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

DITECH MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED AFTER REMOVING CLIENT’S NAME FROM MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

On July 3, 2018, Judge Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Ditech that argued our client was not removed from the home mortgage loan even though the lawsuit alleges that Ditech undertook the specific actions of removing her name as a customer and signatory to a modification agreement entered into by the ex-husband.  Ditech argued that the modification agreement contains a clause that shows the underlying loan still applies in full force as against our client.   However, California law specifically holds that any inconsistent terms between the modification agreement and the underlying agreement are replaced by the modification agreement.  Our position was that the modification agreement only applies between Ditech and the ex-husband, because it is a basic principal of contract law that someone cannot be held liable to something they did not agree to, and therefore any term in the modification agreement that shows the original note still applies in full force only applies to Ditech and the ex-husband subject to the inconsistent terms in the modification agreement.

 

The Court agreed with our allegations, ruling that Ditech’s actions in removing our client’s name as a customer creates at least an inference worthy of discovery and litigation that Ditech intended to remove our client from the loan altogether, and that when Ditech continued reporting to the credit reporting agencies that our client remains obligated upon the loan in the full amount then Ditech furnished false/inaccurate/misleading information as against our client.  Furthermore, Judge Birotte also agreed that when Ditech continued to call our client directly seeking payment after the ex-husband went into default, Ditech engaged in unlawful debt collection in violation of the Rosenthal Act.

Read the opinion by clicking HERE.

Related Tags: