Pastor Coates Drops Fraud Claims Against Orchard Developer and Two Former Dunbar Clients
Dismissals with prejudice remove three defendants from multimillion-dollar lending lawsuit involving late Massachusetts attorney Ronald Dunbar Jr.
By Christopher Kelleher
October 20, 2026 7:15 P.M.
KENT COUNTY, R.I. — Pastor Delman Coates has voluntarily dismissed all claims against a Rhode Island real-estate development company and two former personal-injury clients of the late Massachusetts attorney Ronald W. Dunbar Jr., reversing course in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit alleging an elaborate lending fraud.
The dismissals, filed September 24 and 25 in Rhode Island Superior Court, remove Five Five Plus LLC, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler from the litigation.
All three dismissals were filed with prejudice, meaning Coates generally cannot bring the same claims against those defendants again.
The development marks a significant change in a case in which Coates originally alleged that Dunbar, his law firm, a real-estate development company and several personal-injury clients participated in a fraudulent lending arrangement involving millions of dollars.
The dismissal notices do not explain why Coates withdrew the claims. They also do not establish whether any of the defendants received money from the disputed transactions.
But they leave a central question unanswered: If the people identified as borrowers never received the loan proceeds, where did the money go?
From Alleged Co-Conspirators to Dismissed Defendants
Coates filed his verified complaint in August 2026, alleging that Dunbar arranged at least $2.85 million in loans between December 2024 and April 2025.
According to the complaint, Dunbar proposed the loans, prepared the agreements, personally guaranteed obligations and serviced the transactions through his law firm’s client trust account.
The lawsuit accused Dunbar of operating a lending fraud and alleged that money had been advanced against both anticipated personal-injury recoveries and a condominium development in West Warwick, Rhode Island.
The original complaint went further than accusing Dunbar alone.
It asserted civil conspiracy allegations against the defendants, including Five Five Plus and several of Dunbar’s personal-injury clients.
Coates alleged that participants had combined to obtain money through false representations and improperly retain or divert proceeds.
Those allegations carried serious implications for people who maintained that they had never received the funds Coates was attempting to recover.
Now, less than two months after filing the lawsuit, Coates has withdrawn those claims against three defendants.
The September 24 notice dismisses Five Five Plus LLC.
A second notice, submitted September 25, dismisses Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler.
Both documents expressly state that the dismissals are with prejudice and that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
The notices do not dismiss the claims against the remaining defendants.
The Orchard Developer Denied Receiving the Money
Five Five Plus LLC owns The Orchard, a condominium development in West Warwick that became central to several loan agreements arranged by Dunbar.
David Fromm, who says he controls the company, previously told The Brookfield Examiner that Dunbar had no authority to borrow money on its behalf or pledge its development as collateral.
Fromm also denied that either he or Five Five Plus received the loan proceeds.
Coates’s complaint described construction loans purportedly secured by buildings at The Orchard.
But it also alleged that promised mortgages and other security documents were never delivered or recorded.
The absence of those instruments raised questions about whether the loans were actually secured by the property as represented.
Fromm maintained that the transactions were conducted without his authorization.
With Coates’s claims against Five Five Plus now dismissed with prejudice, the company is no longer a defendant in that Rhode Island action.
The filing does not explain what information prompted the dismissal.
Personal-Injury Clients Caught in the Lending Dispute
The same lawsuit also involved loans purportedly secured by settlements or anticipated recoveries in personal-injury cases handled by Dunbar.
According to the original complaint, the attorney arranged financing against those recoveries, with repayment expected from settlement proceeds.
Some of the former clients disputed having authorized the financing or received the money.
The complaint itself alleged that Dunbar had misrepresented the status of certain settlements and expected payments.
Nevertheless, Coates initially pursued claims against several individuals whose personal-injury cases had been used in the financing arrangements.
Two of those individuals, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler, have now been dismissed with prejudice.
The dismissals do not establish precisely what happened to the loan proceeds, whether the agreements were authentic or whether the individuals received any money.
Those questions remain relevant to the broader investigation into Dunbar’s financial dealings.
A Verified Complaint — Not Just an Allegation
The decision to dismiss these defendants raises another important question: Why were they accused of participating in the alleged fraud in the first place?
Coates did not simply file an ordinary civil complaint. He filed a verified complaint, a legal pleading in which the allegations are accompanied by a formal verification, generally made under oath or penalty of perjury.
That distinction matters.
While an ordinary civil complaint contains allegations that must eventually be proven, a verified complaint adds a formal assertion of their truth, subject to the precise language and qualifications of the verification.
Coates’s lawsuit accused Dunbar of orchestrating a multimillion-dollar lending fraud. But it did not stop with Dunbar.
The complaint also alleged that Five Five Plus and several of Dunbar’s personal-injury clients participated in wrongdoing, including civil conspiracy and the improper retention or diversion of funds.
These were serious accusations.
The defendants were not merely identified as people connected to Dunbar’s financial dealings. They were named as participants in the alleged misconduct and faced potential financial liability.
Yet less than two months after filing the verified complaint, Coates voluntarily dismissed all claims against Five Five Plus, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler — with prejudice.
The dismissals do not establish that the original allegations were knowingly false. Nor do they establish that Coates lacked a reasonable basis for bringing the claims.
But they raise legitimate questions about what was verified before the lawsuit was filed.
Did Coates or his attorneys obtain bank records showing that the defendants actually received the money?
Did they independently confirm that the purported borrowers had signed the agreements?
Did they verify that Dunbar had authority to borrow against The Orchard?
Or were the allegations based substantially on documents and representations supplied by the very attorney Coates accused of deceiving him?
The dismissal filings provide no answers.
A verified complaint carries legal significance precisely because its factual assertions are formally affirmed, subject to the terms of the verification, rather than presented solely as an attorney’s unsworn allegations.
When serious accusations made in such a pleading are subsequently withdrawn against multiple defendants, the circumstances warrant scrutiny.
What evidence originally justified accusing these individuals and the development company of participating in fraud — and what changed?
The Unanswered Question: Where Did the Money Go?
Coates’s original complaint alleges that Dunbar arranged millions of dollars in financing, much of it involving the attorney’s law firm and client trust account.
It further alleges that Dunbar repeatedly misrepresented the status of payments and transactions.
The litigation has raised questions about whether funds intended for specific borrowers or investments ever reached their purported recipients.
As The Brookfield Examiner previously reported, limited records from Dunbar’s client trust account showed repeated withdrawals during the period examined.
The existence of withdrawals does not itself establish wrongdoing. A complete accounting would be needed to determine where the funds went, who received them and whether the transfers were authorized.
That financial trail remains central to understanding the allegations.
The removal of Five Five Plus, Joseph Riley and Brian Tischler from Coates’s lawsuit narrows the litigation.
It does not answer what happened to the money Coates says he advanced.
And it leaves a question that extends beyond this single lawsuit:
How many of the people identified in Dunbar’s financial arrangements were actual borrowers — and how many were unaware that their names, cases or property were being used to obtain money?
Editor’s Disclosure: The editor of The Brookfield Examiner was previously represented by Ronald W. Dunbar Jr. in unrelated civil litigation and has been involved in litigation concerning that representation. Those matters do not involve the loans or real-estate transactions described in this article.