NFM Lending has been involved in four notable legal and regulatory matters: a 2023 federal lawsuit the company filed against two former loan officers who joined a competitor, a California regulatory action over per diem interest overcharges that ended in a $65,000 penalty, a wage-and-hour collective action by a former loan originator that was pushed into arbitration, and a 2015 New York enforcement settlement over an unauthorized domain name. None involved findings of fraud, and the most consequential matter for consumers, the California action, resulted in refunds to affected borrowers.
Noncompete Suit Against Two Former Loan Officers
On March 24, 2023, NFM Inc. sued Justin Bolden and Stephen Levitt in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Maryland. Both had worked as loan originators at NFM’s Kettering, Ohio, office and resigned on February 2, 2023, to join the competing platform UMortgage.1National Mortgage Professional. Two Separate Lawsuits Claim Poaching of Staff, Business
According to the complaint, both men had signed agreements in 2021 and 2022 barring them from using NFM’s confidential and trade secret information to solicit customers, employees, or business contacts for one year after leaving. NFM alleged Bolden took a client’s loan file and forwarded confidential documents for eight additional clients to his personal email using company computers. Levitt was accused of forwarding information on six clients to his personal computer, soliciting other NFM employees to join UMortgage, and using NFM’s office address as his new business address.1National Mortgage Professional. Two Separate Lawsuits Claim Poaching of Staff, Business
NFM sought a restraining order that would have barred the two from working for any competing business within 25 miles of Kettering for the remainder of their noncompete period, plus return of client information, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney fees.1National Mortgage Professional. Two Separate Lawsuits Claim Poaching of Staff, Business
UMortgage CEO Anthony Casa publicly dismissed the suit, telling reporters, “This lawsuit will go away,” and calling such litigation a “bully tactic.”2HousingWire. Motto Sues UMortgage for Tortious Interference in Franchise Contract
The case ended quickly. On July 31, 2023, NFM filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby dismissed the case the same day.3CourtListener. NFM, Inc. v. Bolden, 1:23-cv-00823 A dismissal with prejudice means the claims cannot be refiled. The court never ruled on the preliminary injunction motion, and the parties did not disclose any settlement terms.4PACER Monitor. NFM, Inc. v. Bolden et al, 1:23-cv-00823
California Action Over Per Diem Interest Overcharges
A 2022 regulatory examination by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation reviewed 25 NFM loan files and found that five of them contained violations tied to per diem interest. NFM was charging borrowers interest for periods exceeding the one-day allowance permitted before loan disbursement and failing to provide required written disclosures, in violation of California Financial Code section 50204(o) and Civil Code section 2948.5.5California DFPI. Accusation to Suspend California Residential Mortgage Lender and Servicer Licenses and to Levy Administrative Penalties – NFM, Inc.
The DFPI ordered a self-audit of loans originated between February 4, 2019, and April 19, 2023. NFM identified 653 instances of overcharging across 2,956 files reviewed, roughly a 22% error rate, totaling $70,359.50 in excess interest. On June 29, 2023, NFM refunded those amounts plus 10% interest, paying out $85,514.38 to affected borrowers.6California DFPI. Settlement Agreement – NFM, Inc.
Even after the refunds, the DFPI moved for discipline. On November 27, 2024, the Commissioner filed an accusation seeking to suspend NFM’s California residential mortgage lender and servicer licenses for up to 12 months and to impose penalties of at least $1,000 per violation across the 653 instances.5California DFPI. Accusation to Suspend California Residential Mortgage Lender and Servicer Licenses and to Levy Administrative Penalties – NFM, Inc. NFM contested the action and requested a hearing.
The matter settled on April 2, 2025. NFM agreed to pay a $65,000 administrative penalty in two installments and was formally ordered to stop overcharging per diem interest. The company’s California license was not suspended, but NFM must disclose the settlement in future license applications, and noncompliance with the agreement’s terms could still trigger suspension or revocation.6California DFPI. Settlement Agreement – NFM, Inc.
Wage-and-Hour Case: Wood v. NFM, Inc.
In July 2024, former loan originator William Wood filed a putative collective and class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Wood, employed at NFM from July 2021 to August 2023, alleged the company undercounted his hours and failed to pay overtime for work beyond 40 hours per week. His complaint brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act along with breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of Ohio wage and recordkeeping laws.7vLex. Wood v. NFM Inc., Civil Action No. GLR-24-2207
NFM moved to compel arbitration, pointing to employment agreements Wood signed in 2021 and 2023 that contained binding arbitration clauses. The 2023 agreement mandated arbitration through JAMS and included an integration clause stating it superseded all prior agreements. On March 4, 2025, Chief Judge George L. Russell III granted the motion, ruling that the 2023 agreement controlled and that its arbitration provision “clearly and unmistakably” required Wood’s claims to be arbitrated. The case was dismissed.8PACER Monitor. Wood v. NFM Inc., 1:24-cv-02207
On September 24, 2025, the court also granted NFM’s motion for attorney fees, requiring Wood to cover the costs NFM incurred bringing its arbitration motion.8PACER Monitor. Wood v. NFM Inc., 1:24-cv-02207 A separate California wage-and-hour claim took a similar path: in February 2024, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted NFM’s motion to compel arbitration against a former employee who had worked at the company for two months.9Silverman Thompson. Silverman Thompson Firm News
New York DFS Settlement Over an Unauthorized Domain
In June 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services reached a settlement with NFM Consultants d/b/a NFM Lending over violations of the New York Banking Law and Business Corporation Law. The agency found that NFM had used an unauthorized domain name, “nationalfidelitymortgage.net,” to solicit mortgages in New York without the required approval, had created a subdomain allowing individual loan officers to solicit and accept applications through unauthorized web addresses, and had used the restricted word “mortgage” in the unauthorized domain without permission.10New York DFS. Settlement Agreement With NFM Consultants d/b/a NFM Lending
NFM paid a $7,500 fine and agreed to review its advertising policies, designate a compliance monitor, and establish a training program covering domain and advertising requirements.10New York DFS. Settlement Agreement With NFM Consultants d/b/a NFM Lending
About NFM Lending
NFM Inc., doing business as NFM Lending, was co-founded in 1998 by David Silverman and Sandy Silverman in Baltimore, Maryland. The company is headquartered in Linthicum, Maryland, and is licensed in 49 states and Washington, D.C.11NFM Lending. About NFM It operates under a “family of lenders” model that includes subsidiary brands such as Main Street Home Loans, BluPrint Home Loans, Elevate Home Loans, and Element Home Loans.12NFM Lending. The NFM Family of Lenders Recognized as a Top 50 Mortgage Company in America