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

THE DEBT BUYING INDUSTRY

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on August 20, 2016

 

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:

his 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!

Posted on

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ASSISTED CREDIT SERVICES, INC. FOR $30,784.65 FOR MALICIOUS CREDIT REPORTING VIOLATION AND ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A PAID DEBT

  • Jared Hartman, Esq.
  • Posted on July 20, 2016

 

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!

Related Tags: default judgment, federal rule of civil procedure 55, frcp 55, credit reporting violations, california credit reporting, 1785.25, inaccurate credit report, credit report attorney, FDCPA, fair debt collection practices, debt harassment, debt collection harassment, California debt harassment attorney, San Diego debt harassment attorney, Riverside debt harassment attorney, Orange county debt harassment attorney, consumer rights, consumer protection, consumer attorney