One of the most notable examples of the effectiveness of such last minute searches, occurred in a case where the clients were in a dispute with a large financial institution.

The clients were in search of a modest investment to assist in their retirement. Through a family member, they were introduced to the loan representative of a large financial institution, who advised them that he was aware of sound investment opportunities in their price range. This loan representative introduced the clients to a family in distress. This loan representative structured a sale, such that this family in distress would conditionally sell their home to the clients, rent the home from the clients for a year at a favorable rate of return, with an option to re-purchase the home at a premium within a year if the sellers' fortune changed. The loan representative assured the clients that sellers could afford the proposed rent, and that the property would support a loan. The loan representative arranged a purchase loan with his financial institution, for which he received remuneration. When the loan documents were to be drawn up, the clients were told that there had been a mechanical breakdown of the memory typewriter on which loan documents were prepared; the clients were asked to sign blank loan documents, with the assurance that copies of the loan documents would be sent to them the next day. Not only did the clients not receive copies of the loan documents, but the sellers never made one rental payment, and when the clients finally did receive copies of the loan documents, to their horror, they discovered that the loan representative had used the clients' family home as collateral for the loan, and that the property could not qualify for a loan because it required extensive repair before it could be brought up to local building codes. The financial institutional insisted on mortgage payments, under threat of foreclosure. The clients' were threatened with loss of a substantial part of their life savings.

The clients brought an action for fraud against the loan representative and the financial institution. The financial institution brought a motion for summary judgment based on the Statute of Frauds, claiming it was a stranger to the investment. Opposition papers were filed, but summary judgment looked very possible. Literally on the night before the hearing, it appeared that a particular set of search criteria, not tried before, might produce a favorable case. A case on all fours was discovered, the case was cited to the judge at the hearing, the judge took the matter under advisement, and denied summary judgment.

The denial of the summary judgment motion produced a settlement which netted the clients' entire investment and all of their mortgage payments, after attorney's fees.