Posted on

Welk Resort Knowingly Damaging Its Customers’ Credit Reports

A lawsuit filed on August 5, 2019 alleges that Welk Resort Group has still been damaging its customers’ credit reports with knowingly false information.  A copy of the Complaint can be read by clicking here.

In essence, the lawsuit alleges that, after the customer fell behind on his payments, Welk delivered to him a letter that offered to retake the property in exchange for Welk waiving any and all rights to pursue him for any deficiency on what he may owe on the account and also in exchange for Welk considering the account as “fully satisfied”.

The offered conveyed by Welk in writing offered for the customer to simply allow Welk to retake the property within 20 days in order to accept the offer.  Despite the customer doing exactly what was required of him to accept the offer, Welk proceeded to furnish knowingly false information to the credit reporting agencies that he still owed a significant balance.

However, the terms of the offer drafted by Welk should have resulted in Welk reporting that the account was closed and that the customer owed a $0.00 balance on the account.

When the customer discovered that this false reporting of an outstanding balance was causing him harm in his attempts to apply for a new mortgage, he attempted to obtain Welk’s agreement to fix the problem informally.  In response, Welk attempted to bilk him out of more than $13,000.00 by conveying to him a settlement agreement that, if signed, would have required the customer to pay that sum of money to Welk in a new contract.

However, the undeniable fact that Welk had already waived any such money and released him from any obligation to owe any such money meant the customer did not owe this money and it therefore amounted to Welk attempting to collect an unlawful amount of money from him that he did not owe!

If you or a loved one has faced similar problems with Welk, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights!

Posted on

Judgment of $19,040.00 is the result of unlawful debt collection efforts by La Jolla Neurosurgical Associates

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on September 27, 2017

 

On September 18, 2017, Judge Frazier entered judgment against La Jolla Neurosurgical Associates in the amount of $19,040.00 as a result of their unlawful debt collection efforts. A copy of the judgment can be found by clicking HERE.

The case arose out of unlawful attempts by the medical provider to attempt to collect upon a medical debt that is not owed by the patient. California state laws regarding worker’s compensation mandate that no medical debt can be collected from the patient directly if the medical services were a result of an injury that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the worker’s compensation board.

Unfortunately, La Jolla Neurosurgical Associates began attempting to collect the medical debt from the patient directly, in direct contravention of California’s mandatory laws. The patient’s worker’s compensation attorney even delivered a letter to them instructing them to cease any attempts to collect from the patient directly, and provided them clear instructions on how they could collect the debt through the worker’s compensation process.

However, they refused to abide by the clear instructions and persisted in their efforts to collect from the patient directly. In their collection letters, they used ominous language that clearly misrepresented the legal status of the debt by sternly warning the patient that he personally owed the debt.

By not only misrepresenting the legal status of the debt, but also by persisting in their efforts to contact the patient directly despite having been put on written notice that the patient is represented by an attorney, La Jolla Neurosurgical therefore violated several provisions of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the Complaint can be found by clicking HERE.

If you or a loved one are being subjected to debt collection efforts that you feel are unfair or unlawful, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights and whether you may have a case for formal litigation.

Related Tags:

Posted on

WHAT TO DO WHEN BEING SUED BY A DEBT COLLECTOR

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on March 28, 2017

 

The National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) has released a series of educational videos to help give basic information to individuals who are faced with debt collection efforts and debt collection lawsuits. The information in these videos is very beneficial, and is information that we are happy to discuss further with respect to any particular situation that you or a loved one may be facing.

Keep in mind that these videos were produced with a nation-wide audience in mind, and there may be laws in your particular state that must be analyzed to determine whether the debt collector has (or has not) violated your rights under your state laws.

We regularly handle debt collection defense cases, and we have strategies in our tool chest that may help you or your loved ones when faced with debt collection lawsuits.

Please watch these videos below, and feel free to call us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

The first video is entitled: “Dealing with Debt Collectors”. Are you being illegally harassed? If you are having problems with debt collectors, watch this video to learn about your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state laws.

The second video is called: “I received notice of a lawsuit, what should I do”. If a debt collector files a lawsuit against you to collect a debt, discover what to do next.

The third video is called: “Defending yourself in a lawsuit”. If you want to learn how to represent yourself, hear about common defenses against debt collectors, and gain knowledge of possible outcomes to your trial, then watch this video. NOTE: Our firm does not recommend representing yourself, as you will be facing an attorney with specialized education and training on how to argue their case against you. While it is your right to decide to represent yourself, we advise that you should have legal counsel on your side in order to not run into a legal minefield full of issues and problems that you may not anticipate.

The fourth video is called: “Was I served legal papers properly?” Learn about one of your key defenses. Determine if you were served papers properly.

The Fifth video is entitled: “I have a judgment against me.” If you lost your debt defense case (or did not know it even occurred) and your wages or bank account is being garnished, learn what you can do.

Each of these videos can be viewed on the NACA website, which also includes very helpful information regarding your rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and basic information on steps you should take to protect yourself. You can find this webpage at the link below:

http://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/debt-collection

PLEASE NOTE: Nothing in the above is to be taken as legal advice and is only intended to serve as solicitation for a more in depth consultation. Proper legal advice can only be given after a full consultation to discuss all details of your particular circumstances in a confidential setting.

Posted on

STUDENT LOAN GIANT NAVIENT HIT WITH THREE GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS IN ONE DAY

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on January 25, 2017

 

s reported by the Washington Post on January 18, 2017 (the article can be read by clicking HERE), the student loan giant Navient was hit with three government lawsuits in one day for multiple consumer rights violations.

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel reported, “Among the most serious charges in the CFPB complaint is an allegation that Navient incentivized employees to encourage borrowers to postpone payments through forbearance, an option in which interest continues to accrue, rather than enroll them in an income-driven repayment plan that would avoid fees. As a result, the CFPB says Navient amassed $4 billion in interest charges to the principal balances of borrowers who were enrolled in multiple, consecutive forbearances from January 2010 to March 2015.”

With respect to the lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said “Navient has systematically and illegally failed borrowers at every stage of repayment.”

State Attorney Generals of Illinois and Washington also filed a lawsuit that, in addition to pursuing similar claims as the CFPB with respect to servicing violations, also accuse Navient (through its former parent company, Sallie Mae) of peddling “’risky and expensive’ subprime private student loans that carried high interest rates and fees”. AG Madison stated, “Navient and Sallie Mae saddle students with subprime loans that Sallie Mae designed to fail.”

As quoted by Douglas-Gabriel, “The lawsuits are full of deeply disturbing allegations,” said Rohit Chopra, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and the former student-loan point man at the CFPB. “If this is true, then the company’s actions may be responsible for some of the pileup of defaults that we’ve seen in recent years.”

Our firm at Semnar & Hartman, LLP has also recently filed suit against Navient. A copy of the Complaint can be read by clicking HERE. In this lawsuit, the consumer alleges that she paid off the loan with Navient in full, yet Navient proceeded to commit credit reporting violations by falsely reporting that the account had a current balance even after it had been paid in full, then falsely verified to Trans Union that the incorrect reporting was accurate, and also falsely reported to Experian that the account had been discharged in bankruptcy…. Thus, it appears that not even customers who pay their loans in full to Navient are free from their outrageous and abusive consumer violations.

If you also have concerns about the way you are being treated by Navient, please do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation.

Posted on

Kenosian & Miele’s Default Judgment based on faulty service set aside and case dismissed!

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on January 10, 2017

On January 9, 2018, Judge Scott of the San Joaquin Superior Court granted our Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Dismiss the case based upon faulty substitute service. Ordinarily, California law permits default judgments based upon substitute service, but only if the substitute service requirements have been strictly followed. This means the party attempting to serve the complaint and summons must exercise reasonable diligence to achieve personal service, and can only leave the complaint and summons with a competent adult residing at your place of residence or usual address of mailing, or a person reasonably in charge of your place of business. They must then follow up by mailing the complaint and summons to your usual place of mailing.

In our case, Kenosian & Miele sued our client for a credit card debt that the client contends was never his. The bank even confirmed via telephone that they had never issued a credit card in his name or under his SSN. It is still not clear how this lawsuit came named our client. However, Kenosian & Miele attempted substitute service at a residence where he had not resided for years, even though all of the client’s public records proved that he resided in a completely different city. The client did not discover the problem until Kenosian & Miele had already obtained a default judgment and executed a levy upon the client’s bank account.

Because Kenosian & Miele failed to provide sufficient documentation to support their argument that they believed he actually resided at the address where they attempted substitute service, even though they clearly had access to the client’s true address of residency through public records, our motion to vacate the default judgment was granted for lack of proper service. On top of that, because Kenosian & Miele had failed to accomplish valid service within 3 years of filing the complaint in 2012, the case was required to be dismissed pursuant to Dill v Berquist Construction Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426, 1433 and CCP 583.210(a).

If you have been served with a complaint and summons, it is vitally important that you must act on it quickly, because California law provides very strict deadlines and requirements for responding to the complaint. If you have discovered that a judgment has been entered against you already, then it is also vitally important that you must act quickly in seeking to set it aside, because again, California law provides very strict deadlines and requirements for seeking the set aside. It is best to have a lawyer help you through this process, because debt buyers and debt collection law firms usually attempt to take advantage of your lack of experience and knowledge in trying to represent yourself.

Related Tags:

Posted on

OVERSHADOWING VIOLATIONS CLASS CERTIFICATION PRELIMINARILY APPROVED

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 13, 2016

 

Our law firm recently received preliminary approval for class certification in the case of Capps. v. Law Office of Peter Singer, et al. The opinion can be read by clicking HERE.

The case was filed October 26, 2015, alleging that the Law Office of Peter Singer sent debt collection letters to consumers with language that overshadows and contradicts mandatory disclosures that debt collectors are required to provide to consumers to properly advise them of their rights under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In particular, 15 U.S.C. 1692g requires third party debt collectors, even law firms that regularly engage in debt collection on behalf of another, must include a notice in their first collection letter that the consumer has 30 days to either dispute the debt, a portion of the debt, or request validation of the debt. If the consumer does provide in writing either a dispute or a request for validation, the debt collector must cease any further efforts to collect the debt until validation is delivered to the consumer. Typically, the validation must involve delivering to the consumer the original creditor’s name and address and/or a copy of a judgment.

This is important, because often-times debts are sold and re-sold between different agencies, and the consumer may not know what the debt pertains to if they do not recognize the current creditor or current collection agency. Providing to the consumer the original creditor’s name and address, at a minimum, should help the consumer to determine whether the debt is validly owed by the consumer, if the debt was actually incurred by someone else and the collector is contacting the wrong person, or if the debt had been paid off in the past and there is a mistake in alleging the debt is still owed. Providing the consumer 30 days to send such a dispute or request for validation provides the consumer with sufficient time to consider his or her choices in how to proceed, and also provides the consumer sufficient time to gather and deliver documents to the debt collector to support a dispute.

Courts have consistently held that any other language in the first collection letter that weakens or confuses this mandatory disclosure amounts to an “overshadowing” violation of the FDCPA.

Plaintiff’s claims in this case are based on the collection letters containing language that attempted to limit the consumers’ rights to take 30 days by urging consumers to pay the debt within 7 days. In particular, the letters claimed that the Law Office of Peter Singer would be entitled to sue the consumers after 7 days if they do not pay the debt or call the debt collector to make payment arrangements. Even though the letters also contained the mandatory 30 day dispute disclosure discussed above, the fact that the letters also contained a threat of lawsuit after merely 7 days of non-payment weakened and overshadowed the consumers’ absolute right to a 30 day dispute period.

On November 21, 2016, the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The class settlement will entitle 170 members of the class to receive $66.70 each out of the class fund of $11,606.16. Class members can opt out in order to pursue their own claim on an individual basis. A final fairness hearing will be held March 13, 2017 in order for the Court to determine whether the final payments should be distributed to the class members who have not opted out, and in order to finally dispose of the class action if the Court determines that finalizing the class settlement is fair and meets all legal requirements of Rule 23.

A copy of the motion for class preliminary approval can also be found by clicking HERE.

As always, if you or a loved one are being contacted by a debt collector, you should not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to determine whether your rights have been violated.