When someone markets themselves as an ethical strategist, a trusted advisor, or a “principled” business leader, you expect one basic thing: pay back the money you borrow.
In the case of Lane A. Houk, the public record tells a very different story, and none of it is flattering. This isn’t rumor or opinion, but what the court documents say.
1. A Massive Mortgage, A Clear Default
In 2005, Lane Houk took out a $584,800 mortgage through Cherry Creek Mortgage Company. Simply put: he borrowed the money, and he agreed to pay it back.
But by 2008, CitiMortgage, the lender that acquired the loan filed a foreclosure action.
Foreclosure doesn’t happen because someone is “a little behind” or because they’re having a dispute. It happens when the borrower stops making payments long enough for the bank to take legal action.
Critically:
- Lane Houk never argued that he was current on the loan.
- He never provided evidence that he had paid what he owed.
- He never claimed a servicing error or accounting mistake.
His silence on this point says it all.
2. Lane Houk’s Entire Defense Was About Paperwork: Not Payment
Instead of disputing the debt itself, Houk’s legal strategy centered on one thing:
Attack the bank’s ability to foreclose, not the fact that he owed the money.
During litigation:
- The original promissory note was lost by the law firm handling the foreclosure.
- With the note missing, and with PennyMac later substituted in as the plaintiff, the paperwork trail was sloppy and incomplete.
Houk seized on that. He argued that he was “not in default”, not because he paid the loan, but because the bank couldn’t prove it had the legal authority to enforce the note without the original document.
This maneuver is known as a standing defense, commonly used in “lost-note foreclosures” after the 2008 financial crisis. It’s legal, but it has nothing to do with innocence.
It’s simply exploiting a paperwork failure.
3. What the Appeals Court Actually Said (And Didn’t Say)
In 2017, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed the foreclosure case and agreed that the paperwork issues were significant enough to justify reversing the foreclosure judgment.
But here’s what matters:
- The appeals court never said Lane Houk paid his mortgage.
- The appeals court never said Houk did not default.
- The appeals court did not clear him of owing the debt.
They ruled on procedure, not substance.
That distinction matters, unless you’re trying to mislead people.
4. A Pattern of Avoidance, Not Accountability
There’s no record of Houk presenting evidence of payment.
There’s no claim of a banking error.
There’s no documentation showing he ever became current.
Instead, the public record paints a picture of someone who:
- Borrowed over half a million dollars.
- Defaulted.
- Used legal technicalities to stall consequences.
- And now markets himself as an ethical authority.
The contrast speaks for itself.
Final Thoughts
- Lane Houk took out a $584,800 loan in 2005, then defaulted and used various legal claims (such as a lost note defense) to delay foreclosure.
- The appellate court ruled that the lender had standing to foreclose even without the original note, contrary to Houk’s claim.
- Houk portrays himself as an ethical strategist and business leader, yet the public record shows he avoided repaying his debt and used loopholes to stall the process.
You might also be interested in: Lane Houk and the Signal Genesys Scam: My $10K Mistake & Blame Game.