Posted on

BEEN HARASSED BY LVNV FUNDING, LLC OR ITS COLLECTION AGENTS?

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on May 23, 2016

 

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.

Posted on

STUDENT LOAN GIANT NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. IS ONCE AGAIN IN BOILING HOT WATER OVER ITS DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on April 17th, 2016

 

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

Posted on

NAVIENT CORP UNDER SCRUTINY ABOUT POSSIBLY CHEATING MILITARY SERVICEMEMBERS ON FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on March 23, 2016

 

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.

Posted on

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER – KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on February 25, 2016

 

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.

Posted on

BEEN SUED BY MOUNTAIN LION ACQUISITIONS, INC.?

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on February 10, 2015

 

Mountain Lion Acquisitions, Inc. is known as a “debt buyer” under California law, as it is an entity that purchases charged-off consumer debts for less than the value of the outstanding debt, and then attempts to collect the outstanding amount for the full or near full value in order to reap profits. Mountain Lion Acquisitions, Inc. regularly uses the Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers as its debt collection attorney, who sends threatening letters to the alleged debtor in an effort to collect for Mountain Lion Acquisitions. It is believed that Mountain Lion Acquisitions and Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers are both owned and operated by the same person—D. Scott Carruthers—as the secretary of state business search shows D. Scott Carruthers as the agent for service of process and his law office address as the same physical entity address for both companies.

The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers has been the subject of multiple lawsuits for what have alleged to be unfair and unscrupulous debt collection tactics, including misrepresenting the amount of the alleged debt, false threats regarding lawsuits and criminal prosecution, misrepresentations as to the alleged debtors’ rights under the FDCPA, among others.

It has come to light that Mountain Lion Acquisitions, Inc. is now also violating the California Fair Debt Buyer’s Practices Act (FDBPA)—Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.50-1788.64. The FDBPA requires that a debt buyer who files a debt collection lawsuit upon an allegedly outstanding consumer debt include certain required disclosures within the complaint, so long as the debt was purchased on or after January 1, 2014. These disclosures are required to protect the consumer, so that the consumer can make an informed decision about what the alleged debt is, where it came from, how much is actually owed, and can also allow the consumer to research the details of the alleged debt for security purposes.

In one particular example, a class action lawsuit recently filed by Hartman Law Office, Inc., Semnar Law Firm, Inc., Hyde & Swigart, and Kazerouni Law Group, APC alleges that Mountain Lion filed a complaint against the consumer on an alleged consumer debt—charged off but then purchased by Mountain Lion after January 1, 2014—and the complaint fails to include the name and address of the charge-off creditor, fails to state that it has complied with 1785.52, fails to provide the name and address of all purchasers after charge-off, and fails to state the nature of the debt and the transaction from which it was derived. All of this information, among others, are required to be included in the complaint pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.58. By failing to include these disclosures, the consumer is harmed because the complaint would not give sufficient information for the consumer to know why and for what purpose he or she is being sued by a company with whom the consumer never entered into any transactional relationship. Read the class action complaint here.

Violations of these laws entitles the consumer to recover any actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.62(a)(1); statutory damages in the amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.62(a)(2); and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.62(c)(1).

If you or a loved one have been contacted by the Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers for purposes of debt collection, or if you have been sued by the Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers on behalf of Mountain Lion Acquisitions, Inc., it is imperative you contact us immediately for a free and confidential consultation to discuss your rights.

Posted on

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST COLLECTION CONSULTANTS OF CALIFORNIA

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on January 24, 2015

 

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.

Posted on

HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY THE LAW OFFICES OF D. SCOTT CARRUTHERS FOR DEBT COLLECTION?

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on December 8, 2014

 

If you or a loved one have been contacted by The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers and they are claiming to be collecting on an old debt, then you should contact us immediately to discuss whether your consumer rights have been violated.

The law firm of Semnar & Hartman, LLP recently filed an FDCPA lawsuit against The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that an employee named Cheryl of The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers called the plaintiff at work multiple times and threatened him with a lawsuit on a debt from which the plaintiff was relieved years ago by the creditor. When the plaintiff protested, Cheryl began to threaten the plaintiff with having him served with the summons at work so as to embarrass and humiliate him and also claimed that he will lose the lawsuit if he tries to fight it. She also began to make very derogatory remarks such as asking how it is he can properly treat his patients as a nurse if he goes into default on his financial obligations, and also laughed at him when he said he was going to hire a lawyer. Cheryl also continued to call him at work despite his insistence that they not call him at work. Cheryl’s threats of having him served with a lawsuit at work were also in direct contradiction to a collection letter sent by Carruthers’ office that promised no litigation within the next 30 days. All of this conduct by Cheryl has resulted in the filing of a Complaint that can be read here

Further investigation into the debt collection practices of The Law Offices of D. Scott Carruthers have revealed a very disturbing pattern of violating consumer rights. Carruthers’ office has been sued multiple times in various District Courts for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for conduct that includes lies, improper threats, and false representations in connection with debt collection activity, such as collecting much more than the debt actually was, collecting on debts that have been stayed by order of a Bankruptcy court, contacting consumers directly despite knowing that the consumer was represented by an attorney, and for conduct very similar to that suffered by the plaintiff above. This disturbing patterns shows that Carruthers’ office either does not care to follow the law or does not properly train his employees despite being sued numerous times.

As a result, if you have been contacted by Carruthers’ office for collection of a consumer debt, then it is reasonable to suspect that your rights may have been violated. Do not hesitate to contact us for a free and confidential consultation to discuss what your rights are.

Posted on

LAWSUITS ALLEGE WELLS FARGO BANK HAS ENGAGED IN MULTIPLE ACTS OF HARASSMENT, MISREPRESENTATIONS, AND DECEPTION TOWARDS ITS OWN CUSTOMERS

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 25, 2014

 

Multiple lawsuits have been filed recently against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. alleging various violations of consumer rights.

In one case, the customers allege that they had a home mortgage loan with Wells Fargo in the State of Kansas that resulted in a short-sale, through which Wells Fargo received the benefit of approximately $9,000.00 more than the debt actually owed on the loan. Unfortunately, however, Wells Fargo did not properly update their records, as they suddenly started calling the customers repeatedly and demanding that the customers still owed them approximately $111,780.35 on the loan. When the customers tried to explain that Wells Fargo had already been paid that amount plus an additional $9,000.00 more, the representatives refused to listen to the customers and argued with them about how the customers were wrong.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo reported to the State of California Franchise Tax Board that the customers earned income within the State of California in tax year 2010, which prompted the Tax Board to issue notices of levies upon one of the customer’s wages for back taxes. However, the customers did not reside in the State of California in the year 2010, and the home mortgage loan dealt with property located in the State of Kansas. This lawsuit has alleged multiple violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to seek compensation for the emotional distress caused by Wells Fargo’s multiple incidents of deception, misrepresentation, and attempting to collect unlawful amounts. This complaint can be read here. WF Complaint 1

In another case, the customer had a student loan account with Wells Fargo. The lawsuit alleges that the customer transferred a payment from his Wells Fargo checking account into his student loan account in order to make a payment on his student loan obligation. Thereafter, Wells Fargo’s checking department reversed the payment without informing the client, which caused him to go into default on his student loan account without knowledge and without any fault of his own. The lawsuit further alleges that the student loan department began placing an unreasonable and obscene amount of calls to the customer and demanding that his acceleration clause kicked in to the point where he now owed the full amount of the loan, and the collection agents refused to listen to his explanation of how the default was no fault of his own.

After a Wells Fargo representative finally agreed that the default was no fault of the customer and reversed the default status on the account, Wells Fargo failed to properly update the customer’s consumer credit report and maintained that he was in default status, and even reported two derogatory accounts for the customer even though he only had one student loan account. The lawsuit therefore seeks redress for multiple violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the State and Federal Fair Credit Reporting Acts for Wells Fargo’s unfairness at reversing the student loan transfer, misrepresentations as to the acceleration clause being triggered, attempting to collect improper amounts, and failing to properly report accurate information upon the customer’s consumer credit report. This complaint can be read here. WF Complaint 2

Another lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo unfairly harassed the customer’s elderly mother during a time when she could not be subjected to undue stress in her life. The lawsuit alleges that the customer had not even defaulted upon his home mortgage loan, but for some reason Wells Fargo placed at least 35 calls to his mother between November 4, 2014 and November 21, 2014 and claimed that they were looking for her son. The mother repeatedly told the agents that the son does not live with her and she has nothing to do with the son’s home mortgage loan, and repeatedly insisted that they stop calling her. However, Wells Fargo refused to honor her request and maintained their persistence in calling her. The mother was recovering from a recent cardiac procedure and had been advised by her doctor to avoid all stress, and she was also grieving from the recent passing of her mother-in-law. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo’s persistent placement of harassing calls to her increased the stress inflicted upon her at a time when she should not have had to be bothered by Wells Fargo. This lawsuit seeks redress for multiple violations of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for unfair and harassing phone calls to both the customer and his mother. This complaint can be read here. WF Complaint 3

If you or a loved one are having to suffer harassment inflicted by Wells Fargo similar to the above lawsuits, please do not hesitate to call us for further information as to what your rights are and how you can stand up for yourself. The playing field does not have to be one-sided in the industry of consumer credit. Our nation’s financial super powers should NOT be permitted to treat their own customers in such a fashion and should be taught that they have to uphold and respect consumer rights! As always, any consultation about consumer rights is done free of charge and maintains confidentiality.

Posted on

LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST WESTSTAR MORTGAGE INC. ALLEGES THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S DEPLOYED MILITARY

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on November 11, 2014

 

On November 5, 2014, Semnar & Hartman, LLP filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California against Weststar Mortgage, Inc. alleging multiple violations of the law, including violations of the California Military and Veterans’ Code and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The lawsuit is based on Weststar Mortgage’s failure to recognize and honor certain protections to which deployed military members are entitled.

Unfortunately, however, Weststar Mortgage treated the Plaintiffs as being in default during the very time period that the payments were supposed to have been deferred, and also threatened foreclosure and imposed late fees and penalties upon the account. Weststar even took the egregious step of insisting that the Plaintiffs pay a lump sum in excess of $6,000.00 in order to extend the maturity of the mortgage loan despite the fact that the military law requires such extension upon the maturity to match the time period of deferment. Bottom line, a deployed military member should NOT have to pay a lump sum of over $6,000.00 in order to be provided protections to which the military member and his family is ENTITLED BY LAW.

For more detailed information, Read the Complaint here.

Anyone who has information about similar or other illegal conduct by Weststar Mortage, Inc. please call us to discuss the details.

Posted on

FDCPA CLASS ACTION FILED AGAINST CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION SERVICE

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on October 22, 2014

 

Clark County Collection Service considers themselves “Debt Recovery Specialists” and their operation is based in Clark County, Nevada. However, their name alone raises concerns about whether they are in compliance with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The FDCPA prohibits the following, among many other items of misconduct, “The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Because Clark County Collection Service operates out of Clark County, Nevada, and when they call potential debtors they identify themselves as “Clark County Collection”, it is very reasonable that the potential debtor would be misled and tricked into believing they are being contacted by a governmental entity.

Moreover, it appears that Clark County Collection Services has a common practice to fail to send required written notices after contacting potential debtors. Through 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, the FDCPA requires all debt collectors to send required written notices to potential debtors within 5 days of the first contact. Among these required notices are certain consumer protection rights that include the consumer’s right to dispute the alleged debt. Failure to send these required notices is an automatic violation of the FDCPA.

Hartman Law Office, Inc. and Semnar Law Firm, Inc. have teamed up with the law firms of Hyde & Swigart and Kazerouni Law Group, APC to pursue a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Clark County for the above violations, among others. Read the Complaint here.

If you or anyone you know has been contacted by Clark County Collection Service, whether by mail or telephone, please call us for additional information.