August 13, 2005 Nebraska Supreme Court rules in Homeowners' favor in case of titles forfeited to foreclosure avoidance scheme; adopts "lodestar" calculation for prevailing parties attorney fees and holds prior bankruptcy litigation was not res judicata as to this litigation. WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER Eicher v. Mid America Fin. Invest. Corp., 270 Neb. 370 August 12, 2005. ##S-03-1257 & S-04-1184. The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday sided with former Omaha homeowners who said they were tricked into signing over the titles to their homes by a local company claiming to offer foreclosure assistance. In a victory for 10 Omaha households - 13 individuals in all - the Supreme Court upheld a 2003 Douglas County District Court judgment totaling about $1 million against Mid-America Financial Investment Corp., 3035 Harney St.The company must give back the titles to homes still occupied by six of the 10 households, pay damages to all 10 - including two left out of the 2003 judgment - and pay attorney fees.The total amount Mid-America will owe is expected to increase from the previous judgment, which included $169,000 in damages in addition to the house titles and $377,000 in attorney fees. Douglas County District Court Judge Peter Bataillon had sided with plaintiffs who testified that Mid-America sought them out, offered them loans to cover the amount of their home loan deficiency and during rushed, hectic meetings had them sign what they later discovered were purchase agreements. The State Supreme Court upheld Bataillon's ruling on the plaintiff's complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter CPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-1601 to 59-1622 (Reissue 1998 & Cum. Supp. 2000), and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (hereinafter UDTPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-301 to 87-306 (Reissue 1999)., and refused Mid-America's argument that plaintiffs could have read the terms for themselves in the transaction documents. The Supreme Court held that joinder of the similar claims was proper and not prejudicial Neb. Rev. Stat.§ 25-705 (Cum. Supp. 2004)& § 25-311 (Cum. Supp. 2004), "The general rule that one who fails to read a contract cannot avoid the effect of signing it applies only in the absence of fraud. See, Mayer v. Howard, 220 Neb. 328, 370 N.W.2d 93 (1985); Day v. Kolar, 216 Neb. 47, 341 N.W.2d 598 (1983)."Because the district court specifically found that each of the plaintiffs was fraudulently induced to sign what were misrepresented as loan documents," wrote Judge Kenneth Stephan, "the general rule binding a party to a signed contract does not apply." Mid-America remains an active company, run principally by Scott Bloemer and Elaina Hollingshead.The Supreme Court allows the "lodestar " method to calculate an attorney fee award: this court has never specifically approved the “lodestar multiplier” approach to calculating court-ordered attorney fees. However, defendants’ brief does not include any argument as to why we should not do so, and plaintiffs provide no reasons why we should. Accordingly, we apply the standards articulated in In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Donley, supra, and Schirber, supra, in our review of whether the fee award constitutes an abuse of discretion. Finally the Supreme Court held that one of the pLianitff's adversary proceedings regarding the defendant in bankruptcy court were not res judicata nor collaterally estopping this subsequent litigation " "The issue addressed by the bankruptcy court was whether Street’s transfer of his property to Mid America was involuntary. Although some of the evidence related to whether there was collusion involved, the issue of whether the transfer was involuntary for purposes of standing under the federal Bankruptcy Act does not equate with the issue of whether the transfer was induced by fraudulent representations on the part of Mid America, Bloemer, or Hollingshead. That precise issue was neither presented nor resolved in the bankruptcy litigation. Accordingly, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable. Because Street’s claim in this case was not barred by the judgment in the prior bankruptcy action under the doctrines of either res judicata or collateral estoppel, the district court erred in granting the motion for partial summary judgment dismissing his claim." The two also run another property company at the same address called Bel Fury. Lawsuits alleging fraud are pending against Bel Fury in U.S. District Court and Douglas County District Court. A Sarpy County judge had ruled in Mid\America's favor in the case of similar actions against it from distressed homeowners.