Just recently Wells Fargo agreed to a settlement with government agencies (The office of the Comptroller of Currency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Los Angeles City Attorney) to pay a civil penalty of $190 million over its disturbing history of opening fake accounts in customers’ names without the customers’ consent or authorization.

Government investigations have revealed that Wells Fargo pushed its branches to meet high sales quotas, and that a rampant scheme amongst several managers and employees resulted in accounts and credit cards being opened in customers’ names in order for the branches to meet the high quotas. A Wall Street Journal article that describes this history of this disturbing issue can be read by clicking HERE .

In May 2015, the Los Angeles City Attorney filed a lawsuit suit against Wells Fargo, alleging the bank pressured its employees to commit fraudulent acts, including opening accounts for people that don’t exist. The City Attorney filed its lawsuit under the California Unfair Business Practices Act and Unfair Competition Laws.

The CFPB and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also opened investigations and found that bank employees illegally transferred money from legitimate accounts into unauthorized ones opened for customers without their approval.

More information about the investigation can be read in this CNN Money article, by clicking HERE

Per the Press Release issued by the CFPB:

“Spurred by sales targets and compensation incentives, employees boosted sales figures by covertly opening accounts and funding them by transferring funds from consumers’ authorized accounts without their knowledge or consent, often racking up fees or other charges. According to the bank’s own analysis, employees opened more than two million deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers.”

“Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses,’ said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.”

A copy of the CFPB consent order can be read HERE

Wells Fargo now claims that it will eliminate all sales goals for credit cards, checking accounts, and other retail products starting January 1, 2016 as a measure of addressing these concerns. Additionally, approximately 5,300 employees have been fired over this rampant scheme of fraud. A Los Angeles Times article on Wells Fargo’s recent response can be read HERE.

However, despite the fine and employee terminations and promises of eliminating the aggressive sales tactics that resulted in the widespread scheme of fraud, some people are still outraged that no criminal proceedings are on the forefront. Newsman Ben Swann recently conducted a piece on this issue on his show Reality Check. Watch the video below:

We at Semnar & Hartman, LLP are experienced in handling these very issues on behalf of consumers. When an account is opened in a customers’ name without their consent or authorization, it is without a doubt an illegal account. And when that illegal account accrues fees and costs, but when those fees/costs are not paid because the customer is not aware of the account having been opened, there will inevitably be negative credit reporting and debt collection efforts.

Anyone who has been a victim of this scam deserves justice. We can help.

If you or a loved one have had this unfortunate experience, please do not hesitate to call us for a free and confidential consultation.

Please note, nothing herein is to be construed as legal advice, and is instead hyperbolic opinions on an issue of public concern. Proper legal advice can only be given after a full, and confidential, consultation takes place after a review of all of the client’s circumstances.

The post WELLS FARGO RECEIVES MASSIVE $190 MILL. FINE FOR FRAUDULENTLY OPENING 1.5 MILL. FAKE ACCOUNTS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Recently, we have had numerous calls by individuals who are confused as to the difference between “soft” inquiries vs. “hard” inquiries on their consumer credit reports.

As a general rule, an inquiry is created when your credit report is accessed by a third party. Typically, these third parties are potential creditors—such as a credit card company, an auto dealership, or a home mortgage loan officer—but are also sometimes debt collection agencies, repossession agencies, insurance companies, and even potential employers. When consumers apply for a car loan, for example, the lender who is being asked to provide the loan will request a credit report for the consumer, which is generally obtained from either Experian, Equifax, or TransUnion. The fact that your credit information was used by these third parties will be noted on the consumer’s credit report, along with the date it was requested, the name of the third party that requested it, and the type of inquiry.

Before we discuss specifics, it is important to note that inquiries remain on the consumer’s credit reports for two years. Soft inquiries will have less of an effect on the consumer’s credit score than hard ones. So what’s the difference?

Hard inquiries are inquiries that can significantly affect a consumer’s credit score. They suggest to potential creditors that the consumer is actively trying to obtain credit, whether it be for a car, a credit card, a home mortgage loan, or simply a student loan. Numerous hard inquiries in a short period of time creates red flags, because it appears as if the consumer is trying to obtain more credit than s/he typically carries, and therefore might not be able to repay, which results in more of a negative impact upon the consumers’ credit score than individual hard inquiries spread out over a longer period of time.

Soft inquiries, on the other hand, are generally not the result of a consumer who is shopping for credit. They can occur due to a consumer who requests their own credit report, or a lender who sends a consumer a preapproved credit offer. Such inquiries are not the result of active credit requests by the consumer, and therefore they do not generally result in the consumer’s credit score being negatively impacted. Other soft inquiries may include a request generated by a potential employer or an insurance company whose purpose is not to provide “credit” to the consumer.

How to Avoid Unintentional Hard Inquiries?

As indicated above, a consumer who reviews their credit report will: 1) not cause a hard inquiry on their own credit report, and 2) can see if others are making hard inquires on their credit report. It is important to know that generating an inquiry (hard or soft) without a “permissible purpose” is a violation of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

If you don’t know where to get a free credit report, or what to look for, Semnar & Hartman, LLP can help. We provide a free, no strings attached confidential consultation, where we sit down with any potential client and review their credit reports with them. If there is an error, or an inquiry that should not be there, we can help with disputing the information. If it is not removed with a simple dispute letter, then we may be able take pursue a lawsuit on your behalf, without any fee being charged to you. The FCRA provides for the consumer to obtain his/her attorneys’ fees from those who violate the Act. Moreover, they provide for statutory damages for the consumer for willful violations, even if the consumer has not suffered any actual harm.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE – Please call us to schedule a Free Consultation, whereby you may receive legal advice tailored for your specific situation.

So, feel free to come see us at 400 South Melrose Drive, Suite 209, Vista, California, or simply call us at (619) 500-4187 to schedule a phone consultation to ensure your credit report is free of any unwanted or unauthorized inquires. You can also obtain more information at our website: www.SanDiegoConsumerAttorneys.com

The post HARD VS. SOFT INQUIRIES ON CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Dealing with a debt buyer can often be a frustrating and stressful experience. In general, debt buyers purchase old debts for a small percentage of how much is owed, and then aggressively pursue collection efforts upon the balance (or large percentage thereof) in order to maximize their ability to profit upon the debt as much as possible. Many debt buyers give their collection agents bonuses and commission based upon the amount they collect, which gives the collection agent incentive to put significant pressure upon the consumer to pay. While this industry is a legitimate and legal industry, the manner in which they operate can easily violate consumer protection laws through misrepresentations about how much is owed, whether interest and collection costs can rightfully be added onto the principle, misrepresentations about potential lawsuits, and in the most extreme cases verbal abuse and personal attacks upon the consumer.

On June 5, 2016, John Oliver highlighted this industry and its flaws in his HBO show “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”, which can be viewed here:

This episode of Oliver’s show explains how easy it is for mistakes to be made, because the typical manner in which the debts are sold and bought is simply through Excel spreadsheets with just basic information about the consumer and how much is owed, which might not provide the debt buyer with sufficient information as to whether the debt is legally enforceable, is actually collectible, if prior payments had been made, and whether any legal stipulations had been included in the original loan agreement. Obviously, the debt buyer who purchases the debt for pennies on the dollar would want to engage in as little review of the account as possible, because the more effort that is put into review before collection means there is less profit to be made when compared to the effort being conducted. In short, quickly collecting as much as possible with as little effort as possible yields the most profitable return in favor of the debt buyer.

Oliver also highlights some of the more extreme and disturbing examples of how the debt buyers in this industry can harm consumers through harassment and oppressive conduct. At 7:02 of his episode, Oliver plays recordings of voicemails left by debt collection agents uttering threats of violence, threats of harassment, and even suggesting that one consumer should commit suicide because she/he is a loser. At 7:46, an undercover video is shown where a debt collection agent laughs and jokes about how he likes to call consumers’ employers at the employers’ home in order to put pressure upon the consumer to pay the debt by harassing the consumers’ employer.

Our law firm routinely pursues lawsuits for legal violations committed by debt buyers and debt collection agencies. If a debt collector is contacting you or a loved one, there is a very realistic possibility that they have already violated your rights. Do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights!

The post THE DEBT BUYING INDUSTRY appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Default Judgment against Assisted Credit Services, Inc. for $30,784.65 for Malicious Credit Reporting Violation and Attempting to Collect a Paid Debt amount, even though the client’s insurance company had already paid more than half of the full debt and the client owed much less than what Assisted Credit was attempting to collect. Luckily, the client was smart enough to raise some red flags instead of just being tricked into blindly paying the full amount. Because the client did not trust Assisted Credit to be honest and ethical, she then paid the balance that she did owe directly to the medical provider. Assisted Credit then got upset and argued with her for depriving them of the ability to keep a portion for their collection “services” for not paying the debt through them.

Thereafter, Assisted Credit furnished an update to the client’s credit report with the false information that she still owed a balance on the alleged debt, even despite their irrefutable knowledge that the client had already paid the balance on the debt directly to the medical provider. Therefore, it was believed that Assisted Credit submitted the derogatory credit reporting information maliciously with the intention of causing damage to the client’s credit score because she paid the balance to the medical provider directly.

After being served with the lawsuit, Assisted Credit hired an attorney, but then for whatever reason fired that attorney and failed to participate in the lawsuit. Because a company or other organization cannot represent itself in court and must appear through an attorney (Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993), the Court graciously gave a deadline to Assisted Credit to retain a new attorney or face default judgment. When Assisted Credit failed to comply, the Court entered default of Assisted Credit. Recently, on July 19, 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $30,784.65 for the violations alleged.

The Court acknowledge that “Actual damages for credit reporting violations under either statute can include emotional distress and humiliation. See Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1332–33 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that “emotional distress, manifested by sleeplessness, nervousness, frustration, and mental anguish resulting from the incorrect information in her credit report” can be properly compensated). The Court agreed that the requested damages were appropriate for this client, because she “suffered frustration, anxiety, lack of focus on her livelihood, and feelings of hopelessness” and because her “consumer credit score took a hit after Assisted Credit reported the already-paid debt—a hit that Plaintiff acutely felt, as she had worked hard to rebuild her credit after a prior bankruptcy.” Further, the Court agreed that the credit reporting violations were willful: “evidence of Assisted Credit’s willful conduct in reporting a $120 debt when Assisted Credit affirmatively knew that the debt had been paid warrants punitive damages.” The Court’s well-reasoned and articulate ruling can be read by simply clicking HERE.

This represents a nice opinion confirming that the law and the Courts will protect consumers being harassed by malicious debt collectors who flagrantly violate the law. If you or a loved one are being harassed, lied to, treated unfairly, or notice inaccurate information on your credit report, you should not feel alone and helpless. The law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP are experienced in protecting consumers and individuals in these situations. Consultations are always free and confidential, and can be done over the phone to reduce the burden on the client who may just need some questions answered. Do not hesitate to call and discuss your rights!

The post DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ASSISTED CREDIT SERVICES, INC. FOR $30,784.65 FOR MALICIOUS CREDIT REPORTING VIOLATION AND ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A PAID DEBT appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

LVNV Funding, LLC is a Las Vegas based “debt buyer”—an entity that regularly purchases defaulted (and often charged-off) debts from other entities, and then either attempts to collect the debt itself or retains an outside servicing agent to collect on their behalf. The circumstances under which LVNV operates renders them subject to mandatory compliance with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Recently, a jury in Baltimore returned a verdict and damages award of $38 million dollars on a class action alleging that LVNV Funding violated the laws by filing lawsuits, obtaining judgments, and garnishing consumers’ wages in Maryland even though it was not licensed to operate as a debt collector under Maryland law. The damages award also encompasses the profits that LVNV Funding received from the illicitly obtained money by investing the money in other avenues and reaping profits therefrom. A news story and interview of the plaintiffs’ lawyer can be found here: http://www.wbaltv.com/money/jury-hits-debt-collector-with-38m-judgment/39657226.

Also, the law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP has teamed up with Mashiri Law Firm to file a proposed class action against LVNV Funding and its servicing debt collector J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. based on the deceptive manner the two have been attempting to collect debts from California consumers on debts that are so old they cannot be sued upon. The allegation is that LVNV and J.C. Christensen tells the consumers in their letters that the debt is so old they won’t be sued, but also offers three “settlement options” for the consumer to agree to pay the outstanding debt for less than the full balance. But the deception occurs because the debt collectors are not informing the consumers that, under California law, accepting any of the three “settlement options” creates a new contract with a new statute of limitations for them to sue the consumer upon if the consumer fails to pay the “settlement option” in full as agreed. Therefore, the consumer would actually be in a worse position than they would already be in if they agree to any of the “settlement options” but cannot actually pay the agreed amount in full. The complaint can be read by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one have been contacted by either LVNV Funding, LLC or any of its debt collectors, please do not hesitate to contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights have been violated.

The post BEEN HARASSED BY LVNV FUNDING, LLC OR ITS COLLECTION AGENTS? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

On April 6, 2016, in the case of McCaskill v. Navient Solutions, Inc. in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Case No. 15-cv-1559, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment as to liability in favor of the consumer-plaintiff based on Navient calling his cell phone with an automatic telephone dialing system upwards of 727 times.

As we all know, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits a company from placing calls to a cell phone by using equipment that has the capacity to store and generate numbers to be dialed at random, and also if the calls are placed with robotic or pre-recorded voice messages. The only way for a company to not be found in violation of the TCPA for these calls is if the calls were placed for emergency purposes, or with the consumer’s prior express consent.

Because these calls were placed for purpose of debt collection, they were not for an emergency purpose. However, the issue in the lawsuit was with respect to prior express consent. Because Navient obtained the phone number through a public records search and did not get the number from Plaintiff voluntarily providing it to them, and because Navient failed to prove that she gave authority to another person to use her number for this Navient account, then Navient lost on summary judgment (meaning the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of the Plaintiff that Navient could not defend its case on liability in front of a jury).

Therefore, the Plaintiff in this case has now been awarded liability against Navient for upwards of 727 violations of the TCPA at $500 per call, for damages of $363,500.00. The motion for summary judgment left open for a jury to determine whether the violations by Navient were willful. If a jury does find the violations were willful, then the Court could impose triple damages in Plaintiff’s favor, thereby awarding her upwards of $1,090,500.00.

This court’s ruling can be read by clicking HERE.

Below are some very important points to be taken from the Court’s ruling:

1. Defendants identify no facts suggesting that Plaintiff knowingly released her cell phone number to [Navient]. Indeed, Defendants point to no evidence that Plaintiff had any contact with Defendants prior to receiving their calls. Defendants instead argue that Plaintiff manifested her consent by allowing her phone to ring over 700 times without attempting to stop the calls. (Doc. # 97 at 12). The Court is not persuaded. The statute requires “express consent,” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A), and Plaintiff’s silence in the face of 727 phone calls demonstrates, at best, presumed or implied consent, which is not sufficient under the statute. In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7991 (2015).1
2. Defendants also suggest that there is a “significant question” about whether the -6140 number is exclusively Plaintiff’s to use, and thus whether it is a number for which Plaintiff may provide consent. (Doc. # 97 at 12). The TCPA requires prior express consent to be supplied by “the called party.” 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). The Eleventh Circuit holds that “the called party” is the current subscriber of the cell phone, not the intended recipient of the call. Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 755 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2014)Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2014). More specifically, the subscriber is “the person who pays the bills or needs the line in order to receive other calls.” Osorio, 746 F.3d 1251. Similarly, the FCC recently defined “called party” as “the subscriber, i.e., the consumer assigned the telephone number dialed and billed for the call, or the non-subscriber customary user of a telephone number included in a family or business calling plan.” In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01.
3. Defendants point out that Plaintiff used the -6140 number as her residential line for years and also listed it as the phone number for LFJ on her 1999 application to incorporate the church. (Doc. # 97 at 11-12). These facts, while undisputed, are not directly relevant to whether Plaintiff is the “subscriber,” that is, the person who pays the bills for the number or who is the customary user of the number. Osorio, 746 F.3d 1251; In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. at 8000-01.
4. Plaintiff testified that the bill for the -6140 number goes to her daughter Melissa, because she is on a family plan, but that Plaintiff pays her part of the bill. (Pl. Dep. at 24). Plaintiff also testified that she uses the phone both for herself and for LFJ, for which she is the pastor. (Id. at 43). Because Defendants cite no evidence indicating that another person pays the bills or is the customary user of the -6140 number, Defendants fail to create an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff is “the called party” under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A).
5. Because there is no evidence that Plaintiff, herself, provided prior express consent, the remaining question is whether Newsome consented on Plaintiff’s behalf. In particular, Defendants must establish that Newsome had authority to consent on Plaintiff’s behalf, and that Newsome did, in fact, consent. Osorio, 746 F.3d at 1252. Defendants argue that disputed issues of material fact exist sufficient to preclude summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. The Court disagrees.
6. Taking Defendants’ version of the facts as true, Newsome may have confirmed Plaintiff’s cell phone number to Sallie Mae (a point that Plaintiff vehemently disputes). Under Florida law, however, Newsome’s conduct is not sufficient to create an apparent agency relationship absent some evidence that Plaintiff tolerated, allowed, or acknowledged Newsome’s conduct.
7. Accordingly, Defendants fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether any of the 727 calls were made with Plaintiff’s prior express consent. As already noted, Defendants do not otherwise dispute that these 727 calls constitute violations of the TCPA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants’ liability on the TCPA claims (Counts I and III) is granted.

If you or a loved one is receiving calls from Navient to collect on a student loan, then please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation

The post STUDENT LOAN GIANT NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. IS ONCE AGAIN IN BOILING HOT WATER OVER ITS DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES. appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

On March 1, 2016, Huffington Post Chief Financial and Regulatory Correspondent Shahien Nasiripour published an article that alleges the public was misled about whether Navient Corp. (under its former name Sallie Mae) violated the U.S. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by intentionally and systematically overcharging troops on student loans for nearly a decade by failing to lower interest rates to 6% as required by the federal law. Nasiripuor writes that an internal investigation shows, “In Navient’s case, the department improperly credited the company for modifying some troops’ loans when records show that the interest rate reductions had been backdated.” He further writes,”DOJ data strongly suggested that the Education Department missed thousands of violations of federal law when it publicly exonerated Navient” and “In November, another official at the federal consumer bureau said that hundreds of thousands of troops have been forced to make at least $100 million in student loan interest payments that they actually were exempt from.”

Mr. Nasiripour’s March 1, 2016 article can be read by clicking here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/education-department-misled-public-on-student-loan-contractors-probe_us_56d5d2a7e4b0bf0dab337e33.

Previously, on February 7, 2016, Mr. Nasiripour published an article that quotes current Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton as stating that Navient Corp. is “doing some really terrible things” by “misleading” borrowers, and that Navient’s “behavior is outrageous” and she is “totally appalled” by the company. To put these statements into context, Nasiripour further wrote,

“Numerous government agencies have been investigating the nation’s largest student loan specialist over several years for allegedly overcharging borrowers and mistreating them in violation of the law. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in August told Navient, which collects borrowers’ monthly payments and counsels them on their repayment options, that it had amassed enough evidence to indicate the company violated consumer protection laws, and it might sue the company in court.”

Additionally, “New York state’s banking regulator and a group of state attorneys general are among the authorities probing Navient’s interactions with borrowers, such as its practice of threatening to seize assets from borrowers in good standing simply because a co-signer of their loan had died.”

Mr. Nasiripour’s March 1, 2016 article can be read by clicking here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-navient_us_56b7a886e4b01d80b246b214

If you or a loved one are experiencing unfairness, harassment, or oppression from Navient Corp., please do not hesitate to contact us for a free, confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights may have been violated.

The post NAVIENT CORP UNDER SCRUTINY ABOUT POSSIBLY CHEATING MILITARY SERVICEMEMBERS ON FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

It can be a very intimidating and worrisome experience to be the subject of debt collectors’ aggressive tactics. It is common to experience nervousness, fear, worry, fluttering of the heart with a rise in heart rate and blood pressure, and if the debt collector treats you with indignity you may also feel emotions of anger, embarrassment, shame, and fear. It is common in the debt collection industry for debt collectors to deliberately force their victims into paying the debt by invoking these feelings. The reasoning is that you are more likely to pay the debt if you feel uncomfortable by the interaction, thinking that if you pay them then they will go away. But you do have rights! As is clear from other blog articles on our website, you have the right to be protected from abuse, harassment, oppression, lies, and misrepresentations! Don’t take this lightly, your rights are powerful and you can use them as a shield to deflect the abuse.

The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) has recently put out some very helpful blog articles with videos to explain your rights. In one article, the FTC empowers people to stand up against scam artists. These FTC articles can be found here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/stand-fake-debt-collectors and https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0258-fake-debt-collectors.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of criminals out there that are more than happy to lie about who they are when they pretend to be a legit debt collector, but in reality they are simply trying to take your money through extortion. The most common trick by these con artists is to lie about suing you when there really is no lawsuit pending, and also to lie about police looking for you for committing fraud when in reality failing to pay a debt is a civil breach of contract matter and not a criminal violation. Many times, these con artists also get your employers’ information from public records and credit report inquiries, and they call your place of employment to spread these lies to your boss and co-workers in order to put pressure on you.

The FTC empowers consumers by giving the following advice:

• Ask the caller for his name, company, street address, and telephone number. Tell the caller you won’t discuss any debt until you get a written “validation notice.” If the caller refuses, don’t pay.
• Put your request in writing. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) requires any debt collector to stop calling if you ask in writing. Of course, if the debt is real, sending such a letter does not get rid of the debt, but it should stop the contact.
• Don’t give or confirm any personal, financial, or other sensitive information.
• Contact your creditor. If a debt is legitimate – but you think the collector isn’t — contact the company to which you owe the money.
• Report the call. File a complaint with the FTC and your state Attorney General’s office with information about suspicious callers

If you are the subject of debt collection efforts by a legit debt collector, then you still have rights! We find the most common examples of debt collection abuse by legit debt collectors are when they misrepresent the amount you owe, try to collect interest and fees that they are not entitled to, threaten lawsuits when the debt is already barred by statute of limitations, calling at inconvenient times and/or calling with such frequency that the calls are harassing, and inaccurate credit reporting. If you are the subject of debt collection efforts, then you should still take steps to protect yourself by asking for details of who they are, where they are calling from, how did they acquire the debt, when did they acquire the debt, and from whom did they acquire the debt. The FTC has also put out an article giving similar advice, which can be found here: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0149-debt-collection.

In addition to the above, you should also not hesitate to contact a consumer protection attorney, such as us at Semnar & Hartman, LLP, for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and to see if a lawsuit can be filed on your behalf.

The post KNOWLEDGE IS POWER – KNOW YOUR RIGHTS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Semnar & Hartman, LLP have recently filed a lawsuit against a debt collector out of the McCarron, Nevada called First National Collection Bureau, Inc. for threatening an improper lawsuit against a consumer whose debt had been discharged in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2006. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from misrepresenting the legal status of a debt and also prohibits a debt collector from threatening to take an action that cannot be legally taken. Because the credit card debt had been discharged in Bankruptcy in 2006, the debt had been completely extinguished and any legal ability for the client to be sued on the debt has also been expired by the statute of limitations due to the age of the default on the debt. When First National sent its collection letter repeatedly claiming to be offering to settle the debt and the settlement offer would be revoked if it were not accepted on their terms, then First National implicitly threatened to the client that she could be sued on the debt. Moreover, due to the Bankruptcy discharge, the debt no longer exists anyway. Consequently, a lawsuit has been recently filed against First National to remedy this abusive conduct. A copy of this lawsuit can be read by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one have been contacted by this debt collector, please contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to review your rights.

The post THREATENED WITH A LAWSUIT BY FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The law firm of Semnar & Hartman LLP has recently filed a lawsuit against these companies for some very egregious violations of the Rosenthal Act and the Federal FDCPA. The client was being contacted on a very old credit card debt that is barred from judgment by statute of limitations. When a debt collector is prohibited from obtaining a judgment by the applicable statute of limitations, the FDCPA requires that the collector not threaten a lawsuit, file a lawsuit, and in many instances cannot even imply that a lawsuit is possible or being considered. The reason is because the debtor is not likely to know that the statute of limitations has expired, and is therefore likely to be misled into paying the debt out of duress just to avoid a lawsuit that in actuality could never have been sought.

The offending companies in this case left multiple voicemails on the cell phone for his client, his mother, and his mother in law claiming that a lawsuit was being filed and process servers were looking for the client. However, all of this was false. A lawsuit had never been filed against the client, and due to the statute of limitations expiring the companies violated the Rosenthal Act and the FDCPA by even claiming one was being considered.

Additionally, the offending companies left voicemails for the client, his mother, and mother in law threatening that the lawsuit involved allegations of fraud and theft of services. Again, these threats were false and violated the Rosenthal Act and FDCPA. A breach of an agreement to pay a credit card (or any other loan) is not a criminal action unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the debtor entered into the loan without any intention of ever paying it back. Simply failing to pay the debt is not a criminal action and a debt collector claiming it is a criminal action has violated the law.

A copy of this Complaint can be read by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one have been subjected to similar such violations, do not take them lightly. Consumer rights are in play to protect the gullible and to prevent debt collectors and creditors from taking unfair advantage of the consumer. Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

The post BEEN HARASSED BY ORACLE FINANCIAL GROUP OR UNITED PORTFOLIO SERVICING? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP are presently investigating possible consumer rights violations being committed by RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation in connection with its efforts to collect monthly mortgage payments from California home owners. Such possible violations may include the following:

1. Force-placing into Escrow amounts for anticipated taxes in the future even though the homeowner has a waiver of such items to be paid through Escrow;
2. Failing to send monthly collection statements informing the homeowner of exactly how much RoundPoint is collecting from the homeowner;
3. Sending monthly collection statements that indicate RoundPoint is collecting Escrow items for “taxes and insurance” when in reality they are only attempting to collect either taxes or insurance, but not both;
4. Furnishing inaccurate information to the consumer credit reporting agencies by claiming a homeowner is in default on the mortgage payments when in reality the homeowner has always paid his or her monthly obligation;
5. Threatening foreclosure if the homeowner does not call to make payment arrangements for amounts that the homeowner does not actually owe.

If you or a loved one have a home mortgage loan being serviced by RoundPoint, please do not hesitate to call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights as a homeowner and whether those rights may have been violated.

The post MORTGAGE LOAN BEING SERVICED BY ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: “I detest robo-calls. We receive thousands of complaints a month about robo-calls, and our friends across town at the Federal Trade Commission receive tens of thousands more.”

“We applaud the FCC for upholding the essential protections in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a key consumer law,” said National Consumer Law Center attorney Margot Saunders. “The industry petitions [requests from companies to protect their interests over consumers’] would have exposed consumers to a tsunami of unwanted robocalls and texts to their cell phones.”

“We applaud the FCC for holding the line to keep the plague of unwanted robocalls from becoming even worse,” added Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection and Privacy at Consumer Federation of America.

The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act, at 47 U.S.C. 227) is a statute that prohibits, among other things, unwanted telephone calls with automatic telephone dialing systems, robot messages, and/or pre-recorded voice messages without consent and without emergency purposes, as well as junk faxes and telemarketers calling people who are registered on the “Do Not Call List”. See our page titled “Phone Calls (TCPA Video)” for more detailed information on the statute.

By statute, the FCC has authority to issue rules that interpret and apply the statute itself. The courts are bound to follow the FCC rulings as if they were the statute themselves. Over the years, there has been much heavily-contested litigation over many of the grey areas within the statute and FCC rulings themselves. However, on July 10, 2015, the FCC released its newest ruling and order that clarifies a lot of these grey areas. Many of the rulings are very beneficial to consumers who wish to put a stop to the unwanted harassment that companies engage in.

Consent must be provided by the current subscriber or regular user of the phone number:

“The new user of a reassigned phone number shouldn’t have to put up with being abused by callers for the old user of the phone number,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

One of the hotly-contested issues over the years has occurred when a company intends to call one person who had previously given consent to the company for TCPA purposes, but the company inadvertently calls the wrong person who has since received the first person’s phone number. Courts throughout the country have issued differing rulings, with some courts ruling that the company has no liability when it intends to call a person who had previously given consent while other courts have ruled that the person who is the current subscriber is the only person who can consent to be called upon the phone number at issue. The FCC has issued its ruling in favor of the consumers on this issue.

One of the hotly-contested issues over the years has occurred when a company intends to call one person who had previously given consent to the company for TCPA purposes, but the company inadvertently calls the wrong person who has since received the first person’s phone number. Courts throughout the country have issued differing rulings, with some courts ruling that the company has no liability when it intends to call a person who had previously given consent while other courts have ruled that the person who is the current subscriber is the only person who can consent to be called upon the phone number at issue. The FCC has issued its ruling in favor of the consumers on this issue.

This requirement of consent also applies to the person who is the primary user of the phone number but is not the subscriber on paper. For instance, if the wife regularly uses the phone number that was issued in her husband’s name, then the consent must have been given by the wife as the regular user of the number.

Prior express consent can be revoked via any reasonable means:

Another hotly-contested issue over the years is whether a consumer can revoke consent that had previously been given. Again, courts throughout the country have been divided—with some courts ruling that consent cannot be revoked after once having been given, other courts ruling that consent must be revoked in writing, while other courts ruling that consent can be revoked verbally at any time.

The FCC has once again ruled in favor of consumers. A consumer can revoke consent for TCPA purposes at any time and via any method that is reasonable. That means simply telling the company one time over the phone to stop calling is valid and effective to trigger TCPA liability on every call thereafter. But be careful: as soon as the company asks if they can call you back on your current number and you agree, then consent might have just been renewed. It is best to insist that all communications be in writing, and that any letter from you that requests all calls to cease be delivered via fax or certified mail for proof of delivery, so that there is never any ambiguity or question as to whether consent was revoked.

Additionally, it is important to note that the FCC has denied one company’s request that it allow the company’s to control how consent can be revoked. It is clear that no company, for TCPA purposes, can dictate how revocation can be lodged by the consumer—even if the contract that gave rise to a debt is agreed to by the consumer and that contract gives direction on exactly how the company will accept revocation, then TCPA liability still exists even if the consumer gives revocation in a manner different than how the company has dictated in its contract.

Additionally, it is important to note that the FCC has denied one company’s request that it allow the company’s to control how consent can be revoked. It is clear that no company, for TCPA purposes, can dictate how revocation can be lodged by the consumer—even if the contract that gave rise to a debt is agreed to by the consumer and that contract gives direction on exactly how the company will accept revocation, then TCPA liability still exists even if the consumer gives revocation in a manner different than how the company has dictated in its contract.

An automatic telephone dialing system is one that has the capacity to act as an auto-dialer, even if not used for that purpose:

The TCPA prohibits calls from being placed with an “automatic telephone dialing system” (also known as an ATDS) to a cell phone, when there is no consent or emergency purpose. Note that these types of calls do not trigger liability when the call is placed to a landline….only calls to a landline with robot messages and/or pre-recorded voice messages trigger TCPA liability.

There has been heavy litigation over the years as to what triggers liability under this prong of the TCPA. Many companies use machines that have the capability to act as an ATDS, but claim that an agent manually-dialed the number at the time of calling the consumer. It is now unequivocally clear that the FCC has ruled that such calls are still in violation of the TCPA. An ATDS is now unquestionably defined as dialing equipment that generally has the capacity to store or produce and then dial random or sequential numbers even if it is not presently used for that purpose. Also a “predictive dialer” meets the definition of an ATDS, as it is equipment with the capacity to store or produce and then dial random or sequential numbers, even though the dialer predicts when a sales agent will be available to be subsequently dialed by the equipment to then connect with the consumer who answered the initial call by the dialer.

As it always has, the TCPA provides victims of such unwanted calls a minimum of $500.00 per call as strict liability, and possibly $1,500.00 per call for willful violations. If you or a loved one are fed up with the abusive calls lodged by companies on a daily basis, do not hesitate to contact us for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

The post NEW TCPA RULES ISSUED BY FCC – HUGE VICTORIES FOR CONSUMERS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Have you or a loved on been subjected to debt collection efforts by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC upon a mortgage debt that is not owed? The firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP has recently filed suit against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Bank of America, N.A. alleging that Bank of America retained the services of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC to collect upon a defaulted mortgage that was settled by way of short-sale. After foreclosure proceedings had been initiated, but before foreclosure occurred, the consumers completed a short-sale of the home. Bank of America signed documents that specifically states the outstanding debt had been settled and that the consumers were released from any further obligation for owing the difference.

Unfortunately, however, approximately one year after the short-sale was completed, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC began sending letters to the consumers attempting to collect upon the amount that had been forgiven. The consumers informed Nationstar that the debt had been settled by way of short-sale, and Nationstar simply told them to ignore the letters. However, Nationstar continued to send collection letters and even began to threaten foreclosure upon the same home that the consumers had already sold. Even worse for the consumers, Nationstar had also began reporting upon their credit reports the false information that they were still in default on the loan and the loan had been charged off as a bad debt. This false reporting led to the consumers being denied new lines of credit and has prevented them from moving on with their lives after such a difficult period. The Complaint has been filed in the Central District of California and can be viewed by clicking here.

If you or a loved one is being harassed by Nationstar for a debt that is not owed, or if being harassed even upon a debt that is legitimately owed, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation as to whether your rights have been violated.

The post NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT MONEY THAT IS NOT OWED? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Suffering a significant injury while on the job can be very traumatizing and life altering. Not being able to perform the job that one was once able to perform can cause a serious blow to one’s emotional stability and self-confidence, and the lack of ability to provide financial stability to one’s family is severely unfortunate. Insult to such injury is added when medical debt collectors fail to submit their billing liens to the workers’ compensation board and persist in attempting to collect from the injured employee directly. Thankfully, the law provides protections against such unfair debt collection tactics.

California Labor Code Sections 4600, 5300, 5304, and 5955 provide the basis that the worker’s compensation board has exclusive jurisdiction to handle medical debts that are the subject of a workers’ compensation claim. In order for the medical provider and/or debt collector to seek reimbursement for such services, they must submit a lien to the workers’ compensation board so that the board can determine the appropriate amount of pay for the employer and/or employer’s insurance company to provide. If the medical provider and/or debt collector is not satisfied with the board’s ruling, then their sole remedy is to file a petition for reconsideration pursuant to California Labor Code § 5900 and then appellate review pursuant to California Labor Code § 5950.

However, California Labor Code § 3751(b) provides that medical providers shall not collect money directly from their patients for services to cure or relieve the effect of the injury for which a claim form, pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 5401, was filed, unless the medical provider has received written notice that liability for the injury has been rejected by the employer and the medical provider has provided a copy of this notice to the patient. Any medical provider who violates Cal. Lab. Code § 3751(b) shall be liable for three times the amount unlawfully collected, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Semnar & Hartman, LLP regularly ties such unlawful debt collection tactics into a claim for either or both of the Federal or Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, since those laws prohibit any attempt to collect an unauthorized amount in connection with consumer debts. If you or a loved one are proceeding through a workers’ compensation board claim, but are still receiving debt collection bills and/or phone calls, please do not hesitate to contact us as soon as possible for a free, confidential consultation about your rights.

The post MEDICAL DEBT COLLECTIONS TRYING TO COLLECT ON A BILL SUBJECT TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The U.S. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act at 50 U.S.C.S Appx. §537 prohibits anyone from enforcing a lien sale or executing a repossession lien—without first obtaining a court order—upon the property or effects of members of the armed forces during deployment and up to 90 days after return from service. The goal for such a prohibition is so that the servicemember can dutifully serve his or her country with honor, and without having to carry the stress and anxiety over whether their property back home will be safe and secure. A violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor crime, and can be punishable by up to one year in custody and fines. Additionally, a servicemember whose rights have been violated can pursue a civil lawsuit against the violator and recover damages sustained as a result of the violation in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs of pursuing litigation.

A lawsuit recently filed by Semnar & Hartman, LLP alleges that a vehicle auto-body shop called Pro Custom in Oceanside, California violated this very prohibition. The Complaint can be read by clicking HERE

This lawsuit alleges that Pro Custom promised to hold the servicemember’s car during his period of deployment and promised to safely store the vehicle until his return from deployment. The servicemember then left for approximately 7 months of deployment only to find out upon his return that the vehicle had been sold through a non-judicial lien sale. The lawsuit alleges that Pro Custom sold the vehicle to recover only $2,200.00 for services, and even though the vehicle was worth approximately $14,000.00 the servicemember has not been provided with any finances that would make up the difference between the amount Pro Custom sold the vehicle for and what Pro Custom claimed was owed to them. Even after the member inquired as to why Pro Custom sold the vehicle after they promised to safely hold it upon his return, Pro Custom claimed he abandoned the vehicle and still failed to provide him with any proceeds from the sale.

The lawsuit further alleges that Pro Custom has been continuing to take out of the servicemember’s bi-weekly paychecks money for services performed on credit prior to the member’s deployment, even though Pro Custom seized the property when they sold the vehicle and has recovered any finances alleged to be owed to them for the services on credit by keeping all of the proceeds of the sale. The lawsuit alleges that this conduct is a violation of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for unfair and oppressive conduct, misrepresentations and false statements as to what Pro Custom is owed, and for taking action that cannot legally be taken.

The lawsuit is seeking actual damages for the servicemember for the loss of the value of the vehicle, loss of use of the vehicle, emotional distress and mental anguish for not having a vehicle for the past 10 months and having to beg for rides from friends to attend his physical therapy sessions for an injury sustained during deployment, recovery of all monies taken by Pro Custom for the services previously performed on credit, recovery of all monies the member has paid to the vehicle financier since his return from deployment, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Moreover, because Pro Custom regularly advertises to military members and claims to “Support our Troops”, this lawsuit is also seeking punitive damages as a means for punishing them for their egregious unlawful conduct and to prevent future abuses against other military members.

If you or a loved one are deployed or about to be deployed, please know that you have rights when it comes to your property. Please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and whether your rights may have been violated.

The post MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES: HAD YOUR PROPERTY SOLD, FORCLOSED, OR REPOSSED DURING DEPLOYMENT? YOUR RIGHTS MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED! appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The law offices of Hartman Law Office, Inc. and Semnar Law Firm, Inc. have recently teamed up with the law firms of Kazerouni Law Group, APC and Hyde & Swigart to file a class action lawsuit against a medical debt collection company called Collection Consultants of California. The lawsuit alleges that the company has been attempting to add unlawful interest to the debt that they allege is outstanding, and when the Plaintiff called to complain about their adding of interest despite the medical provider having never added interest, she was told by a collection agent that they were entitled to interest pursuant to pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code §§ 3287-3289. The lawsuit further alleges that the case of Diaz v. Kubler Corp. (So. Dist. Calif. Nov. 6, 2013) 982 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1153-1157 holds that a debt collector claiming to be entitled to interest pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code §§ 3287-3289 without first having a judgment in place and without the debtor’s express agreement to be so obligated in the contract creating the debt violates 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692f and 1692f(1) of FDCPA as a matter of law for unfair and unconscionable means in connection with debt collection, including collecting amounts that are not authorized by law or agreement.

If you or a loved one have received any efforts by Collection Consultants of California to collect interest on an allegedly outstanding debt (medical or otherwise), please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your rights have been violated.

The post CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST COLLECTION CONSULTANTS OF CALIFORNIA appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

It is very common in the credit industry for collectors and creditors to use robo-calls to both cell phones and land-lines for purposes of debt collection. Robo-calls are when a computer dials a number stored within its system and when the recipient of the call answers the phone they are confronted with a robotic or pre-recorded voice message instead of a live human.

The reason for these calls being so common in the collection industry is because it is much cheaper for a company to use a machine to blast consumers with repeated calls than it is for the company to pay an employee to sit at a phone and manually dial numbers multiple times per day. However, if a consumer tells a creditor/collector to stop calling them, then every subsequent robo-dial is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) worth $500.00-$1,500.00 per call. One couple in Tampa, Florida recently obtained default judgment against Bank of America for receiving over 700 unwanted robo-dials in a five year period. Because Bank of America failed to respond to the lawsuit in time, the couple was awarded damages in excess of $1 Million by default judgment. Of course, Bank of America will now appeal the lawsuit, and it is unclear as to how the court of appeal will handle their request to set aside the default judgment. However, the point is clear—companies should respect and honor consumers’ requests that the unwanted and harassing robo-dials cease!

A news article by “Good Morning America” describing the lawsuit as well as other debt collection harassment violations by Bank of America can be found here: https://gma.yahoo.com/couple-wins-1m-suit-against-major-bank-outrageous-002552031–abc-news-topstories.html. Additionally, a news article by “The Consumerist” about the lawsuit can be found here: http://consumerist.com/2014/12/11/bank-of-america-must-pay-family-1-million-for-5-years-of-unwanted-robocalls/ , which also has links to the court papers pertaining to the lawsuit.

If you or a loved one is receiving harassing phone calls by a creditor, debt collector, or telemarketer despite your requests that they stop calling, do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and what you can do to make them stop.

The post TCPA VIOLATIONS RESULTS IN DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA IN EXCESS OF $1 MILLION appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

On November 17, 2014, Judge Staton of the Central District of California awarded the Plaintiff Judgment in the amount of $250,500.00 as a result of the Plaintiff receiving several hundred spam text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), codified at 47 U.S.C. 227(b).

The lawsuit was filed as a joint effort between the following law offices Hartman Law Office, Inc., Semnar Law Firm, Inc., Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Hyde & Swigart. The Complaint alleged that the Defendant—Cali Grown Collective—began sending spam text messages to the Plaintiff in late 2013 soliciting his business for their medical marijuana collective, and each text message offered discounted rates on various strands of medical marijuana. Unfortunately, however, these spam messages were sent without the Plaintiff’s consent or authorization, and despite the fact that the Plaintiff had never once entered into any business transaction with Cali Grown Collective and never had any affiliation with them in any manner whatsoever.

After being properly served with the lawsuit, Cali Grown Collective failed to appear in the case. When a defendant fails to appear in a case after being properly served, the party who served them can pursue default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 55. A default judgment under Federal law means the allegations pleaded in the complaint are deemed true, which then allows the Federal court to enter judgment against the defaulting defendant and also issue monetary relief for their legal violations. A copy of Judge Staton’s Opinion entering Default Judgment against Cali Grown Collective can be found here.Order Granting Default Judgement

Because the TCPA provides monetary damages based on the number of violations–$500.00 per violation at a minimum—and because in this case Cali Grown Collective committed several hundred violations despite the Plaintiff’s numerous attempts to make the messages stop, Judge Staton issued Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for $250,000.00. A copy of the Judgment can be found here. Conformed Judgement

If you or anyone you know is receiving spam text messages as a marketing tactic without your consent or authorization, then you have rights that should be asserted against the company. The TCPA is primarily interested in protecting consumers’ rights to privacy and their right to let companies know how they can contact the consumer. If your rights are being violated, then you can assert those rights in a formal setting to seek compensation. Call us for a free and confidential consultation for more information.

The post SPAM TEXT MESSAGE VIOLATIONS RESULT IN JUDGEMENT OF $250,500.00 AGAINST CALI GROWN COLLECTIVE appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Receiving blast text messages from a company trying to solicit you to sign up for their services, or to enter a contest, or to receive some type of discount or coupon? Then you may be entitled to compensation for a violation of your privacy rights!!

Many people don’t realize that the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) not only protects people from unwanted robo-calls to your cell phone, but it also protects people from unwanted text messages as well!

As you can tell from reading our other blogs on the TCPA, it is a federal law that allows a person to recover $500-$1500 per violation for receiving calls to a cell phone, without prior express consent and without emergency purposes, if the call is placed with either an auto-dialer and/or with pre-recorded or artificial voice messages.

In order to keep up with the changing state of the times when most people utilize text messaging as a quick and easy way to communicate, business and telemarketers have tried to change their “auto blast” tactics to text messaging. The courts and the FCC have specifically stated that unsolicited text messages also constitute a “call” for purposes of the TCPA, because it is a method of trying to communicate with the phone subscriber without prior express consent and without emergency purposes.

For instance, in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.2009) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal held that text messaging is a form of communication used primarily between telephones and is therefore consistent with the definition of a “call”. Further, in its opinion from February of 2012, the FCC specifically stated “The Commission has concluded that the prohibition encompasses both voice and text calls, including short message service (SMS) calls, if the prerecorded call is made to a telephone number assigned to such service.”

BE CAREFUL, though, when you opt in and opt out for text messages. If you send a text to a company to “opt in”, or to receive a discount for their services, or to enter a contest, you may have inadvertently given consent to receive a blast of text messages that you didn’t really want. After you “opt out” by texting back with “STOP”, they are allowed to send you one final confirming text message to make sure you actually meant to opt out. Any further messages beyond that one final confirming message is a violation.

Contact us today to schedule a free confidential consultation to discuss your rights!

The post UNSOLICITED TEXT MESSAGES TO YOUR CELL PHONE? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

A governmental entity known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) exists to protect consumer’s rights. Not only does a consumer have the right to file a lawsuit against a company that has violated the person’s consumer rights, but the CFPB also has power to take complaints from consumers and enforce consumer rights by issuing civil penalties against companies that are in violation and may even seek closure of some businesses in extreme cases. The CFPB often issues reports regarding statistical data that they compile from complaints received by consumers. Below is a report that was recently issued by the CFPB regarding the types of complaints they see on a repeat basis, and the most concerning is that many people complain about being harassed about debts that they do not even owe!

If you have been contacted by a debt collector about a debt you do not owe, then your consumer rights may have already been violated as well as the rights of the person who does actually owe the debt depending on what information was conveyed to you by the debt collector. Therefore, you should not hesitate to contact us to schedule a free, confidential consultation to evaluate whether your rights have been violated and whether you may be entitled to financial compensation as a result of their abusive debt collection practices.

Report from the CFPB issued for immediate release on March 20, 2014:

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU: CONSUMERS REPORT BEING HOUNDED ABOUT DEBTS NOT OWED

Top Debt Collection Complaints Also Include Aggressive Communication Tactics and Threatening Illegal Actions

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today issued a report on the more than 30,000 consumer complaints it has received about the debt collection market. The report finds that many consumers complain that they are being hounded by debt collectors about debts they do not owe. Top complaints also include debt collectors’ use of aggressive communication tactics and threats of illegal actions.

“Consumers should never be hounded about debts they do not owe,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We will not tolerate companies harassing consumers or threatening illegal actions in the debt collection market. We will continue to work hard to ensure that consumers are treated with dignity and fairness.”

Debt collection is a multi-billion dollar industry. It is estimated that there are more than 4,500 debt collection firms nationwide. Banks and other original creditors may collect their own debts or hire third-party debt collectors. Original creditors and other debt owners also may sell their debts to debt buyers. Debt buyers may sell the debt, collect the debt themselves, or hire third-party debt collectors to do so.

Approximately 30 million Americans had, on average, $1,400 of debt subject to collection in 2013. The main law that governs the industry and protects consumers is the 1977 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) revised the FDCPA, making the Bureau the first agency with the power to issue substantive rules under the statute. Today’s annual report to Congress highlights the Bureau’s efforts to carry out the FDCPA.

Consumer Complaints

The Bureau began accepting debt collection complaints in July 2013. These complaints quickly became the largest source of complaints each month. The Bureau received 30,300 debt collection complaints between July and December 2013. Companies have already responded to about 82 percent of the complaints the Bureau has sent to them for a response in that time frame. The top three complaints were about:

• Collectors hounding consumers about a debt they do not owe: More than one-third of the complaints the CFPB handled were about a debt collector continually attempting to collect a debt that the consumer does not believe is owed. Of these complaints, almost two-thirds of consumers report that the debt is not theirs, while others report that the debt was paid, was the result of identity theft, or was discharged in bankruptcy.
• Aggressive communication tactics used by debt collectors: Nearly a quarter of the complaints received by the Bureau were about debt collectors using inappropriate communication tactics. More than half of those complaints cite frequent or repeated calls from a collector and often the collector is calling the wrong phone number. Consumers also complain about debt collectors calling their places of employment or collectors using obscene, profane, or abusive language.
• Taking or threatening an illegal action: About 14 percent of consumers report that a company is taking or threatening an illegal action. Most of these complaints are about threats to arrest or jail consumers if they do not pay. Other complaints relate to collectors threating to sue or attempting to seize property.

Taking or threatening an illegal action: About 14 percent of consumers report that a company is taking or threatening an illegal action. Most of these complaints are about threats to arrest or jail consumers if they do not pay. Other complaints relate to collectors threating to sue or attempting to seize property.

The CFPB took several important steps to protect consumers and create a level playing field for law-abiding debt collectors in 2013. The Bureau’s larger participant rule for debt collection became effective on January 2, 2013. Under this rule, the Bureau has supervisory authority over any firm with more than $10 million in annual receipts from consumer debt collection activities, which extends to about 175 debt collection companies.

In November 2013, the Bureau took the first step toward considering consumer protection rules for the debt collection market with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). Through this ANPR, the Bureau is collecting information on a wide array of issues, including the accuracy of information used by debt collectors, how to ensure consumers know their rights, and the communication tactics collectors employ to recover debts. The Bureau can use the information it gathers to inform future rulemaking.

The Bureau also pursued two debt collection enforcement actions in 2013. The Bureau sued an online loan servicer, CashCall Inc., its owner, its subsidiary, and its affiliate, for collecting money on loans that were legally invalid. The Bureau also ordered payday lender, Cash America International, Inc. to refund up to $14 million to consumers for robo-signing court documents in debt collection lawsuits. Through its ongoing supervision and enforcement activities, the Bureau will continue to prevent and deter debt collectors from violating the law.

The Bureau issued sample letters consumers can use in dealing with debt collectors. These letters may help consumers obtain valuable information about claims being made against them or may help consumers protect themselves from inappropriate or unwanted collection activities. And the Bureau’s interactive online tool, Ask CFPB, contains more than 85 questions and answers related to the topic of debt collection.

A copy of today’s report is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201403_cfpb_fair-debt-collection-practices-act.pdf

The post CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU REPORTS ON DEBT COLLECTION COMPLAINTS appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

You MUST contact an attorney right away to evaluate your case! Debt collectors and credit card companies often file a high volume of lawsuits without all the necessary documentation to actually prove their case, and they often rely on false proofs of service that fraudulently claim the consumer was personally served.

There have been many times where the debt collector or credit company wins default judgment against a consumer and then starts issuing levies upon the consumer’s bank accounts even though the debtor was not even aware she or he was sued because the proof of service fraudulently claims the consumer was served!

There are also many times when a debt collector or credit card company files a lawsuit without sufficient proof to actually win the lawsuit because they don’t have proof that the person sued is actually the person who owes the debt or they don’t have proof that they are within the statute of limitations, but because the consumer was too afraid to appear in court they didn’t show up and then the debt collector or credit company gets default judgment for a case that they could not have even won in the first place!

It is also a violation of consumer rights to be sued in an area of the state that is inconvenient and detrimental for the consumer to have to appear in.

Even if the lawsuit is legit and the consumer has been personally served, the debt collector or credit company may have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in their methods of trying to collect the debt before filing the lawsuit, and they are therefore subject to a cross-complaint for their own legal violations. Many times the amount of money they owe the consumer for violating consumer rights far exceeds the amount of the alleged debt upon which they have filed the lawsuit in the first place.

The bottom line is, if you are being threatened with a lawsuit or if you have received notice that you have been sued by a debt collector or credit company, YOU MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY RIGHT AWAY. Our offices provide free and confidential consultations to evaluate your case, and if we discover a basis to file a lawsuit against them for violating your consumer rights then we can represent you at NO COST TO YOU. We have been successful in having many lawsuits dismissed against our clients because the debt collection and credit companies have realized that our lawsuit against them for violation of consumer rights could far exceed any amount of judgment they could obtain from the consumer.

The post WHAT IF I AM SUED BY A DEBT COLLECTOR OR CREDITOR? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

Debt collectors often contact friends and/or family members of the person who actually owes the debt, and this is called “third party contact”. Third party contacting is usually done in an effort to obtain contact information for the person who actually owes the debt (called the debtor), to use the friend/family member to get the debtor to pay the debt, or even sometimes in an effort to the get the friend/family member to pay the debt themselves! Both you, as the third-party, and the debtor may be able to sue the debt collector depending on what the debt collector states in the phone call.

If the debt collector informs you as the third party that the person they are trying to contact owes a debt, that is a violation and the debtor can sue for monetary relief and a court order to stop the calls.

If the debt collector is contacting you as the third party in an effort to obtain contact information for the debtor, and if we can prove that they already have that person’s contact information, that is a violation of your rights as a third-party and you can sue for monetary relief and a court order to stop the calls.

If the debt collector calls you as the third party more than once, or if they try to urge you to notify the debtor to call them back, or if they lie to you in any manner, then that is a violation of your rights as the third party and you can sue for monetary relief and a court order to stop the calls.

Bottom line, the ONLY legal reason for a debt collector contacting you as the third party is to call you ONE TIME to request contact information for the debtor, but they have to walk a very fine line because they also cannot inform you that the debtor owes a debt. If you have been contacted by a debt collector looking for a friend or family member, you should contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether your consumer rights have been violated.

The post WHAT IF I’M BEING CONTACTED BUT MY FRIEND/FAMILY MEMBERS ACTUALLY OWES THE DEBT? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

1. Try to answer your every call so that the call will appear on your phone bill, as most phone companies will not keep a record of missed calls. Even if a voicemail is left, your phone record will not show the call was ever made. The only way to make sure your phone record logs the call is to answer the call, ask who they are, and then hang up on them!
2. Google the phone number and read what others have to say on popular websites “1 800 notes, “whocalledus” and other website bulletin boards.
3. Take screenshots or some other photo of the specific caller ID, showing the date and time of call.
4. Save all voice messages to your computer, as most phones will automatically delete messages after a few days. Saving the voice message is important for proof of a pre-recorded or artificial voice message.
5. Obtain and save all phone records and highlight incoming calls from debt collectors and telemarketers.
6. Keep track of the following information in a hand-written diary: 1) date of call, 2) time of call, 3) caller ID, 4) Caller’s identity, 5) Summary of conversation.
7. Always send a letter revoking consent just in case you have forgotten whether you have previously given them your number. In your letter, simply state, “I do not believe I have ever given you consent to call me. I am hereby insisting that you stop calling me for any purpose whatsoever.” Then send this letter via certified mail as proof it was sent, because they will always deny you sent it.
8. Then call us for a FREE CONFIDENTIAL consultation to evaluate whether you have a valid lawsuit.

The post HOW TO DOCUMENT TCPA VIOLATIONS TO BUILD A CASE: appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The TCPA protects calls to consumers’ cell phones, residential lines, and to any number registered on the “Do Not Call List” (DNC).

Regarding cell phones-47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(iii):

The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person within the United States to make any call using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cell phone line without prior express consent and without emergency purposes. 47 U.S.C. S 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C S 227(a)(1). According to the FCC, an ATDS is any telephone equipment that has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention. Therefore, if the telephone equipment has the potential to be programmed to make auto dialed calls, then it is considered an ATDS and is regulated by the TCPA and the FCC. See Satterfield v Simon (9th Cir. 2009) 569 F.3d 946. Predictive dialers are also regulated in a similar fashion as an ATDS, because they have the capacity to dial numbers “without human intervention”, as it is equipment that utilizes lists or databases of known, nonrandom telephone numbers.” See Griffith v. Consumer Portfolio Serv., Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 723.

It is usually pretty easy to tell if you have received a call from an ATDS, because upon answering the phone you are first faced with dead air, and then you hear some clicking noises, and then you finally hear a pre-recorded voice message or your call is transferred to a live person. The courts have ruled that someone receiving a call with a robotic message is a factor to consider as circumstantial evidence that the call was placed with an ATDS. See Vaccaro v. CVS Pharm., Inc., (Southern District Calif. 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99991.

The TCPA applies to all cell phones whether used for business or personal use, and does not require the consumer to answer the call in order to establish a violation.

The only defenses are if the call was placed for emergency purposes-such as the City informing you of an impending disaster, which is very rare-or consent. A consent defense to a TCPA lawsuit against a telemarketer usually arises because you previously gave the caller permission to call you. A consent defense to a TCPA lawsuit against a debt collector usually arises because you provided your cell phone number on the credit application or in connection with the transaction that resulted in a debt. You do not have to actually agree to receive robo calls for a consent defense to apply; it is enough if you simply gave your number to the creditor or debt collector. Even if you just gave your number to the original creditor, then the consent defense still applies to a third party debt collector trying to collect a debt that you may owe to someone else.

The only way to prevent this consent defense is if you revoke consent. Revocation can be orally by simply telling them during a phone call to stop calling you. However, they always deny that you revoked consent, so the best way to revoke consent is by sending a certified letter asking the creditor/collector to stop calling your cell phone.

Sometimes companies will accidentally call the wrong person, because of how often consumers change cell phone numbers. Even if a company was legitimately trying to call someone who had previously given them consent, but you now have that person’s number, then the consent defense does NOT apply to you because you—the subscriber receiving the unwanted calls-did not give them consent. In Soppet v Enhanced Recovery Co (7th Cir 2012), 679 F.3d 637, the court held that caveat emptor (buyer beware) applies to a company dialing the wrong number and even suggested that the collector seek indemnification against the original creditor (jointly liable) for its TCPA violation losses.

It does not even matter if you legitimately owe the debt upon which a debt collector is calling about.

Also, callers who have obtained your number from skip tracing (obtaining your cell number from some other source like consumer credit reports or court papers) are violating the TCPA because they did not obtain your number from you directly. Sometimes a company may obtain your cell number by capturing it on its own caller ID, which also does NOT amount to a consent defense.

The bottom line, if you are receving calls to your cell phone with either and ATDS or with pre-recorded or artificial voice messages, it is worth your time to contact us to fully evaluate your circumstances to determine if your rights have been violated.

Regarding calls to residential lines 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(B):

The TCPA prohibits “Artificial or Prerecorded Voice” messages for calls to residential line phones. Auto-dialed calls to a residence line are never a violation of the TCPA, because for whatever reason Congress did not write that prohibition into the law. Additionally, this TCPA section only applies to telemarketing solicitations from sellers with which the consumer does not have an “Established Business Relationship” (EBR). If the seller uses a telemarketing contractor who violates the TCPA, then both seller and telemarketer are jointly liable. If you have done business with a seller within the last eighteen months or made inquiry within the last three months, then the TCPA presumes that you have an EBR with that seller, absent evidence to the contrary. Evidence to the contrary would be a letter to the seller or telemarketer requesting that they stop calling you, and this letter should be sent via certified mail as proof of it having been sent (they always deny that you sent the cease contact letter).

Unfortunately, calls from debt collectors to residential lines are not illegal, even if the collector mistakenly calls a person who does not owe the debt. A consumer’s remedy in this situation would be under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA), for harassment where the collectors continue to call after the consumer has pointed out the mistake and requests them to stop.

Because here is no need to prove that the caller is using an ATDS under this TCPA section. The consumer only needs to show that the call is a solicitation and that seller used an artificial or pre-recorded voice message.

Regarding Telemarketing Calls to “Do-Not-Call” Numbers- 47 USC 227(c)(5):

This section only applies to telephone solicitation calls. Anyone whose numbers are registered on the DNC list that has received two telemarketing calls within a twelve month period can sue for all calls including the first. It does not matter if calls are live, pre-recorded, or placed with an ATDS. This section applies to calls to both cell phone and residential lines that are registered on the federal or company specific do-not call lists.

It is easy to register your numbers on the national DNC list. Simply Google the “Do-Not-Call Registry” and register up to three numbers on its website. You will receive email confirmation of your registration, which you must keep record of as evidence in your favor.

The post WHAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TCPA? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The TCPA allows you to seek an injunction (a court order for them stop the illegal activity), and also for actual or statutory damages, whichever is greater. Statutory damages are those damages specified by law for a violation. TCPA violations bring statutory damages of $500-$1500 PER CALL. This means that EVERY SINGLE CALL that violates the TCPA can bring damages of $500-$1500. If your number that was called is listed on the Do Not Call registry, you may be able to stack the damages for each call, meaning a single call may carry up to $3000.00 in statutory damages.

Actual damages are any out of pocket loss suffered by you as a result of the TCPA violation. For instance, if your job requires you to have your cell phone on, but the incessant calls to your cell phone caused you to be terminated from employment, then you can recover actual damages for your economic loss and emotional distress in being fired. Also, the court in Soppet (see above) has held that the use of airtime minutes on a cell phones constitutes “out of pocket” damages.

If the court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations under the TCPA, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to not more than 3 times the amount of the statutory damages described above. In determining “willfulness”, one can look at 47 USC S 312(f). 47 USC S 312(f)(1) The term “willful”, when used with reference to the commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this chapter or by a treaty ratified by the United States. Although neither the TCPA nor the FCC regulations define the terms “willfully or knowingly”, courts have generally interpreted willfulness to imply only that an action was intentional. Smith v. Wade (1983) 461 U.S. 30, 41 n.8. The Communications Act of 1943 defines willful as “the conscious or deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision, rule or regulation.” Moreover, the FCC in In re Dynasty Mortgage, L.L.C. (2007) 22 F.C.C.R. 9453 has stated “Willful” in this context means that the violator knew that he was doing the act in question, in this case, initiating a telephone solicitation and A violator need not know that his action or inaction constitutes a violation; ignorance of the law is not a defense or mitigating circumstance. Therefore, it is clear that, to trigger the treble damages provision to request $1500.00 per call, one need only show that the violator knew they were making a telephone call and intended to make the call

However, there is a four-year statute of limitation on TCPA violations, so be sure to document your case in order to build your proof.

The post WHAT ARE MY DAMAGES UNDER THE TCPA? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

The acronym TCPA stands for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and is codified at 47 U.S.C. S 227. Congress enacted this law in 1991 with the intention of protecting individuals’ privacy rights, because of the spike in complaints from consumers about unwanted and unrelenting phone calls. In the Legislative Intent and Purpose of the TCPA, Congress found that unwanted automated calls were a “nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call”. Banning these unwanted calls was “the only effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion”.

One member of Congress made the following statements when discussing the need to pass the TCPA, “Computer telephone calls are invading our homes and destroying our privacy”. Consumers around the country are crying out for Congress to put a stop to these computerized telephone calls. Congress has a clear opportunity to protect the interests of our citizens, and we should not pass up this chance.

Computerized telephone calls are the scourge of modern civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out of the wall. These machines are out of control, and their use is growing by 30% every year. It is telephone terrorism, and it has got to stop.

The post WHAT IS THE TCPA? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.

“Your client allowed himself to go into debt in the first place, so it’s his fault for being harassed by debt collectors.” We sometimes hear people make this statement when talking about suing debt collectors. People who have never had to deal with debt collection harassment and who have never had to go through the frustrating and unforgiving process of credit repair sometimes just don’t understand how it feels. The reality is, though, that the debt collection harassment laws were enacted by Congress to promote four guiding principles: 1) Truth, 2) Fairness, 3) Dignity, and 4) Respect.

No-one wants to go into debt. Virtually every debt is incurred because of some form of economic hardship, such as unplanned-for interest fees, company lay-offs, inability to find a job in a tough economy, or even death or serious illness or injury within the family. Hardly anyone actually incurs a debt with the intention of never paying it back. Although debt collectors try to make it look like debtors are low-life people who had malicious intentions upon incurring the debt, this is almost always far from the truth. Everyone deserves to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect, and deserves to be free from dishonesty and trickery from debt collectors.

When debt collectors show no mercy or forgiveness, and fail to treat people with truth, fairness, dignity, and respect, they are generally violating the many laws that govern how debt collectors can operate their collection activities. Such violations undermine the integrity of our society and our economy, and allowing them to get away with simply shows them that they can continue their harassing conduct towards others.

Before these laws were in place, debt collectors would often go to the extremes of threatening people with violence, falsely threatening that the debtor has committed a crime by failing to pay a debt, falsely threatening lawsuits, publishing in the media lists of “dead-beats” containing names of people who are in debt, and many other extremely disturbing conduct. These extreme violations are rare today, but they still do happen. Do not let them get away with it; YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS!

Contact us TODAY for a free, confidential consultation to discuss what your rights are and to discuss the proper ways to assert your rights.

The post WHY DO WE SUE DEBT COLLECTORS? appeared first on Temecula Consumer Attorneys.