The son of former Governor Kenny Guinn says his company didn’t have to obey the law during a time when his father was governor. Guinn is being sued by investors who allege he defrauded them out of millions of dollars through his now-defunct company, Aspen Financial. In a deposition I’ve obtained attorney Dennis Prince, who represents investors Donna and Chuck Ruthe, questions Guinn, who not only claims exemption from the law but ascribes powers to the Legislative Counsel Bureau it does not possess.
Q: Before accepting the money, did Nevada law require Aspen as a hard money lender to have the investors sign any documents or disclosures?
A: There was a lot of change on that I think in ’06 or something like that.
Q: What do you mean ’06?
A: I think that’s when they put that law into effect.
Q: What law?
A: The statute. What you just said.
Q: Okay. So in 2006, Aspen was required to give the written disclosures to the investor and have them sign it before –
A: Well, Aspen wasn’t required. But was that a statute within the new laws when they changed them, yes.
Q: Well, it’s Aspen’s obligation to comply with those laws. Right?
A: Yes. But that law was supposed to be changed because it was not feasible with all the hard money lenders. And it was something that was causing a tremendous problem with the State, because you have people that were out of town and signing documents maybe afterwards. And they knew that wasn’t feasible, and they were supposed to have it changed in the LCB after the Legislature. And I think that at the time they were in between commissioners and it didn’t get done.
Q: So you’re saying that a law went into effect that later was supposed to be changed?
Q: Did that relieve you of the obligation to comply with the law’s requirement?
A: The State was not enforcing it , and with any mortgage company because it created a terrible problem that you couldn’t do business.
That law in question was passed in 1999, not 2006, and was in effect for the majority of the time Aspen was in business.
The Mortgage Lending Division knows of no outcry from mortgage brokers unable to comply and says at no time did it suspend enforcement of the law.
The Ruthes plan to present evidence that Guinn failed to follow the law,