendants allegedly operated through seven differently named corporate entities, a homeowner who received a solicitation from one company name would have no obvious way of knowing it traced back to the same operators facing complaints under several other names simultaneously.REVIEWED That structure is common across mail-based mortgage-relief schemes generally, and it is one reason regulators typically name every affiliated entity in a single complaint rather than pursuing each corporate name as a separate matter.REVIEWED

Have documents relevant to this story? Reach us through our tips channel.