CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSES COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST LENDER FOR ALLEGED DECEPTIVE CONDUCT UNDER WISCONSIN STATUTE § 100.18

Brown County’s circuit court dismissed claims brought against Longbridge Financial, LLC (“Longbridge”) by a borrower’s estate (“Estate”) for alleged violations of Wisconsin Statute § 100.18 which prevents a “corporation” from engaging in deceptive or misleading conduct with the intent to sell merchandise or otherwise oblige “the public” to purchase merchandise. Longbridge Fin., LLC v. The Estate of Genevieve Gollnick, et al., Brown County, Wisconsin, Case No. 25CV1616 (June 9, 2026). The court’s analysis in Longbridge centered around whether the borrower’s estate was a member of “the public.”

Genevieve Gollnick (“Genevieve”) took out a reverse mortgage in April 2023 for $510,000, secured by her residence, and then passed away about two years later.i Genevieve’s appointed personal representative (“PR”) opened a probate and reached out to Longbridge (ostensibly) to discuss the outstanding debt.ii According to the PR, in October 2025 (and on several other occasions) Longbridge employees “assured” the PR that foreclosure proceedings would not be initiated within six months of a borrower’s death, here, before December 2025.

Notwithstanding, Longbridge filed foreclosure proceedings against the Estate in November 2025.iii The Estate moved to dismiss the action and filed a counterclaim asserting Longbridge violated § 100.18(1) by misrepresenting the timeline for the foreclosure proceedings. Longbridge countered that § 100.18 did not apply because the Estate did not fit in the definition of “the public” as contemplated by that section. Longbridge moved to dismiss the counterclaim on those grounds.

Although the court acknowledged “the public” did not necessarily “mean a large audience,” the court rejected the Estate’s position that it was a member of “the public” as contemplated by § 100.18(1).iv The court reasoned that the reverse mortgage was a contract between the parties and that agreement created “a particular relationship” which took the Estate out of “the public” and into a “contracting relationship.”v The court concluded that “contracting parties are no longer members of ‘the public’ under the statute.”

Although the court stopped its analysis once it determined the Estate was not “the public” under § 100.18(1), it is plausible that even if the court found otherwise, the Estate would not have been able to demonstrate Longbridge engaged in deceptive or misleading conduct to induce the purchase of merchandise since Genevieve took out the reverse mortgage long before any of the complained of communications. Regardless, the court dismissed the Estate’s counterclaim against Longbridge finding it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.vi

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

1. A Wisconsin circuit court dismissed claims brought against Longbridge Financial, LLC (“Longbridge”) by a borrower’s (“Genevieve”) estate (“Estate”) for alleged violations of Wisconsin Statute § 100.18 which prevents a “corporation” from engaging in deceptive or misleading conduct with the intent to sell merchandise or otherwise oblige “the public” to purchase merchandise. Longbridge Fin., LLC v. The Estate of Genevieve Gollnick, et al., Brown County, Wisconsin, Case No. 25CV1616 (June 9, 2026).

2. Genevieve passed away about two years after taking out a reverse mortgage with Longbridge triggering a default. About five months later, Longbridge initiated foreclosure proceedings. The Estate responded to the foreclosure complaint and filed a counterclaim for violations of § 100.18(1) based on alleged misleading statements made by Longbridge to Genevieve’s personal representative (“PR”) pertaining to when the foreclosure proceedings would be initiated. Longbridge moved to dismiss arguing § 100.18(1) did not apply.

3. The court’s analysis centered around whether the Estate was a member of “the public” as contemplated by § 100.18(1). The court explained Genevieve’s reverse mortgage created “a particular relationship” between Genevieve, her Estate and Longbridge which took the Estate out of “the public” and into a “contracting relationship.” Concluding that “contracting parties are no longer members of ‘the public’ under the statute” the court granted dismissal of the counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

i Longbridge, at 2.

ii Longbridge, at 3. Future references are to this citation until indicated otherwise.

iii Longbridge, at 2.

iv Longbridge, at 4.

v Longbridge, at 5. Future references are to this citation until indicated otherwise.

vi Longbridge, at 6.

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252