Lawsuit: Adjourned Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

---

Home Investment Clients (Represented By Titan Law)
Plaintiff
v.
Home Investment
Defendant

---

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Home Investment solicited and accepted deposits from the Plaintiffs, offering professional investment services and assurances regarding the use and management of their funds. On October 3, 2024, Home Investment announced its closure after less than two months of operations, stating that only 80% of investors' funds would be returned (Exhibit P-001). This decision constitutes a breach of their contractual obligations, as detailed in the customer agreement.
According to Home Investment's customer agreement (Exhibit P-002), Home Investment was required to provide monthly updates to investors, including information such as the current portfolio balance, monthly performance data, investment details, and general updates. However, Home Investment failed to provide any such updates to the Plaintiffs, thereby breaching the agreement. The agreement further stipulates, "An amount of $10,000 + 15% of the depositors' money will be paid to us" in the event of a breach (Exhibit P-002). The Defendant’s actions indicate a clear intent not to fulfill their obligations under the agreement and to withhold the funds rightfully belonging to the Plaintiffs.

---

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES​

• Home Investment - Defendant.
• Mapple24 - Owner of Home Investment.
• xSynx - Plaintiff.
• Acadia Group - Plaintiff.
• DonTrillions - Arcadia Group CEO.
• dim - Plaintiff.
• AstroCraft1 - Plaintiff.
• The_Superior10 - Plaintiff.

II. FACTS​

1. On October 3, 2024, Home Investment announced that they would only be returning 80% of investors' funds (Exhibit P-001).
2. The Home Investment customer agreement states, "This contract is binding and if breached, an amount of $10,000 + 15% of deposited money will be paid to us" (Exhibit P-002).
3. The customer agreement also states, "Near the end of each month (usually), we will send you your portfolio data such as: - Your current portfolio balance - Money made/lost each month - Companies we invested in - General company updates" (Exhibit P-002). No such monthly updates were provided to any of the Plaintiffs.
4. The following Plaintiffs invested the indicated amounts into Home Investment:
   • Arcadia Group: $15,000 (Exhibit P-003).
   • dim: $5,000 (Exhibit P-004).
   • xSynx: $710 (Exhibit P-005).
   • The_Superior10: $10,000 (Exhibit P-006).
   • AstroCraft1: $10,400 (Exhibit P-007).
5. Home Investment has still failed to pay out the 80% of the Plaintiffs Depostits

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. The Defendant has failed to return the full amount of the funds that the Plaintiffs deposited with Home Investment, retaining 20% of the funds without lawful basis or justification (Exhibit P-001).
2. The Defendant's customer agreement states that “$10,000 + 15% of deposited money will be paid to us” in the event of a breach. A reasonable interpretation of “us” refers to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are therefore owed this amount due to Home Investment’s failure to provide monthly updates, constituting a breach of contract (Exhibit P-002).
3. The Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress and loss of enjoyment as a result of being defrauded by Home Investment.
4. The Plaintiffs were deprived of the opportunity to invest their funds elsewhere, losing potential income and growth due to Home Investment’s wrongful retention of their money.
5. The Plaintiffs seek punitive damages to deter Home Investment and others from engaging in similar fraudulent practices in the future.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiffs seek the following relief from the Defendant:

1. The return of all investors' funds totaling $41,110, as this money rightfully belongs to the Plaintiffs (Exhibits P-003 to P-007).
2. Payment of $10,000 to each Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s breach of contract (Exhibit P-002).
3. Payment of 15% of each Plaintiff’s deposits, totaling $6,166.50, as specified in the customer agreement (Exhibit P-002).
4. Payment of $25,000 to each Plaintiff in punitive damages to deter the Defendant from committing similar actions in the future.
5. Payment of $10,000 to each Plaintiff for emotional distress caused by the Defendant’s actions.
6. Payment of $10,000 to each Plaintiff for loss of enjoyment resulting from the fear and anxiety caused by the Defendant’s fraudulent conduct.
7. Payment of $96,682.95 in legal fees, representing 30% of the total damages ($322,276.50).

By making this submission, I affirm that I understand the penalties for providing false statements in court and acknowledge that I am subject to perjury charges should I knowingly make any false statements.


DATED: This (day) day of (month) (year)

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

P-006

P-007

 

[dodrio3]

Proof Of Representation

 

[xtub12345]

Writ of Summons

@Mapple24 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour the 72h deadline for the plaintiff to come forward has passed.

 

[dodrio3]

you honour the defence has has approximately 10 days to appear and has still failed to do so may we please get a default judgement

 

[xtub12345]

My apologies, I was unable to access my computer, we will now be moving into default judgment and are in recess pending a verdict.

 

[dodrio3]

Still pending a verdict.

 

[xtub12345]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

VERDICT



Home Investment Clients Vs. Home Investment [2024] FCR 123



I. PLAINTIFF POSITION

1. The Defendant has failed to pay back the Plaintiffs the amounts deposited into Home Investment after it shut down.
2. The Defendant is liable for $10,000 + 15% of the Plaintiff(s) account(s).

3. Plaintiffs suffered loss of enjoyment any emotional distress, and were deprived of their ability to invest the funds elsewhere.



II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION

1. The Defendant did not appear in court.



III. THE COURT OPINION

1. First, I will be talking about the $10,000 + 15% of the accounts if a contract violation occurs, the contract specifically states "us", in this scenario "us" would refer to the writer of the contract, Home Investment, not the Plaintiffs.
2. The Plaintiffs have supplied various amounts of evidence to support their claims, no Plaintiff has provided proof they agreed to the contract but some have proven through other pieces of evidence, that it is likely they had an account with Home Investment.
3. Breakdown of the Validity of Plaintiffs claims.

a. xSyncx, has received the updates listed within the contract, making it reasonable to assume that he had signed the contract with Home Investment.
b. Acadia Group has shown proof that they did indeed send money to Home Investment, insinuating that a contract indeed had been signed.
c. The_Superior10 has provided transactions showing he paid the Account Creation fee.
d. Both dimitre977 nor Astrocraft1 have provided enough evidence to reasonably assume they signed the contract and therefore, Home Investment is not legally bound to complete the terms of the contract.
4. Emotional Damages, the Legal Damages Act describes Emotional Damages as "Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions." The Plaintiffs have not proven they have suffered psychological harm.
5. Loss of Enjoyment, although the claims do meet the description of Loss of Enjoyment the Plaintiffs did not prove they suffered Loss of Enjoyment in any of the mechanisms found in the Legal Damages Act, nor in their evidence.
7. Compensatory Damages, only some of the Plaintiffs have proven that they experienced Financial Burden as a result of the actions of Home Investments.



IV. DECISION

In the matter of FCR 123, the court rules in favour of the Plaintiff and is granting modified Prayers.

I hereby order the DHS to fine the Defendant and unfine the Plaintiffs in the following manner in the form of compensatory damages:
a. $15,000 to the owner of Acadia Group.
b. $10,100 to The_Superior10
c. $710 to xSyncx
I hereby order the DHS to fine the Defendant and unfine the Plaintiffs in the following manner in the form of punitive damages:
a. $10,000 to the owner of Acadia Group
b. $10,000 to The_Superior10
c. $5,000 xSyncx
I will not be awarding Emotional Damage, Loss of Enjoyment, or Compensatory Damages for the $10,000 and 15% claims, nor any damages to the Plaintiffs that do not have sufficient evidence to prove they signed the contract.
At the new case valuation of of $50,710, I hereby order the DHS to unfine the Owner of Titan Law $15,213, 30% of the case's value.
The Federal Court thanks all involved.