Collection Agency Hall of Shame

Zwicker and Zwicker Harass a Decorated Veteran!

2012-01-21T11:12:00.000-08:00

The complaint against Zwicker and Zwicker speaks for itself:

"I am disabled with a traumatic brain injury and because of that injury I am bipolar. My injury happened while I served in uniform. I have a medal of bravery and the purple heart. I live on a small disablility pension. I fell behind on my American Express bill and now their attorney, Kevin M. Hughes of Zwicker Law Firm, 5600 Bigelow Commons in Enfield, Connecticut, is suing me. This corporation and the attorney know that I'm disabled with a purple heart but they don't care. They want to get my disablility. Corporations & and attorney's like this ask people like me to shed our blood for them, then take everything we own."

American Express should be ashamed.

Accretive Sued in Minnesota for Patient Confidentiality Violations

2012-01-20T10:09:00.000-08:00

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced Thursday, January 19, 2012 that her office has filed a lawsuit against a debt collection agency that alleges the firm failed to protect the confidentiality of patient health care records.

In addition to the patient privacy complaints, Swanson levied some extraordinary allegations about the company’s business practices and its relationship with healthcare provider clients.

“The debt collector found a way to essentially monetize portions of the revenue and health care delivery systems of some nonprofit hospitals for Wall Street investors, without the knowledge or consent of patients who have the right to know how their information is being used and to have it kept confidential,” said Attorney General Swanson. “Accretive showcases its activities to Wall Street investors but hides them from Minnesota patients. Hospital patients should have at least the same amount of information about Accretive’s extensive role in their health care that Wall Street investors do.”

Swanson’s press release claims that on July 25, 2011, an employee of collection agency Accretive Health, Inc. left an unencrypted laptop containing sensitive information on 23,500 Minnesota patients of two Minnesota hospital systems — Fairview Health Services and North Memorial Health Care — in a rental car after 10 p.m. in the parking area of the Seven Corners bar and restaurant district of Minneapolis. The laptop was stolen.

Swanson’s lawsuit includes a “screen shot” that Fairview sent to a Minnesota patient who requested to know the data about the patient that was on the laptop. The screen shot has personal identity information, such as the patient’s name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number. It also includes a checklist to denote whether the patient has 22 different chronic medical conditions and, if so, the condition of the patient. The screen shot also includes numeric scores to predict the “complexity” of the patient and the probability of an inpatient hospitalization, and a box to describe the “frailty” of the patient.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Minnesota, alleges that Accretive violated state and federal health privacy laws, state debt collection laws (although no specific examples are given), and state consumer protection laws. It seeks an order requiring Accretive to fully disclose to patients: (1) what information it has about Minnesota patients; (2) what information it has lost about Minnesota patients; (3) where and to whom it has sent information about Minnesota patients; (4) the purposes for which it amasses and uses information about Minnesota patients.

Swanson also went to great lengths in the announcement to explain the corporate structure of Accretive and its investors, and ties to former ARM companies. But the attorney general made no allegations about wrongdoing in relation to the business structure.

Take Up Their Time!

2012-01-13T07:55:00.000-08:00

This is a screenshot from a "dialer management" system used by many collection agencies.

Up at the top, you can see that collectors' time is measured in seconds, yes, in seconds.

Now, a bit lower, you'll see that some collectors have pink backgrounds. That means they have spent "too much time" on a phase of the call.

So, how does this help you?

Simple. Take up their time, they will get tired of you and move on to an easier target. The collectors' supervisor will chide them for taking up too much time. The collector will advise the supervisor that you were just going on and on, not answering questions from the script. The supervisor will usually make the decision to remove you from the calling list.

Suggestions for taking up their time can be found here and here.

You also need to be sure you send them a debt validation letter. One that works is available for free here.

Most collection agencies go away upon receipt of a debt validation letter. If their computer system decides that you are a waste of time on the phone, they will stop calling you!

Newsweek Nails It!

2012-01-09T08:34:00.000-08:00

Go here to read an excellent article in Newsweek about the debt collection industry!

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-25T09:08:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

Here's a debt validation letter you can use when contacted by collectors. Make the appropriate changes and send it off to them certified mail. If you are lucky, you will never hear from them again.

There's no need to pay for one of these letters, this one works JUST FINE!

Collector Posing As Sheriff?

2011-11-23T07:35:00.000-08:00

Yes, a collector for a payday loan company posed as a sheriff, complete with weapon:

"November 22, 2011: A debt collector for a payday loan shop in Florida was arrested recently after he showed up to a consumer’s place of work dressed as a sheriff’s deputy and demanded payment claiming he had a warrant.

A Florida resident said that a collector at a Cash Plus location near Naples, Fla. showed up to his place of work demanding $180. When the consumer asked for proper identification, the collector showed him his gun.

Cash Plus, for their part, has fired the collector and disavowed his actions. “He’s not supposed to be doing that,” said the store’s manager."

This is not the first time this has happened. The now-defunct Mann Bracken was known to send a "man in black," in a similar ruse to attempt to collect money.

Mann Bracken paid dearly for their excesses-or did they? Several attorneys from Mann Bracken have formed their own firm, Kramer, Linkie, and Taylor, which is already attracting complaints.

A survey of "professional publications" in the debt collection industry suggests that industry leaders are quick to condemn these outrageous and illegal actions. The industry, however, seems unwilling to do anything except talk.

For example, it is widely known that Ryon Gambill, the CEO of the Marauder Corporation, has been convicted of telephone harassment and has at least one outstanding arrest warrant. "Professional groups" representing the collections industry have done nothing about Gambill, despite years of abuse, complaints, and litigation.

The Tale of a Successful Collection Agency Lawsuit

2011-11-20T15:49:00.000-08:00

I Won Against Midland Funding!

This post was taken from our discussion boards and bears repeating and showcasing. The link to the post is: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/306292-i-won-went-trial-i-won.html.

That's right! I FINALLY had my trial with Midland funding. I never posted about it on the board until now, but I also successfully fought off a Motion for Summary Disposition and went through the accompanying oral argument just prior to trial as well.

Summary of Pre-Trial

I believe I stopped posting about my case after a pre-trial conference and just after the plaintiff supplied a stack of alleged credit card statements along with a letter saying I could call to discuss settlement. At that pre-trial hearing I refused to settle, informed the court that in my opinion no account stated exists and that it was ultimately a matter for trial. The judge agreed and then set a trial date. That's about where we left off.

Motion for Summary Disposition

Not long after that (and I never did post about this here on the site) the Plaintiff's attorney filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, which is really just Michigan's version of a motion for summary judgment. For those that don't know, a motion for summary disposition/judgment is a basically a motion saying to the court that there is no real reason for a suit to continue on and go to trial. In theory the moving party is saying "this case is already over and shouldn't go to trial and waste the courts time because . . ."

In their motion the Plaintiff claimed there were no genuine issues of material fact and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. They set the motion hearing for this on a Monday and the Trial was scheduled for the following Thursday.

Their brief in support of their motion for summary disposition wasn't too long but it was pretty intimidating at first glance. In it they cited some MI cases about account stated (which was the basis for their claim). They also stated that I had requested a copy of a signed application, which was true. They then stated they didn't need this under an account stated anyway (which is also true). They also pointed out there is a statute that says the OC doesn't have to retain the application for more than 24 months after the account was opened (also true). They then argued that they only need to show I had received statements and failed to object to them in a reasonable time and/or that they also need only show I used (or authorized use of) the card. They also argued that one of the alleged statements showed a payment made and they pointed out some case law that seemed to show a voluntary payment is enough to establish acceptance of the account balance alleged due and an account stated.

Breach of Contract

I thought it was odd that in their motion for summary disposition they threw in the allegation of "breach of contract" and it is NEVER mentioned in their complaint. I can only assume they had realized I was kicking the legs out of their account stated theory and decided to try to add breach of contract. They claimed I failed to perform and breached the terms of the contract without ever describing what the terms were. I had even requested a copy of the alleged credit card agreement in Discovery months earlier and they never did supply it.

It's weird that the document I thought would be the easiest for them to provide was the one they never would give me. I really expected them to at least throw a generic agreement from years after the account was opened at me the minute I requested a copy of an agreement.

At the close of their brief in support they argued that I had never made any objections to the account, that no written dispute was ever received, and that there were no outstanding issues of material fact to be decided at trial. Those were all outright lies.

At first I was pretty intimidated but I sat on things a day or two to calm down and then I started researching how to defeat a motion for summary disposition. I realized there are several different ways, or combinations thereof, that a motion for summary disposition can be brought. The Plaintiff's Motion in this case was brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) which basically says that: "Except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law."

Objection to Motion for Summary Disposition

After finding and reading many objections to a motion for summary disposition and supporting briefs (there are literally hundreds or thousands of examples on the internet) it quickly became obvious that under MCR 2.116(C)(10) all I had to do was show there was one single genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial. The catch is you have to provide documentation or sworn affidavits to prove any of your objections or arguments.

For example, if in a motion for summary disposition/judgment the plaintiff says you never disputed the account in question it's not enough to simply say yes you did. Just like at trial, you need to have some sort of proof. You'd need to attach proof of a letter of dispute or something similar. In some cases you'd need to write up an affidavit if it was hard to prove something or you had little documentation to back it up. The bottom line is you can SAY anything you want in an objection to a motion for summary disposition/judgment, but you have to have proof to back it up.

In my response in opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Disposition technically all I had to show was that there was at least one remaining genuine issue of material fact for the judge to decide at trial. This was not difficult because I had objected to and denied pretty much everything and everything was in dispute. When the plaintiff's attorney whined about "limiting the issues" for trial even the judge had commented that it seemed like all was fair game and that since I had denied, everything was up for debate at trial.

Rather than just lay out a single genuine issue of material fact to defeat their motion I decided to pretty much lay out all of the remaining issues and any relevant arguments I had to oppose. A motion for summary disposition and any objection are pretty much a trial on paper. Since my trial was only a few days after the hearing on the motion for summary disposition, I decided to pretty much lay out all remaining issues and any arguments relevant to their motion. It's basically just outlining how the trial would likely proceed so it was great preparation for argument at trial anyway. If the Plaintiff files a motion for summary disposition very early in the proceedings then you may not necessarily want to go "all in" and show them your entire hand before trial. I figured I was safe enough that if I waited until the last day to serve my opposition and file it, they wouldn't have much time to read and respond.

In my arguments I went through and picked apart their arguments and looked up all the cases they cited. It's a lot less intimidating when you go through and find all of the holes in the Plaintiff's arguments. You seen realize they haven't spent much time on things at all! I listed any major arguments to contradict theirs in my brief and made notes of all the others to bring up at trial because I assumed they'd probably rely on most of the same arguments and cited case law.

I did a ton of work and research and my response in opposition and accompanying brief were about 20 pages in length. I was a little nervous about submitting something too long but I've been noticing the Court probably just skims things over and most of the work is done at oral arguments. From what I've seen you make major arguments orally and then can rely on your written brief if need be. If the court can't make a decision on a motion at the close of the motion hearing I believe they can take time to read through the documentation in greater detail and render a decision after analysis.

So I must have done something right with my "Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Disposition". We had the motion hearing and the judge pretty promptly denied their motion.

Disposition of Outstanding Motions

The Plaintiff's attorney was the first attorney that originally showed up and who I hadn't seen for months. He called me out in the hall prior to the hearing and basically tried to intimidate me. He said, "Of course the court wants us to resolve this between ourselves if possible. Is there even any point in having this conversation?" I mentioned that the previous attorney had mentioned a settlement number that was just a slight discount of the alleged balance due. I told him based on that number and what I'd seen, there was no way I was going to settle for that amount. I also reminded him that I didn't even believe this account was mine or that the plaintiff truly even owned it. He just said, "Ok". Then as I turned to go back into the court room he threw in, "So you're prepared to argue these briefs?" I just said, "Yeah...the best I can" and went back in and sat down awaiting my turn.

We were shortly called up by the judge. By now the judge was pretty familiar with the case and my face simply because I've shown up for EVERYTHING. Since he recognized this wasn't the usual attorney, the judge immediately complained to the plaintiff's attorney that "It would be nice if we could have some continuity with an attorney in this matter". The plaintiff's attorney just replied, "Yeah." lol WTF? Nice response, buddy.

Then the judge flipped to the beginning of the file and noted that this attorney was the first to appear and he seemed just a little less pi$$ed.

The judge then said he noticed we went out in the hall to discuss things while he was dealing with the previous case, and he asked if there was any progress. I am quickly learning not to talk unless there is an absolute need to do so. (Read more on what not to say in court.)

I let the plaintiff's attorney whine a little. He informed the court that there was no resolution and that I was not receptive to settling and that ultimately "The Defendant feels it's a matter of proofs." DUH Dip$hit. Your plaintiff bought an alleged BAD debt and then sued me. Of course you need to prove it...why would I roll over and hand over money I don't have to someone who can't prove this debt is mine or that they even own it?!?

The judge addressed the Plaintiff and said, "This is a relatively small amount. I know a lot of times in these cases one of the biggest issues is the matter of unreasonably high interest rates and fees. Did your client give you any leeway or negotiation with those?" The attorney said they did but basically that there wasn't much to negotiate with me. The judge then asked me if I had any interest in settling the matter without court intervention because the trial was later that week and "Generally the time to settle the matter is before and not AT trial". I said I'd discuss the matter again but basically there was no way I would settle on a debt that I didn't know was mine and definitely not at the amount they keep mentioning. We moved on pretty quickly after that.

Motion to Strike the Affidavit

Since I still had an outstanding Motion to Strike the plaintiff's affidavit of debt that hadn't been heard, I noticed it for the same day as this hearing. The judge immediately brought it up as one of the issues at hand for the day. He pretty quickly shot it down as being premature. He looked at me and said, "it hasn't technically been entered into evidence yet so there's really nothing to strike. You can wait until trial and then raise your issues then." Out of the corner of my eye I saw the Plaintiff's attorney's head turn toward me and he looked at me with a big stupid Cheshire cat grin.

While the judge was technically right about the affidavit not being evidence, I believe I had a pretty strong argument for it to be stricken anyway since it was a document attached to the complaint that failed to comply with court rules for proper format of a pleading. The affidavit of debt referred to documents and written instruments but none of them were attached. There is a Michigan court rule that says when defense or claim in a pleading refers to a written instrument it must be attached as an exhibit. MCR 2.113(F)(1) If not the pleading fails to comply with court rules and the pleading, or parts of the pleading are subject to a motion to strike MCR 2.115(B). Since the affidavit was attached to the complaint it was part of the pleading MCR 2.113(F)(2).

Although I believe these were all valid reasons to have the affidavit stricken I believe the stronger reasons were reasons of hearsay etc. I was entirely prepared to argue this at trial and just read from my brief supporting the motion to strike if need be. I could raise the issue of not having the written instruments attached as a last resort at trial. After the judge had already given the attorney a hard time I could sense things might be going my way so I didn't push the motion to strike argument. I just politely told the judge I was happy to object to the affidavit at trial and kept my mouth shut and didn't push the issue.

Denying the Plaintiff's motion for Summary Disposition

Boy am I glad I didn't push the issue because the tables quickly turned on the Mr. Cocky attorney who had been smirking at my motion to strike a moment earlier.

Now it was his turn to argue his motion for summary disposition and it was pretty obvious the Plaintiff's attorney hadn't even really bothered to read up on the file or even really get himself up to speed with what was going on. It's almost like these goons think they are entitled to a win just because they showed up and are licensed attorneys and we aren't.

I don't even think this guy understood the concept of how their motion was brought. It was brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) and basically claimed that there were no genuine issues of material fact remaining to be decided. All I had to do was show there was a single major remaining issue pertinent to the resolution of the case for the judge to decide at trial to defeat their motion. He made some general arguments that basically said statements were sent, I didn't object, one of the statements showed a payment, and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment.

I was prepared to start countering with all of the counter arguments I made in my brief but the judge pretty much did it for me. I was trying to rely on my written brief as much as possible but I did rehearse ahead of time to try and outline what I'd say.

Before I could bother the judge asked the plaintiff's attorney most of the issues I raised in my brief. I had to do very little talking. The judge then said, "Well based on what I've seen there were, issues remaining to be decided at trial and I'm going to deny the Plaintiff's motion for summary disposition".

Boy did that trigger the whining from the other side. "Your honor, if you aren't going to award a full motion for summary disposition then at least award a partial disposition based on what issues aren't in dispute." I almost crapped in my pants because I didn't even realize there was such a thing

The judge looked at me and I quickly pointed out pretty much everything is in dispute and we don't agree on anything. He didn't look impressed with that answer. I was worried I was going to have the tables turned on me so I started laying out some of the outstanding issues remaining just in case the judge didn't read through my entire brief in detail.

I got to the part where as a last resort I pointed out that the plaintiff admitted in Discovery that there was an arbitration clause in the alleged credit agreement that if exercised by either party precluded litigation. The plaintiff's attorney jumped on it and laughed and said, "Your Honor nobody has elected arbitration". The judge looked at me and sternly said, "It's a little late to be electing arbitration now."

I replied, "With all due respect your honor I can't elect arbitration when I have no copy of the agreement to even read the clause and see how it's worded." I pointed out that I had asked for the alleged credit card agreement before and that it wasn't provided. The judge replied that he didn't recall me making the court aware of it in pre-trial and I agreed that other in Discovery I probably hadn't. The judge then got mad and said when we set the trial date I should have simply told him there was outstanding Discovery and that I wasn't ready for trial. I realized we were starting to get off topic and that I just might orally argue my way into a hole so I once again played my "silence is golden" card.

I informed the judge that it didn't matter, since this had gone on for well over 7-8 months that I just wanted to go to trial and have it be over with. The judge denied their motion for summary disposition and then gave both the plaintiff and attorney reasons why we perhaps we didn't want this to go to trial.

I've been continually attacking the bill of sale and everything else. They simply attached a paper with the alleged account number and my name in an attempt to make the bill of sale look like it specifically applied to the alleged account in this case. The judge turned to me and said, "Suppose you are right about this bill of sale. I'm not saying you ARE, but for the sake of argument suppose you ARE right. In all likelihood all that will happen is this matter be dismissed and the will get refiled." I knew he was right so I just nodded in agreement.

He then turned to the Plaintiff's attorney and said, "You'd better have someone here on Thursday. We are generally going to need some sort of witness rather than simply having a trial based on the pleadings." It was then I sort of knew that all my complaining about lack of authentication and hearsay were probably going to be right on track. With that the judge said he'd see us on the day of trial.

I couldn't believe I made it through all that without having my arse handed to me by the judge or a licensed attorney. The attorney hurried out ahead of me struck up a conversation with another attorney in the hall. I made my way out to the elevators and he asked "Are you sure you don't want to talk about this?"

I walked over and said "Not unless your settlement number is going to be around a hundred bucks." I did not want to settle but I figured I'd still have a dozen or more hours of preparation before trial so I didn't panic before the judge. I also realized that even if I won it was going to be nothing more than a dismissal since I didn't have any counterclaims. I figured a Ben Franklin might be worth trading for a dismissal with prejudice and saving myself the time, copying costs, mileage, etc preparing for trial.

We never got that far in our "discussion". He grabbed his briefcase and said "Ok. Fine. I'll just put you up there on Thursday and you can tell the judge this is yours" and he stormed off. I told his back to have a nice day and then walked out feeling a little shell shocked but happy with my mini victory!

Although I'm no attorney and it wasn't perfect, I was proud of myself for defeating the motion for summary disposition on my own! It took a bunch of research and a little common sense. It just goes to show what we can accomplish as pro se litigants with a lot of determination and research!

Arriving at the Courthouse for the Trial

It took me nearly twice as long as normal to get to the courthouse because we had a huge snow storm that week and the roads were terrible. In fact many courts in the surrounding area were closed the day before. To be sure I didn't risk a trip to the court for nothing I even called the court just prior to closing the day before my trial to make sure the Plaintiff's attorney didn't ask for a continuance etc. due to the nasty weather. No such luck.

I got to court and the plaintiff's attorney showed up (this time was the other attorney that had dealt with most of the case). I was 80% sure they'd let me get all worked up for trial and then dismiss at the last minute. To my surprise that was not the case. She came up to me and said "Obviously the court wants us to resolve this issue if we can. I've been authorized to offer you a settlement of 50% of the balance plus our costs payable over 6 months. I have been authorized to offer that or we can have the judge come out and render a verdict."

I informed the attorney that I had already had a discussion and threw out a low settlement number with the other attorney at the motion hearing for the motion for summary disposition. I informed her it was only because I didn't want to have to research and prepare myself to argue against a licensed attorney at trial. I explained that I had now already gone through all the preparation for trial and I wasn't willing to settle. I did note that I was most interested in a dismissal with prejudice but it wouldn't be for the proposed 50%.

I politely informed her that while going to trial before the judge wasn't the most pleasant idea, it was a must. I said, "The idea doesn't thrill me and I know you are much more experienced at this than I am". She laughed and replied in a friendly manner, "It's not really a matter of experience. It's a matter of me thinking it's going to go one way and one way only." I wanted to say, "Me too" but I wasn't quite that confident!

We left it at that and that's when the 'Oh crap, we are really going to do this!' thoughts started entering my mind. I tried to push the images of the judge ripping me a new one and this attorney going Perry Mason on me out of my mind.

I noticed the Plaintiff walked away and exchanged glances and greetings with a gentleman in a shirt and tie in the front row of seats and then she proceeded to the back. I started to worry that this might be a witness to authenticate documents or records. Maybe she was just sitting away from him to throw me off. I did NOT expect them to fly in a witness but I had prepared some questions to ask the witness on cross examination just in case they did. I flipped through my paperwork to find it and review some of the questions while we waited for the judge.

The first matter before the court was some sort of basic civil issue (I don't remember what) and the well dressed gentleman I was worried about being a witness was actually the attorney for the defendant in that case. Relieved, I switched gears and went over what I would briefly say in my opening statement.

The Trial

I went into court armed with a bunch of paperwork and all of my exhibits prepared and easily sorted in separate files. I had watched some YouTube videos of opening and closing statements etc. I had also gotten my hands on a PDF file of the juror's handbook for this court which broke down the basic procedures pretty well. I had a basic idea of the order of things and how things were supposed to go. Apparently the Plaintiff's attorney hadn't watched these same videos or read the same book. In fact, I'm not so sure she's ever actually been all the way to a trial in one of these cases. The trial didn't really proceed like a trial is supposed to.

She opened by apologizing to the court and me for not being at the motion hearing but something came up. I could care less and it seemed like the court wasn't interested either. She then started her opening statement by complaining to the judge that she was still unable to come to a resolution with me on this matter. (Just like she started EVERY pre-trial conference.) The judge interrupted, "Yeah, I know. That's why it's scheduled for trial TODAY." I successfully extinguished my urge to turn to her and exclaim "In YOUR FACE!"

She then attempted to introduce the case background and told the Judge the Plaintiff filed an "8 allegation complaint". I was going to interrupt because their original complaint is basically one allegation or claim backed up with some statements. Instead I made a note that I needed to address the issue in my opening statement/argument. The judge was pretty much right with me. He questioned, "8 allegations?" Then he flipped to the front of the file and said, "You mean ONE single allegation in the complaint that is 8 paragraphs or statementsâ€¦right?" The judge sort of looked at me like WTF is she talking about. She agreed that is indeed what she meant.

She then started to outline the complaint and the judge interrupted her. "I don't need you to rehash the entire case. The court has read the file and all the pleadings. It's all in the file which is, I don't know: 3 inches thick?" He then held up the file and I had to laugh a little.

The Plaintiff's attorney then started to mention the statements etc. and the judge cut her pretty short. The courtroom was basically empty except for us when the judge called our case. He said, "I don't see anyone else in the courtroom besides you and the defendant. Do you have any sort of witness?" He flipped through the file and said "I don't know if an affidavit from a . . . "legal $specialist$t" is going to cut it from a legal standpoint. Is there anyone here for the defendant to cross examine or question?" She confirmed that there was not.

She then whined that I should be put under oath. Since things were going my way I didn't put up a fight when the judge asked me about it. He put me under oath and she proceeded to ask me several questions in the most half @$$ed monotone voice I've ever heard in my life. "Mr SO AND SO did you receive capital one credit card statements on this account from capital one." I replied, "Not to my recollection, no." "Did you receive statements from the plaintiff regarding this account?" My answer was, "Other than the ones provided to me in Discovery, no not to my recollection."

She asked a couple more of the same types of questions, obviously doing it on the fly. She then tried to get cute with some weird question about whether or not I received statements about the statements on the account from the plaintiff. I had no idea what the heck she was asking so I politely informed her I didn't understand the question and asked her to ask it again. She sighed and just blurted out, "Mr. So and So, did you have this Capital One credit card?" I just said, "No not that I recall".

She then started to whine a little and said she was "at a loss for how to proceed". That she had provided me with most of the info I asked for. She then followed it with, "I guess the Plaintiff is unable to proceed with anything other than what we've already provided." Then there was a pause and silence. I stood there and realized this must have been her pretty much resting her case on her opening statement/argument.

I was waiting for something like, "Your honor, this is Plaintiff's Exhibit #1, copies of credit card agreements" or "Plaintiff's Exhibit #2 a copy of the bill of sale". . .nothing!

After I realized she was done I figured I'd use a great little tool brought to my attention by MustangGrrL027: the Motion for a Directed Verdict. I remembered reading her victory thread from her case with Midland and the directed verdict technique. I had looked up the court rule and how I needed to present it and how it had been used in my state.

Motion for a Directed Verdict

From reading the MI rules of civil procedure, a motion for directed verdict is to be used at the close of the opposing party's evidence. At that point you can ask the court/jury to render a decision in your favor right then and there based only on the evidence presented to that point. If the court agrees it renders a decision in favor of the defendant right then and there and the defendant doesn't even have to argue or present their opposing evidence. If the court does not agree a directed verdict is warranted, the trial just continues as normal and you present your arguments and evidence.

I was already planning on trying a motion for a directed verdict but I was waiting for the attorney to present her evidence. I planned to object and orally argue a motion to strike for everything as she went along. I was prepared as possible with applicable court rules and case law in support. After we were finished with that I planned to ask for a directed verdict based on the fact that most of her evidence was inadmissible and the plaintiff failed to support its claim with any prima facie evidence. We never got that far. She just put up a half a$$ed opening statement and didn't really present ANY evidence.

After her little "unable to proceed" comment I summoned what little confidence I had and said, "Your honor I move for a Directed Verdict based on the grounds that the Plaintiff hasn't provided ANY evidence to prove ANYTHING at this point".

The motion for a directed verdict really seemed to make her mad. Her response was simply, "your honor we have". WTF? THAT was her big objection and opposition to my motion? I had even paused to make sure she wasn't going to continue on, "Sorry, but last I checked you never even officially entered anything into evidence at trial".

The Victory

After the judge was pretty much saying things were over she decided to continue on and argued that this was a trial that had to be based on the pleadings due to the nature of the case. She also whined that there had to be more to a defense than a defendant saying, "not me". I was prepared to fire back with a description of this was much more than a simple case of me saying "not me". I was going to say how they haven't even proven they had standing to bring the action, how there was no one there to authenticate any of their documentation, how my answer properly listed applicable defenses and affirmative defenses, how each was a very good defense to every one of their allegations, how I outlined all my valid arguments in my opposition to their motion for summary disposition if they had bothered to read it, and how there also has to be more to the basis of a lawsuit than the plaintiff's own word saying "yeah sure he owes this and this amount".

None of it was necessary. The judge said something to the effect of, "The Defendant has already denied knowledge or recollection of everything along the way. He's submitted a counter affidavit. You've had an opportunity to question the defendant and I believe his response was he doesn't recall this card or this debt. Based on that I'm going to grant the Defendant's Motion and I find no cause of action."

Boy did that tick her off! It's amazing how some of these so called "professionals" can throw a mild temper tantrum in the middle of court. There was a lot of heavy sighing, head shaking, and slamming shut of her file folders. I wanted to be elated but I was just sort of numb. It didn't really hit me what I had just accomplished until I was halfway home.

So there you have it. Not pretty but it at least temporarily kept these wolves at bay. As mad as she was I wouldn't be surprised if they refile it. I'm already prepared if they do!

Case Continues Against "Fake Courtroom" Collection Agency

2011-11-20T09:36:00.000-08:00

November 20, 2011: The Pennsylvania State Attorney General's Office can resume its suit against the president of a now-defunct Erie debt-collection agency that ran a fake courtroom.

The personal bankruptcy of the former president, Michael C. Covatto, insulates him from his creditors, but not from the Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agresti ruled.

Covatto, who declared Chapter 13 bankruptcy in June, asked Agresti to stay the civil suit the state Bureau of Consumer Protection filed against the debt-collection agency, Unicredit America Inc., a year ago in Erie County Court.

The Bureau of Consumer Protection is claiming Unicredit violated consumer-protection laws by using a fake courtroom to intimidate debtors at its office, 1537 W. 39th St.

Filing for bankruptcy generally prevents creditors from suing a debtor. The Attorney General's Office is not subject to that restriction in its case against Unicredit and Covatto, Agresti said in a decision Thursday.

The Bureau of Consumer Protection's suit against Unicredit "is an action to enforce the police or regulatory power of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is therefore not subject to the automatic stay in this case," Agresti ruled.

Though he let the Attorney General's Office proceed with its suit, Agresti said the office could not "enforce any money judgment" against Covatto without approval from Agresti. The Attorney General's Office is seeking fines and costs.

The suit is against Unicredit; Anthony Covatto, the company's vice president, whose relationship to Michael Covatto has not be detailed in court papers; and, now, Michael Covatto.

The Erie County judge handling the civil case, Michael E. Dunlavey, had held off allowing the Attorney General's Office to add Michael Covatto as a defendant, pending a ruling from Agresti. Dunlavey a year ago shut down Unicredit at the request of the Attorney General's Office.

Michael Covatto, 50, of Millcreek Township, has declined to comment. In September, a federal magistrate judge appointed him an assistant federal public defender, who generally represents criminal defendants. The assistant federal public defender, Thomas Patton, has declined to comment.

No criminal charges have been filed in the Unicredit case. When Covatto filed for bankruptcy in Erie in June, "it appears that at that time the debtor was being investigated for possible state and federal criminal charges," a bankruptcy trustee said in a court filing in Covatto's bankruptcy case earlier this month.

Following Patton's advice, Covatto invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and refused to answer questions about his finances at a creditors' meeting in his bankruptcy case in September.

His failure to disclose financial information prompted the bankruptcy trustee to seek dismissal of Covatto's bankruptcy, which would have allowed all his creditors to pursue him for debts.

Agresti a week ago declined to dismiss the case, with conditions. He said the law allows a debtor to cite the Fifth Amendment in a bankruptcy case, but he said the debtor still must provide certain pertinent financial information or risk the dismissal of the case. With those guidelines in place, Agresti agreed to reschedule the creditors' meeting for Covatto.

In filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, Covatto valued his assets at $122,991, and listed liabilities of $272,663.

Covatto on Aug. 8 submitted a proposed bankruptcy plan in which he would pay creditors $975 a month for two years. The plan was the subject of the meeting in September, when he invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Regent Asset Management CLOSED and FINED in Colorado

2011-11-18T09:56:00.000-08:00

November 16, 2011: Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced on Tuesday that his state has secured a court order barring a Denver-based debt collection agency and its CEO from engaging in the unlicensed collection of debt in Colorado.

Additionally, Regent Asset Management Solutions Inc. and Michael Scata must pay the state $70,000 in civil penalties for alleged violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The preliminary injunction enjoins Regent, its officers, directors and employees from engaging, directly or indirectly, in consumer debt collection or otherwise acting as a collection agency without a license or otherwise committing any of the acts, conduct, transactions or violations described in the state's complaint or otherwise violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and from engaging in deceptive trade practices in the course of their business activities in violation of the CCPA.

The order is the result a lawsuit Suthers' office filed against Regent Asset Management Solutions and its CEO in December alleging that the company collected debts from Colorado consumers after its license expired in July 2010. Suthers' office also alleged that the company did not provide consumers with evidence of the debts it was attempting to collect.

As a result of these alleged activities, consumers were left with little to no information on how to determine the accuracy of their debts.

Collection Agency Threatens To Exhume Dead Daughter To Collect Funeral Debt!

2011-11-18T09:09:00.000-08:00

The Federal Trade Commission filed complaints against seven debt collection companies in California for making fake threats to consumers who owed money that they had been sued or could be arrested if they did not pay, at times threatening their employers and family members.

The complaints are part of a crackdown on debt collectors, including one company that allegedly threatened one woman in Illinois who could not pay for her daughter's funeral to "dig her daughter up" and made threats to "eat" her dog.

Debt collectors generate more complaints to the FTC than any other industry, according to government agency. Last year, there were 144,159 filings against collection companies, the second largest category of complaints to the FTC. There were 250,854 identity theft related complaints last year, or 19 percent of all complaints.

Last month, the FTC filed a complaint against Rumson, Bolling & Associates, based in Van Nuys, Calif., for allegedly making abusive calls to debtors, including the Illinois woman who reportedly owed money after her daughter's funeral. The company also threatened to use "violence or other criminal means" to harm the alleged debtors, including calling them "deadbeat," "white trash," "piece of crap," "crackerhead," "scumbag," and "lowlife."

The Central district court in California granted a temporary restraining order which became a preliminary injunction against the business.

Christopher Pitet, an attorney for all but one of the defendants listed in the complaint, said when given the opportunity to provide court with evidence, they will show that they committed a "substantial amount of resources" to comply with the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

"If there are instances where employees did not comply with the Act and mistreated debtors or did the things alleged in the FTC's complaint, I will be the first to say to say those things never should have happened under any circumstance," Pitet said.

Regarding the incident in which a caller threatened the woman in Missouri, Pitet said, "if it happened it's certainly outrageous."

"My understanding is the individual who is alleged to have done that specific incident was terminated immediately," he said.

The filing states that during the calls to the woman, associates told her they were going to dig her daughter up and hang her from a tree, if she did not pay the debt. The filing also states they threatened to have her "dog arrested...shoot him up...and eat him."

They also allegedly said to her, "are you going to pay this bill right now...or am I going to have to kill you?"

The filing states the defendants attempted to collect money from a woman who fell behind on her debt to a funeral home after both her sons died within a week of each other, allegedly calling her a "deadbeat" and asking how she would feel if her son's body was dug up and dropped outside her door.

Pitet said a receiver has asked the court for permission to shut down the business, which the defendants have opposed. The defendants are awaiting a ruling from the court.

The most recent filing from Oct. 11 is against the seven companies and two individuals. The U.S. district court for the Central district of California granted the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) request for a temporary restraining order against the companies and two individuals.

Rincon Management Services, based in Corona, Calif., and six other companies together operated a collection scheme in which a "key element" was to "make the consumer believe that a lawsuit has been filed, or will soon be filed against him," according to the suit. When calling debtors, their family members, neighbors, friends or employers, a collector often posed as a process server, a lawyer, or an employee of a law office handling a lawsuit against the person. The companies instructed their collectors not to call the consumer directly, "but to call the consumer's current employer or a family member" to "apply pressure and create a sense of urgency."

The caller represented to victims that they could "settle" the case by making an immediate payment, though no lawsuit had been filed or would be filed against the person, according to the filing.

The company had written scripts, according to the FTC, which included rebuttal instructions if an employer who answered the phone refused to provide more information.

One script instructed the caller to say, "Look I am trying to help your company. This matter is serious and will cause problems at the job. Grab a pen and get this redirected to the employees [sic] home."

If the employer still refused, the caller was instructed to say, "What is your name and your position in the company? We will document for the record that you made the decision for the [debtor] to be served at his place of employment."

Some scripts were also written in Spanish, according to the filing.

If the debtors were driving cars at the time of the call, the caller was instructed to say, "I suggest you pull over. This is time sensitive and since you are not at the service location it will be noted as a failure to serve."

Attorneys for Rincon Management could not be immediately reached for comment.

Georgia CLOSES DOWN Nelson, Hirsch & Associates

2011-11-10T08:00:00.000-08:00

November 8, 2011: Nelson, Hirsch & Associates, Inc., a Georgia debt collections company, and its owner, Tanya Santiago, have entered into an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the Governor’s Office of Consumer Protection (OCP), resolving charges that the company committed multiple violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. OCP’s investigation stemmed from a series of reports from consumers that Nelson, Hirsch & Associates harassed and deceived them by:

Failing to disclose that it was a debt collector attempting to collect a debt;

Threatening consumers with arrest, imprisonment or charges of fraud if they did not pay the debt;

Refusing to send consumers written proof of the debt owed;

Collecting more than the amount owed or authorized;

Threatening to call the consumer’s employer and have the consumer’s wages garnished;

Falsely representing to consumers that it was affiliated with a law firm and/or that the caller was a fraud investigator;

Continuing to contact consumers even after they told the company to stop calling them;

Calling consumers at unusual hours (e.g. before 8:00am or after 9:00pm);

Calling consumers at work when they knew their employers prohibited such contact;

Speaking to consumers in a harassing and abusive manner;

Threatening consumers’ family members;

Calling repeatedly (sometimes as much as 50 times a day)

Under the Assurance, Nelson, Hirsch & Associates and Ms. Santiago are required to cease business operations. Further, Ms. Santiago must refrain from engaging in any aspect of debt collection activities in Georgia or in connection with Georgia consumers for a period of at least five years. In addition, the company and Ms. Santiago will forego collection of 5,809 consumer accounts that they had purchased from creditors who had previously written off the debts. These accounts total $4,307,658. The company must also pay a $26,000 civil penalty and reimburse OCP for investigative and legal expenses in the amount of $24,000.

“We are sending a strong and clear message that this kind of abuse and harassment of consumers, and the egregious disregard for the law that these practices typify will not be tolerated,” says John Sours, Administrator of the Governor’s Office of Consumer Protection.

Collection Agency UPSET About Justia Listing!

2011-11-07T14:14:00.000-08:00

In a "professional" publication for the collections industry, there's a story about how a collection agency hired a search engine optimization firm as they were upset that a court case they were involved in was appearing on "page 1" Google searches on the name of the collection agency.

Justia aggregates all publicly available data on court cases-data people have the right to know.

Now, there are undoubtedly some malicious or frivolous actions filed against collection agencies, but, if the collection agency had done nothing wrong, why did they mind the listing of the lawsuit? The collection agency claimed the information was "negative"-how could it be negative if the case had not yet been decided?

Could it be they had something to be ashamed of, or, like some collection agencies, do they settle before trial to avoid embarrassing disclosure in discovery?

The moral of the story is: publicize what collection agencies do. They do not like publicity, they do not like the free exchange of information!

LVNV and Resurgent Capital: Closed Down in Maryland

2011-11-01T10:09:00.000-07:00

Good News from Maryland-LVNV and Resurgent Capital have been CLOSED DOWN!

The Maryland Department of Labor’s (DLLR) Office of Financial Regulation (FinReg) announced last week that summary orders to cease and desist and summary suspensions of collection agency licenses were issued in a case against LVNV Funding LLC and Resurgent Capital Services L.P.

The State Collection Agency Licensing Board in FinReg said that it found grounds to allege that LVNV and Resurgent engaged in acts or practices constituting violations of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (MCALA), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).In a press release, DLLR said that many of the debt collection lawsuits filed by the companies came before it was properly licensed in the state. In addition, the agency accused LVNV and Resurgent of knowingly filing false, deceptive or deficient affidavits; intentionally misrepresenting the amount of the consumer claims; and knowingly collecting unauthorized attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest at unauthorized rates.

“Consumer debt purchasers are increasingly using the court system to pursue consumer claims in default,” said Deputy Commissioner Anne Balcer Norton. “It is the objective of the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to ensure that businesses involved in this type of debt adhere to licensing requirements and the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedures, as well as to the federal and State debt collection laws.”

Luke Umstetter, Senior Corporate Counsel for Resurgent Capital Services complained about the sitaution.

“We work extremely hard to treat all consumers fairly and with respect,” Umstetter said. “Our successful compliance with both the letter and spirit of all applicable laws and regulations – including maintaining all appropriate licenses and adhering to all state and federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the industry’s constantly shifting regulatory landscape – requires that we remain vigilant in our constant consultation with our local counsel and regulatory authorities for guidance. Given our extensive efforts to operate in a compliant, ethical and sensitive manner, we are very disappointed with any allegations to the contrary and look forward to resolving this matter with the State of Maryland as expeditiously as possible.”

The licensing of debt buyers and collectors in the state of Maryland has been a source of confusion for many operating there, primarily due to contradictory statements from various state agencies.

This was highlighted in the recent settlement of a private class action suit brought against LVNV in Maryland. “In interpreting an amended statutory provision, LVNV relied on specific guidance from Maryland’s licensing agency, legal counsel, and trade organizations in forming the belief that they did not need to obtain a debt collection license in Maryland,” the company said. “Unfortunately, later interpretation of the statutory language by other parties has called this into question.”

The company said at the time that it decided to settle rather than face an uncertain interpretation in the court that would ultimately rule on the case.

Small Banks Suffering From Bailouts!

2011-10-27T07:45:00.000-07:00

October 27, 2011: Hundreds of struggling small community banks could be stuck in the federal government's much-maligned bank bailout program, a watchdog agency warned in a report released Thursday.

The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) warned the Treasury Department that it should come up with a "clear TARP exit" plan to help small banks get out the federal bank bailout program.

"Despite the dramatic efforts to expedite the largest banks' exit from TARP, there appears to be no corresponding concrete plan for community banks' exit from TARP," said Christy Romero, the acting special inspector general for TARP, in a quarterly report to Congress.

Treasury disputed the inspector general's warning and said it has "metrics to guide our decision-making to insure that taxpayers and the institutions are being treated equitably," said Timothy Massad, Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability in response to the inspector general's concerns about small banks.

TARP is the $700 billion bailout program that Congress passed at the height of the financial crisis in the fall of 2008.

Only $245 billion was actually used to help some 700 banks, according to Treasury. As of Sept. 30, most of the bank bailouts had been paid back. Indeed, Treasury often touts that when you count dividends and interest, taxpayers got back $257 billion, a $13 billion profit. The banks receiving the lion's share of the bailout money were Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo. All have been guilty of some level of abuse, including improper collection practices, of the bailout funds they received.

SigTARP says taxpayers are still out $186.8 billion, from bailouts made to American Insurance Group (AIG, Fortune 500) and Chrysler, as well as other programs aimed at helping homeowners with underwater mortgages, small businesses and the automakers.

But SigTARP is particularly concerned about the health of some 400 small and medium-sized community banks that have yet to pay off their bailout loans.

More troubling, SigTARP says, nearly half of those banks -- 193 -- have missed making dividend and interest payments -- meaning the federal government hasn't collected $357 million that was due to taxpayers.

Of that group of small banks that missed payments, 72 banks had missed six or more dividend or interest payments. Another 20 banks had missed five dividend payments, SigTARP reported..

SigTARP warns that missed payments may only get worse come the fall of 2013, when the small banks will have to pay a 9% dividend rate instead of the current 5% dividend rate.

"SigTARP is concerned that when the dividend rate increases, many of these banks will remain in TARP but still will be unable to access new capital," the report said. "Many will have no means either to exit TARP or to pay their required dividend payments."

Treasury said that possible future missed payments won't push these banks to default on what they owe to taxpayers or fail.

This is not the first time a watchdog has sounded the alarm about TARP's power to aid smaller banks.

In July 2010, the now disbanded Congressional Oversight Panel, then headed by Elizabeth Warren, warned that TARP had made little difference in the health of small banks.

Get OUT of Intelius!

2011-10-26T11:42:00.000-07:00

Go here to learn how to "opt-out" of Intelius. The opt-out request was sent on October 13, 2011, and a confirmation was received.

On October 26, they completed the request:

You need to do this right now, as Intelius is a preferred tool of collection agencies and other snoops…

Minnesota Cracks Down on Criminal Debt Collectors!

2011-10-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

Recent media attention on purported hardened criminals employed in the debt collection industry prompted Minnesota to commence enforcement actions against several national collection agencies and issue nearly $1 million in fines. In these actions, Minnesota is seeking to emphasize its interpretation of the law and require collection agencies to conduct annual background searches on all registered debt collectors. At least one other State has similar individual debt collector requirements.

In December 2010, the StarTribune newspaper published an article alleging that hundreds of “convicted criminals” were employed in the collection industry. The Minnesota Department of Commerce (MN DOC) responded by commencing investigations of the collection agencies named in the newspaper article. On October 6, 2011, the MN DOC issued a press release announcing it had secured consent orders and fines in excess of $930,000.00 arising from its investigations.

All collection agencies and their individual collectors who collect from Minnesota consumers -- regardless of where the collector is located -- must register annually with the MN DOC. The MN DOC sought to highlight the nationwide scope of the Minnesota registration law with its enforcement actions and fines announced against collection agencies across the country.

Minnesota law disqualifies from individual collector registration any person who:

“Within the past five years, [has] been convicted in any court of fraud or any felony or [has] been convicted of or had judgment entered against them in any court for failure to account to a client or customer for money or property collected by them for the client or customer.”

The Minnesota statute also disqualifies from individual collector registration any attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended or revoked for a period of five years after the date of such suspension or revocation.

Further, the MN DOC recently took the position that an individual with any type of unpaid civil judgment is “financially irresponsible” and thus disqualified from working as a debt collector. Thus, an individual with a civil judgment arising from, for instance, an unpaid medical bill for a dependent would be disqualified from working as a debt collector. This novel interpretation of the statute has the potential to disqualify numerous individuals from working in the collection industry.

Minnesota law places the burden on the collection agency to screen prospective employees to ensure that they are qualified to register as collectors before the registration is filed with the State. Failure to establish employee screening procedures will subject the collection agency to an enforcement action. In addition, the MN DOC takes the position that collection agencies must conduct background investigations on current employee collectors ANNUALLY to qualify for renewal of the registration. This annual background investigation requirement is contrary to the plain language of the collection agency statute, but agencies are subject to audits, disciplinary actions and substantial fines for failure to comply with the MN DOC requirements.

In addition to the screening requirements, the law also requires that a collection agency give notice to the MN DOC within 10 days of terminating an individual collector for violating the requirements of the collection agency statute. The MN DOC has been combing through its records recently to determine which agencies have been complying with this requirement.

Idaho law has similar debt collector registration requirements. Under the Idaho statute, an individual is disqualified from debt collector registration if the individual “Has been convicted of, or a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a withheld judgment for any felony, or for a misdemeanor involving financial wrongdoing or moral turpitude. . .” This law, and the Idaho annual registration forms for debt collectors, appear to require annual background searches on individual debt collectors registering in that state as well.

This is good news for consumers.

This is potentially very bad news for the likes of Ryon Gambill, and his companies, Bill Collector in a Box and Marauder Corporation.

Gambill has a misdemeanor conviction for telephone harassment in California. He also has an outstanding arrest warrant for the same offense in Virginia.

Even though these might not disqualify Gambill under the current Minnesota law, it is possible that other jurisdictions could enact more stringent legislation that would certainly disqualify individuals such as Gambill due to the nature of their convictions, which involved offenses committed as a part of collection activities.

This is also bad news for Experian. Experian is facing stiff criticism for continuing to make its databases available to the likes of Gambill. Critics assert that this practice encourages not only collection abuse but is also an easy avenue to rampant identity theft.

The FTC Fines West Asset Management and Allied Interstate (iQor)

2011-10-13T12:23:00.000-07:00

The FTC has levied hefty fines against two debt collection firms that were contracted by the U.S. Department of Education to chase down delinquent student-loan borrowers.

The two companies, West Asset Management and Allied Interstate (iQor), were fined a total of more than $4.5 million dollars for “using abusive language with consumers, making illegal threats and committing other violations of the law.”

In addition, West Asset Management “also allegedly withdrew funds from consumers’ bank accounts or charged their credit cards without consent,” the FTC charged.

Take action! Contact your elected representatives and let them know that you do not approve of these abuses!

Intelius Offers New Opt-Out Method!

2011-10-13T09:26:00.000-07:00

You can now "opt out" of Intelius online by going here.

You should do this RIGHT NOW.

Intelius, which is not particularly accurate, is a favorite tool of collection agencies. If you are not in Intelius, they may not be able to find you!

You could get a same day confirmation response like this one:

Do Not Use Post-Dated Checks!

2011-10-11T18:04:00.000-07:00

Here is one way collection agencies view people:

Debtors with Willingness but no Ability to Pay – Probably the group that has expanded the most since 2008, these are people who really to want to honor their obligations but honestly do not have the resources to do so. Unemployment is the main driver here. Legitimate members of this group naturally engender empathy from collectors, and as a strategy, recovery efforts should focus on an empathetic approach. More long-term payment plans, post-dated checks, and patience will do the trick.

The empathy is wonderful but the reference to post-dated checks is a snake in the grass. This article, from a "professional" accounts receivable publication, fails to mention the restrictions on post-dated checks.

The best approach is not to use them. If the collection agency deposits the check early, it could cause you problems as banks don't look at the dates! The collection agency has broken the law, but you face bad check fees and other complications when this happens.

If they are willing to offer a long term payment plan, and they commit to it IN WRITING, give it serious consideration!

Defeating Collectors By "Playing Teacher"

2011-10-10T11:04:00.000-07:00

Bill collectors love to use the phone. They harass, berate, insult, and threaten.

What happens if you take control of the call?

One way to do it is here.

Here's another. Correct every mistake they make. This will throw them off their script.

you: Hello?

them: I'm looking for, er, Mr. Jack Maginty?

you: Would you mean Mr. Jack MacInty by some chance?

them: Er, yes.

you: Go on.

them: And you're at 1324 Park Street?

you: You don't know?

them: I'm just trying to verify.

you: Well, you are not doing a very good job.

them: Is that your address?

you: Yes, but it is Park Lane. Make sure you get it right next time.

them: OK.

you: Well, what do you want?

them: Er, I'm calling about a bill…

you: What's this "er" all the time?

them: Sorry, I'm calling about this bill.

you [interrupting]: Bill, what bill?

them: The bill with XYZ Wireless.

you: I'll need more information, and be prompt, my time is valuable.

them: Well, it says here you owe $268.47.

you: Says here, where's "here?"

them: Well, in our computer.

you: Is your well dry or something?

them: Huh?

you: Don't "huh" me, why are you talking about wells?

them: Listen, we need to talk about this bill.

you: No, you listen, YOU need to get, and keep your facts straight. By the way, did you even finish high school?

them: That's none of your business.

you: Oh, but it is. I think this is a scam. I think I ought to file a police report. What's your name, and what company are you with?

them: Errrrr

you: Once again, I'm tired of this "errr" be professional or stop bothering me.

them: I can report you as noncooperative.

you: And I can report YOU as being a scam artist. Good bye.

[click]

If the collection agency breaks the law by not sending you something in writing, you can take them to court for damages.

If they do send you something in writing, you MUST follow up with a debt validation letter. A sample, that has worked, is available for FREE here!

The main idea, though, is to take control of the conversation and beat them at their own game. No matter what they say, correct them. Only seasoned collectors will be able to adapt. Only seasoned collectors will be immune to mild insults such as the high school comments. Don't get too nasty or it will escalate into a name calling match, and you will probably lose. Just do enough to throw them off.

If they think you're going to be difficult, they may move on to easier accounts.

The Foti Decision

2011-10-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

Read this very carefully.

Collection agencies are now very restricted in the messages they can leave you.

If they step over the line, they have violated the FDCPA, and you could get $1,000 for each violation.

Keep your recordings, and compare them to what IS and IS NOT allowed under the Foti Decision.

It could put some money in your pocket in these tough times.

Minnesota Targets Eight Collection Agencies

2011-10-07T12:52:00.000-07:00

Minnesota has targeted the following collection agencies:

Allied Interstate, LLC (a/k/a iQor)

Bureau of Collection Recovery, LLC

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.

Van Ru Credit Corporation

IC System, Inc.

General Revenue Corporation

Nationwide Recovery Systems, LTD LP

Commercial Recovery Corporation

The Minnesota Department of Commerce (DoC) released documents on October 6, 2011, detailing enforcement actions against eight debt collection agencies doing business in the state. The actions primarily focused on hiring and accounting practices and carried nearly $1 million in civil penalties.

The Minnesota DoC said that that the companies failed to properly screen potential employees, hired felons, engaged in shoddy accounting practices, and failed to report to the DoC employee dismissals for consumer harassment, all required by law in Minnesota.

FTC Closes Down A Collection Agency (Rumson, Bolling & Associates)

2011-10-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

The Federal Trade Commission announced on Friday, September 30, 2001, that at its request, a U.S. district court has halted an operation that allegedly subjected consumers to abusive debt-collection practices and deceived the small-business clients for whom it collects. The order also freezes the operation’s assets and appoints a permanent receiver to run it while the FTC moves forward with the case.

As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC filed a complaint against six individuals and three companies involved in a Van Nuys, California-based debt-collection operation doing business as Rumson, Bolling & Associates.

The FTC complaint charges that the defendants, in collecting debts on behalf of their clients:

• Harassed and abused consumers by threatening physical harm and death to them and their pets, threatened to desecrate the bodies of deceased relatives, and used obscene and profane language;

• Improperly revealed consumers’ debts to third parties, such as the consumers’ employers, co-workers, neighbors, and family members;

• Falsely threatened consumers with lawsuits, arrest, seizure of their assets, or wage garnishment; and

• Falsely claimed that consumers would be liable for legal fees incurred in the collection of the debt.

According to the FTC complaint, using the slogan “no recovery, no fee,” the defendants promised small businesses and other potential clients that they would collect debts on contingency, charging a fee only when they successfully collected a debt. But in many cases, the defendants allegedly collected money from consumers on a client’s behalf and then kept more than they were entitled to, sometimes keeping all the money for themselves, instead of forwarding what was owed to the client. In some cases, the defendants asked clients for additional fees, purportedly for legal expenses in filing a lawsuit that would “guarantee” the successful collection of a debt. Many clients paid these fees, but the defendants failed to file the promised lawsuits and the clients never received any money in satisfaction of the debt in question.

The FTC charges that these practices violate the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The FTC thanked the Better Business Bureau of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties (California) and the Better Business Bureau of the Southland, in Southern California, for their assistance in bringing the case.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The FTC filed the complaint and the request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 12, 2011. On September 13, 2011, the court granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order with an asset freeze and the appointment of a temporary receiver. On September 27, 2011, the court granted the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction and an order continuing the asset freeze and appointing a permanent receiver.

The complaint names as defendants Forensic Case Management Services, Inc. (doing business as Rumson, Bolling & Associates, FCMS, Inc., Commercial Recovery Solutions, Inc., and Commercial Investigations, Inc.), Specialized Recovery, Inc. (doing business as Joseph, Steven & Associates and Specialized Debt Recovery), Commercial Receivables Acquisition, Inc. (doing business as Commercial Recovery Authority, Inc. and The Forwarding Company), David M. Hynes II, James Hynes, Kevin Medley, Heather True, Frank E. Lindstrom, Jr., and Lorena Quiroz-Hynes.

It is not known if this company was one of the “abusive debt collectors” that has been retained by the Bank of America.

The illegal methods of Rumson, Bolling & Associates do not differ significantly from those allegedly used by Ryon Gambill and the Marauder Corporation.

The FTC is to be applauded for its actions in this case. It is hoped that other illegal operations will be closed down as well.

When Collection Agencies Compete…Bad Things Happen

2011-10-01T10:48:00.000-07:00

The US Department of Education has authorized the use of private collection agencies to collect defaulted student loans.

Not surprisingly, many of the parties bidding on these lucrative contracts are members of the Collection Agency Hall of Shame:

NCO Financial

GC Services

Diversified Collection Services

Allied Interstate (iQor)

West Asset Management

Does this make you angry? It should. Contact your congressman. DEMAND one of two things: tighter controls on the use of collection agencies for the collection of government debt or the complete elimination of the practice.

If you have been victimized or abused by a collection agency over a government debt, share your story.

Collection Agencies Bemoan Tighter Controls

2011-09-30T13:14:00.000-07:00

In recent years, a number of U.S. states have crafted legislation intended to make sure that debt collectors are doing a thorough job of properly identifying debtors and proving that a debt is actually owed. But now these collections folks are fighting these laws because they apparently make debt collecting a less profitable venture.

States like North Carolina, Massachusetts, Florida, California and Oregon each now have some sort of new laws intended to curb cases of mistaken identity or collection of already paid debts. So now the debt collection business, which had revenues of $17 billion last year, has hired legal eagles like the former attorney general of Georgia to fight against these regulations.

"We don't have lobbyists in 50 states but we do have internal resources that are talking, certainly, to all the large states," says the CEO of Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., the largest publicly traded debt collector.

Bloomberg explains why these new rules might be upsetting Portfolio Recovery and its ilk:

“Portfolio Recovery Associates filed 6,709 lawsuits in 2009, before the law went into effect. In 2010, it filed 819, according to the company. Fredrickson, the firm's chief executive, said that in addition to raising documentation requirements, the law limits flexibility in offering settlements to consumers who can pay a percentage of the debt.”

A lawyer for debt collecting trade group DBA International says these new laws go too far by asking collections agencies to provide supporting documentation that may not exist:

"You can't require that of a debt buyer or debt collector that which a creditor does not collect."

And isn't anyone thinking about the mom-and-pop debt collectors?

"Companies of size and scale will be able to work with regulators to create meaningful legislation that, unfortunately, will probably drive out smaller players," said the CFO of debt collector Encore Capital.

On the opposite side of this fight, the executive director of Economic Fairness Oregon says she didn't expect to see so much resistance to these laws. "I was surprised at the degree of lobbying to stop this... We thought we had a consensus bill."

Maryland: Lessons Learned From Mann Bracken Lead To New Collection Case Standards

2011-09-28T05:05:00.000-07:00

Maryland has had experience with debt collectors. One of the biggest-and worst-was Mann Bracken, which, until its demise, was headquartered in Rockville, MD.

Maryland’s court system, which has had to deal with the implosion of Mann Bracken, is the latest to require that collection agencies and debt buyers who sue consumers provide more documents to support their case.

On September 8, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued new rules for lawsuits filed in district court. The new rules now require debt buyers to present a bill, document signed by the debtor, or copy of an account statement from the original creditor showing purchases before the debt buyer can sue a consumer. Debt buyers also must present a complete chain of title as evidence of their ownership of the debt. The new rules take effect January 1, 2012.

Ron Canter, a Maryland attorney who represents creditors in the state and served as a consultant to the court’s rules committee, expects the new rules to affect 99 percent of the debt collection lawsuits filed in the state because the district court has jurisdiction over claims up to $30,000.

“Most accounts are within that limit,” he said.

However unwelcomed the new rules may be for debt buyers, Canter said the new rules could have been more severe. Maryland’s attorney general had asked the court to require debt buyers to present an affidavit from the original creditor for each account, and affidavits from each subsequent owner of the debt. The AG’s office also wanted debt buyers to attach twelve months of billing statements to each lawsuit.

“Those rules were rejected,” Canter said, due in part to input from members of the debt buying community.

Barbara Sinsley, general counsel for DBA International, said that by working closely with Maryland state officials, the debt buying industry had its voice heard in the creation of these rules. “We believe that our members will be able to comply with the new rules and [court] filings should not decline as a result,” she said.

Since the Federal Trade Commission’s report last year characterizing the litigation system in the debt collection industry as broken, a growing number of state courts, regulators, and legislators have acted to make changes to how the industry operates in their states.

In addition to the new court rules, the Maryland Department of Labor’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation has been cracking down on unlicensed debt collectors, which has included Encore Capital Group subsidiary Midland Funding, LLC. Midland later obtained a license and earlier this year agreed to dismiss more than 10,000 cases in Maryland as part of a federal class action settlement.

Earlier this month, Kaufman’s office announced a settlement agreement with Sunshine Financial Group, LLC, attorney J. Scott Morse and the State Collection Agency Licensing Board. Sunshine Financial group had been accused improper collection of fees from Maryland consumers in debt collection cases filed in District Court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Sunshine Financial Group agreed to refund to Maryland consumers all attorneys fees and compound interest, and to forfeit those amounts in any judgments previously entered. Kaufman’s office said the refunds total more than $660,000.

Sunshine Financial Group also agreed to dismiss 314 cases filed in district court and pay a fine of $20,000.

Where Oh Where Did My Bailout Money Go?

2011-09-19T11:09:00.001-07:00

Well, in the case of Bank of America, it seems it was used to hire an abusive collection agency.

2nd Guilty Plea In California Debt Collection Case

2011-09-11T13:14:00.000-07:00

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011: BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced that Stefan Miller, 31, formerly of Santa Clarita and now of Sacramento, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud and to money laundering. Miller also agreed to pay full restitution and forfeit assets seized by federal agents, including more than $950,000 in cash and a 1.5 carat diamond ring.

According to the plea agreement, Miller was the chief executive officer, secretary, chief financial officer, director, and president of Maxwell, Turner and Associates Inc. (MTA) in Bakersfield. MTA claimed to provide debt collection services. After a client signed a contract, MTA would provide false information to their clients about legal proceedings, the whereabouts of the debtor and the ability to collect the funds. When MTA collected money from the debtor, they would not send the money to their clients. MTA would frequently tell clients that additional fees were needed to continue with the litigation process, although there was no litigation actually taking place. Once the client stopped sending money, MTA would stop communicating with the client. Miller agreed that the losses to the victims of this scheme were in excess of $1 million.

Miller is the second defendant to plead guilty to this scheme. On June 17, 2011, Darrian Jeffrey Summers pleaded guilty to charges arising out of this scheme. Co-defendant Paul Anthony Vasquez is set for jury trial on February 7, 2012.

The case is the product of an extensive investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, the Bakersfield Police Department, and the Kern County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant United States Attorneys Mark J. McKeon and Stanley A. Boone are prosecuting the case.

Miller is scheduled to be sentenced on November 14, 2011. He faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the mail and wire fraud. The maximum sentence for money laundering is 10 years in prison and a fine of twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering transaction. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

It is not known if this company is, in any way, linked to the Marauder Corporation, operated by Ryon A. Gambill.

The Fake "Answering Service" Trick

2011-04-17T08:21:00.000-07:00

Debt collectors do all sorts of sneaky things, they pretend to be law firms, child protective services, the police and long lost friends.

The problem with this is they have to follow the law.

There is no law keeping you from lying to or deceiving a debt collector.

If you have caller id (and who doesn't these days?) use it to see if an incoming call is from a known debt collector number or an unknown number.

You also need to know that the phone call is the debt collector's favorite method. Well, you are about to remove that option!

When you get one of these calls, answer your phone with the last four digits of the number:

(phone rings)

YOU: One seven four two

THEM: Hello, Bill?

YOU: One seven four two, can I help you?

THEM: Yes, Bill Smith please.

YOU: This is the answering service.

THEM: Did I reach two two two, eight eight eight, one seven four two?

YOU: Yes, this is the answering service.

THEM: OK, I need to speak to Bill Smith.

YOU: This is the answering service.

THEM: OK, can I leave a message?

YOU: Certainly. What is your code, please?

THEM: Code?

YOU: Yes, code, a code is required to leave messages at this number.

THEM: Well, I don't have that.

YOU: Sorry, a code is required.

THEM: Well, can you tell me, did I reach 2831 Elm Street, Springfield, OH?

YOU: I don't know, this is the answering service.

THEM: I really need to reach Bill, is he at this number?

YOU: I cannot confirm anything else without your code.

THEM: But this is important, let me speak to your supervisor.

YOU: Sorry, no supervisor is available at this location.

THEM: Look, let me talk to Bill.

YOU: If you cannot provide your code, I must terminate this call. Please do not call back without it.

THEM: You can't give me anything else?

YOU: No, I cannot. Now I must terminate this call.

(click)

If they call back, just let it ring.

You can have some fun with this. You can be very snotty and arrogant. You can sound bored. You can act just a little odd.

Eventually they will figure out that they either can't "get past" the answering service or that they have the wrong number.

If they call back and "phish" for the code, demand to speak to THEIR supervisor.

Tell the "supervisor" this is a serious matter and that the calls must stop or you will report them for attempted fraud. If you really want to push things, demand that the "supervisor" provide the company's full name, their full name, and contact phone number. Tell the "supervisor" you are going to have to file a report with "security" who may be going to the local police.

If all of this sounds like a bit of work, it is. But, since debt collectors will use the phone to harass you, you can take this away from them. They may even decide that the account is too much trouble, and go on to something else. Don't forget-collectors' time is monitored VERY closely. They will not want to spend a lot of it dealing with the "answering service" and the requirement for a "code"-they want someone they can harass and berate, there and now!

If you really want to have "fun" with them (and the objective is not fun, but making them leave you alone) is to ask them a very odd "security question" for which there is no right answer (it won't be in their file, and it won't be in Google). Make up your own, but you might want to use something like "what is the simplest form of the Dirac formula for the gravitational constant" and it is almost guaranteed they will hang up.

Of course, if they call back, tell them the questions are chosen at random!

Enjoy!

FTC Recognizes The Problem, But Do They Have A Solution?

2011-04-16T09:10:00.001-07:00

Organizations like Consumers Union concluded quite some time ago that the law isn’t strong enough to protect debtors from such abuse.

It seems, at long last, the government has recognized that there is a problem. The Federal Trade Commission’s 2011 annual report, released as part of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, reveals that the agency received more complaints about debt collection in 2010 than any other industry.

The 140,036 total complaints about third-party and in-house collectors comprised 27 percent of all complaints received by the FTC last year – and represented an 18-percent increase from 2009.

What, if anything, the FTC will do about the situation remains unclear. It is worth noting that the head of the FTC, Deborah Platt Majoras, left her position at the law firm Jones Day to assume this position.

Jones Day is the law firm for credit reporting agency Experian, and Platt Majoras’ husband is still with the firm.

"Opting Out" of ZabaSearch and Intelius

2011-04-14T10:31:00.000-07:00

The fax number to do this has changed, it is now (425) 974-6199.

It is interesting that one fax gets you out of both ZabaSearch and Intelius. Draw your own conclusions…

Fax them your driver's license. Black out the picture, they need to see your name and address.

They don't actually remove the underlying public record, but they "suppress" it for searches.

This is better than nothing. A blanket "opt out" would be better but this is good enough.

Faxes are cheap-do this once a month just to make sure!

Laurence Hecker and Account Portfolio Management to Cancel $8 Million in Debt

2010-11-25T15:06:00.000-08:00

November 26, 2010: A New Jersey lawyer and his Pennsylvania-based collection agencies will cancel nearly $8 million in alleged debt they tried to collect from more than 1,900 West Virginians.

Attorney General Darrell McGraw says Laurence Hecker and APM Companies will pay $45,000 in refunds and to support consumer education.

APM is the parent of APM Financial Solutions and Account Portfolio Management LLC, neither of which has working telephone numbers.

McGraw said Tuesday the companies unfairly pressured people and threatened lawsuits.

He says most debts the companies were trying to collect were so old, they could not legally sue anyone.

McGraw says the companies were also working in West Virginia without being licensed or bonded as required by state law.

Failure to post the required bond has also been a source of consternation to Ryon Gambill and Marauder Corporation.

Was Mann Bracken The First Of Many?

2010-11-24T14:42:00.000-08:00

Annapolis, MD [November 23, 2010]

A collection company hired by payday loan firms was suspended by state regulators Monday because the loans were given by unlicensed companies who violated state usury laws.

The Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Board in the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation suspended Smith Haynes & Watson LLC’s license over complaints about collection efforts for payday loans made online to Maryland residents.

Smith Haynes & Watson, based in Mission, Kan., was collecting debts on behalf of payday lenders including East Side Lenders LLC, of Newark, Del. East Side Lenders itself was slapped with a cease and desist order in June.

Travis Kelso, sales manager for Smith Hayes & Watson, declined to comment on the order and referred questions to the firm’s legal department.

Payday loans are generally low-balance, short-term loans in which customers borrow from a few hundred dollars to a $1,000 and pay high fees and interest rates for doing so. Payday loans are banned in Maryland, but they are still readily available online.

According to the complaints received by the state, consumers had applied for these loans online and were receiving collection calls from Smith Hayes & Watson to repay the loans that had an annual interest rate of 782 percent.

In one case, according to the agency, a customer borrowed $300 from East Side Lenders with the agreement to repay the full amount plus a $90 finance charge within two weeks. According to the state, this amounts to a 995 percent annual interest rate.

The agreement allowed for the loan to be renewed up to four times with a $90 finance charge tacked on at each renewal.

Regulators say this was a violation of Maryland’s usury laws and as such the loans were “illegal and unenforceable.” Since the loans are illegal and unenforceable, they cannot be collected.

According to investigators, Smith Haynes & Watson was notified multiple times that it could not collect on the debts. However, Smith Haynes & Watson continued its collection efforts on behalf of East Side Lenders and other, similar, online payday lenders.

“The company disregarded the Commissioner’s warnings and proceeded to bring collection actions against Maryland consumers for unlicensed loans at usurious rates,” said acting Deputy Commissioner of Financial Regulation Anne Balcer Norton in a statement. “In some cases, the undisclosed annual interest rates on the given loans exceeded 600 percent.”

The suspension is immediate, but the company can request a hearing within 15 days to contest the suspension. As part of the suspension, state regulators are also requiring the firm to turn over all information regarding its collection activity in Maryland.

After reviewing the information the agency can permanently revoke the firm’s collection license, impose fines and penalties and even require Smith Hayes & Watson to pay restitution. The company has 15 days to contest the suspension and request a hearing.

The Smith Haynes & Watson action is the second action against a debt collector in three months. In August, the state revoked the license of defunct law firm Mann Bracken LLP, which was once one of the largest debt collectors in the country.

Halloween Gift: Debt Validation Letter

2010-10-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

The sad truth is that most debt collectors can't validate their debts.

This is good news, but, there's something you MUST DO.

That is, send a debt validation letter the instant a collection agency contacts you!

Send it CERTIFIED MAIL and keep the receipt.

There's no need to spend a penny on an ebook on these letters.

This letter has worked TWICE.

First it got rid of Frontline Asset Strategies collecting for Razor Capital.

Then when Protas Spivok and Collins came after the same debt it worked again.

Collectors Resorting to Violence and Threats of Violence!

2010-07-10T07:44:00.000-07:00

July 10, 2010

Debt collectors are getting desperate and dirty.

Harassing phone calls, abusive language and physical violence are becoming a bigger part of business as debt collectors struggle to round up money from people who don't have it.

"The American consumer is really hurting and collectors are having to fight harder to get money," said Robert Andrews, a senior analyst specializing in the debt industry at research firm IBISWorld.

Complaints of harassment by debt collectors surged 50% to 67,550 in 2009, according to the Federal Trade Commission. And they are on track to jump 13% this year, based on the number of FTC complaints filed in the first six months.

The No. 1 complaint is repeated calls, and it is not uncommon for collectors to bombard consumers with back-to-back calls for days, weeks, months and even years.

When debt collectors finally get someone on the other end of the phone, they are more likely to use nastier language. Complaints of debt collectors using obscene or abusive language spiked 35% last year.

A 55-year old New York woman, who asked to remain anonymous, said a collection agent called her home repeatedly, personally attacking her and her husband. When she refused to answer the phone, the collector called her estranged sister, an ex-boyfriend and her husband's ex-wife's mother.

"This guy was out of his mind and he kept calling and calling, telling me 'you better talk to me, you deadbeat,'" she said. "He was very threatening and the whole thing was just really unsettling -- it made you wonder who was going to show up at your door."

She had reason to worry, since complaints of debt collectors threatening -- or actually using -- violence more than doubled last year, to 2,517.

Keary Floyd, an attorney who represents consumers at the Floyd Legal Firm in Atlanta, said that while most of his debt collection cases involve excessive phone calls, one of his recent clients recorded a disturbing phone conversation where a debt collector threatened that he or someone else would come to the client's house to get the money in any way that he could.

"I heard it, and if any phone call was going to worry someone, it would be that one," said Floyd.

Other aggressive tactics that are becoming more common are debt collectors calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., demanding more money than what is owed, revealing a consumer's debt to a third party or threatening "dire consequences" like prosecution, jail time, property seizure or job loss.

These practices are not just inappropriate, but they are illegal under the FTC's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which has been around since 1977.

An industry representative said the increase in complaints of harassment should not only be attributed to desperate and aggressive collecting agents, but to more consumers trying to cash in on lawsuits.

"Certainly if debt collectors are being more aggressive, they shouldn't be, but it's not fair to characterize the actions of debt collectors as the only reason why there is an increase in complaints -- they're not fully to blame," said Mark Schiffman, a spokesman for The Association of Credit and Collection Professionals.

"There's a growing industry of consumer attorneys and savvy consumers who have learned that they can sue a debt collector fairly easily and collect very easily," he added.

Consumers are able to take a collector to state or federal court for harassment, according to the FTC. If the debtor wins the case, the collector is required to pay for any damages caused by the harassment, such as lost income and medical bills.

Even if debtors can't prove monetary damages but are able to prove harassment, they can receive up to $1,000 and are reimbursed for the court and attorney fees.

Razor Capital and Frontline Asset Strategies

2010-06-26T06:47:00.000-07:00

Razor Capital seems to be another "junk debt buyer" and Frontline Asset Strategies another low end collection agency.

They seem to have started up in 2009, and have already had quite a few lawsuits filed against them for FDCPA violations, all settled.

Frontier Financial (Henderson, NV): "You're a Liar"

2010-05-29T06:21:00.000-07:00

This is from a reader.

"I have a somewhat common last name, but not as common as Smith. I started getting calls from (702) 463-7934. It turns out this is Frontier Financial. When I finally talked to them, they said I had given them information on someone else with the same last name, and they wanted me to get this person to call them, something about a check. I asked where they got my number, they said this person gave it as a reference. I said I do not know anyone with that name, they said I was a liar. I said, well, maybe I'm a liar, but I'm not delivering your message."

As common as the name is, it seems Frontier Financial will make a lot of these calls. Along they way, they are going to aggravate people, probably commit a few violations and end up having to pay people along the way.

Will Mann Bracken Ever Die?

2010-05-22T11:03:00.000-07:00

The good people in the State of Georgia, Governor's Officce of Consumer Affairs have been sending out letters like this one.

They are closing their file on Mann Bracken (as it is in receivership) but they are nice enough to provide contact details for the receiver and court.

One can only hope that W. Christopher Bracken, Doug Mann, James Branton, Chris Diwan, Matthew Linkie, Connell Loftus, Scott Kramer and the rest of them have trouble finding work once the scope of Mann Bracken's misdeeds is known to all.

National Enterprise Systems: Sanctions and Restitution

2010-04-24T13:12:00.000-07:00

April 13: 2010: Ohio’s top lawyer has settled a lawsuit filed against a northeast Ohio collection agency in a deal that will bring more than $400,000 to consumers and the state.
Attorney General Richard Cordray on Tuesday said the settlement with Solon-based National Enterprise Systems, Inc. resolves claims that the company harassed customers when collecting on debts. National Enterprise has agreed to pay $207,500 in consumer restitution and roughly the same amount to Ohio’s Consumer Protection Enforcement Fund.
Cordray said his office booked nearly 400 complaints against the company, which faced allegations ranging from calls before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m., abusive language and unauthorized withdrawals from customers’ bank accounts. Ohioans who filed complaints could receive $200 or more in restitution.
In addition to the settlement, National Enterprise has agreed to train employees to comply with state and federal laws and send written notifications on debts owed, among other provisions.

Wolpoff, Abramson Deny Links to Mann Bracken Misdeeds

2010-01-25T05:55:00.000-08:00

January 25, 2010: Mann Bracken LLP was formed by the merger of three debt-collection law firms in 2007, one of which was Rockville-based Wolpoff & Abramson LLP.

But Ronald Abramson, who was one of the principals at Wolpoff & Abramson, said he and his partners had nothing to do with the failure of Mann Bracken. When the firms merged, Abramson, his father Laurence, Stuart Wolpoff and Harry Wolpoff left, even though most of their staff went to the newly merged firm, he said.

Though Ron Abramson will not discuss specific problems with Mann Bracken’s operations, he said that after the merger, Wolpoff & Abramson’s good reputation was squandered.

He said he is “highly disappointed that a firm as fantastic as Wolpoff & Abramson, as respected as Wolpoff & Abramson, as compliance-oriented as Wolpoff & Abramson, merged into an operation which failed in less than three years.”

Many of the firm’s targets over the years would take issue with that characterization.

Consumer message boards — complaintsboard.com, cardreport.com, and whocallsme.com, to name a few — have been brimming with complaints for years.

Many took Wolpoff & Abramson to court, individually or as part of a class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

While the firm has successfully defended many such suits in federal courts across the country, Wolpoff & Abramson has lost others. In March 2008, the firm settled a Virginia class action for $300,000, $250,000 of which was attorneys’ fees.

Abramson and the Wolpoffs are now involved in Independence Receivables Corp., a debt-buying firm. Abramson said that early on, Independence Receivables used Mann Bracken to collect debts but fired Mann Bracken “some time ago.” He would not say why.

He also declined to say how else he and his business partners spend their working hours these days, though he said they are not practicing law.

Interest disputed

Abramson’s claims of non-involvement in Mann Bracken are contradicted by a complaint filed against the National Arbitration Forum last July by the Minnesota Attorney General. That complaint charged that Mann Bracken, Axiant and the National Arbitration Forum, which handled disputes between consumers and creditors, were all connected to the same New York-based hedge fund, creating a massive conflict of interest.

The complaint charged that Ronald Abramson and Stuart Wolpoff each own a 7.58 percent stake in Axiant.

Abramson calls that claim “100 percent factually incorrect.” After the merger, he and Wolpoff did take an ownership interest in Axiant, but they sold it by summer 2008, he said.

A spokesman for the Minnesota Attorney General’s office pointed to an ownership chart he said was filed with the state in October 2008, which showed Stuart Wolpoff and Ron Abramson as part-owners of Axiant.

Indications

Ron Abramson said the Wolpoff principals did not know about the common ownership of Axiant, Mann Bracken and the National Arbitration Forum — and never would have entered into the deal had they known, said.

“Had we known in 2007 about Accretive’s ownership of the subsidiary of the National Arbitration Forum, we never in a million years would have sold Wolpoff & Abramson’s non-legal assets to Axiant, nor would we have associated ourselves in any way with them,” he said.

He said he did due diligence on the deal but did not discover the conflict because it was being aggressively concealed.

He and the Wolpoffs only found out about the ownership structure last July from the Minnesota Attorney General’s complaint, Abramson said. Nevertheless, “there were a lot of indications leading up to that that caused us to divest all our shares the year prior,” he said.

How Can Axiant Owe Mann Bracken?

2010-01-23T14:37:00.001-08:00

Press accounts say Mann Bracken is folding because Axiant owes them $10 million.

Press accounts also say Axiant provided various services to Mann Bracken.

Wait a minute.

It could make sense that Mann Bracken owes Axiant, but not the other way around. What is/was Mann Bracken doing for Axiant so that Mann Bracken would owe Axiant money?

Maybe people should complain to the bankruptcy court about this…something is not right…

Mann Bracken: Observations and Advice

2010-01-17T08:01:00.000-08:00

The following article is a good summary of what's happening with Mann Bracken.

More detailed information can be found here.

As far as advice: Mann Bracken may have closed its offices, but it still exists. That means it can still be sued.

Consumers might want to consider suing Mann Bracken through their registered agent, as well as filing personal lawsuits against owners such as W. Chris Bracken III.

If Mann Bracken files for bankruptcy, consumers should lodge complaints with the bankruptcy trustee. Those who have pending lawsuits or other claims against Mann Bracken should do the same.

Consumers should also file bar complaints against Mann Bracken attorneys who mistreated them.

***

January 17, 2010: Maryland regulators and courts are grappling with the chaos created by the failure of a debt-collection law firm, as consumers endeavored - often with no luck - to figure out where to send payments or make good on court-ordered settlements.

Rockville-based Mann Bracken recently closed its 24 offices across the country with little public warning, prompting consumers left in the lurch to complain to state officials that the firm's phones were disconnected and it had stopped cashing their checks.

On Thursday, a Maryland judge ordered that tens of thousands of debt-collection lawsuits involving the firm be dismissed, and state financial regulators revoked its license.

A day later, state officials still were struggling to assess the financial scope of the collapse, unable to say exactly how many lawsuits would be dismissed. Nor did they have answers for consumers on whether those cases would be refiled.

"It's a large undertaking, and it involves every district in the state," said Mark Kaufman, Maryland's deputy commissioner of financial regulation. "Those cases are all over the state. It's every county in Maryland. There are hundreds of cases in every county in this state - and that's probably conservative."

In its first comments about the shutdown, Mann Bracken principals said in a statement released by an attorney that they had "no alternative but to wind down its business operations."

They blamed the company's fate on the November bankruptcy filing of Axiant, a company that handled its support services. That firm tried to reorganize but instead is being liquidated.

"Axiant's pending liquidation has left Mann Bracken without funds to pay creditors and insolvent," the statement said. The law firm said it will seek bankruptcy protection or disband through a state receivership proceeding in the next 30 days.

Axiant is a debt-collection offshoot of Mann Bracken and was created by a group of New York private-equity funds in 2006.

According to an investigation by the Minnesota attorney general, the complex business arrangement, through a byzantine ownership structure, connected debt collectors and the law firm with a supposedly independent and neutral arbitration company called National Arbitration Forum, where creditors brought cases against consumers.

The Minnesota attorney general sued the forum in July, accusing it of consumer fraud because its business arrangement allegedly created conflicts of interest. The company agreed to stop handling consumer arbitration disputes. Four months later, Axiant filed for bankruptcy protection.

"I think there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have had arbitration awards entered against them that are so improper they should be vacated," said Paul Bland, a staff attorney at Public Justice, a public-interest law firm in Washington.

Bland said he has heard of a number of situations in which Mann Bracken appeared to choose cases to pursue in court after arbitration only when consumers didn't have an attorney or wouldn't put up a fight.

"I think there was an effort to finish collecting all they could from people who didn't know what had happened," Bland said.

Since the Minnesota case, lawsuits have been filed against the arbitration forum, Mann Bracken and other firms alleging violations of antitrust laws and racketeering statutes, Bland said.

In Georgia, the governor's Office of Consumer Affairs has been trying to investigate Mann Bracken for more than a year. Attorneys with the state are waiting for a court order to determine whether the company has to cooperate.

"We received a number of complaints from all over the country about their practices," said Anne Infinger, deputy administrator of the consumer affairs office. "They run the gamut," she added, citing cases in which consumers complained that Mann Bracken contacted neighbors.

When Georgia officials heard last week that the company might be collapsing, they called Mann Bracken. "Mann Bracken's lawyer's response to us was, 'I'll let you know when there is any public information,'" Infinger said.

Meanwhile, residents on the hook for debt payments to the company are calling, wanting to know why no one's answering the phones and what they should do.

"It's just a nightmare for consumers," Infinger said.

Consumers with lawsuits pending in court should contact the administrative clerk of the jurisdiction where their case was filed, said a spokesman for the Maryland Judiciary.

Cory L. Zajdel, a Towson consumer law attorney who has sued Mann Bracken on behalf of clients, said he fielded several calls from confused consumers who had dealt with Mann Bracken.

Zajdel already has agreed to take on the case of Davene Chadwick, a 60-year-old grocery worker from Owings Mills, who has about $1,300 left to pay on a debt agreement with Mann Bracken. Chadwick tried to reach the firm several times to ask how to proceed with payments only to find the phone number was disconnected. She said the firm charged her thousands of dollars in additional fees and interest over the years, making it harder to pay down her debt.

"I don't know what to do," she said.

Zajdel said that consumers with settlements should file a notice with the court to put on public record that they couldn't make a payment because the company no longer exists. That may give them some legal protection in the future, he said.

The companies for which Mann Bracken was collecting debts could still be entitled to the money, legal experts said. It's unclear how many will refile cases that get tossed out.

Bailing Out The Bailout?

2010-01-14T08:41:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON (January 14, 2010) – The government will face a complex and delicate task when it moves to unwind the federal financial bailout that officially ends in October, and the rescue will leave a deep impact the economy long afterward, a report from a government watchdog panel says.

The $700 billion taxpayer bailout will leave a legacy in financial markets, which may now be convinced the government will rescue financial institutions considered too big to fail, according to a new report by the Congressional Oversight Panel.

That expectation gives big banks and other institutions an advantage in raising capital that smaller ones don't enjoy and encourages a "moral hazard" for the big banks to take risks again, the report released Thursday said.

It said that as a result of the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the Treasury Department now holds hundreds of billions of dollars of assets — about $258 billion as of Dec. 31 — that it must eventually sell. That will require a delicate balance between maximizing the return to taxpayers and maintaining financial stability.

"There are ... unavoidable political considerations that will affect these decisions, and that political context in the current environment can shift quickly and unpredictably," the report says.

There is also the question of how the banks, other financial firms and automakers that received bailout aid intend to make the taxpayers whole, according to the panel.

"In fact, TARP will live on for years," panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren said in a call with reporters Wednesday, noting that Treasury will still have authority to dispense some funds and will be managing the hundreds of billions in assets. "Treasury must learn from the mistakes it made over the past year," she said.

In response to the report, Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said the department "has demonstrated a cautious, transparent and disciplined approach in winding down the emergency programs, which is already yielding positive returns for taxpayers and the health of the economy."

Treasury estimates that TARP programs aimed at stabilizing the banking system will earn a profit thanks to dividends, interest, early repayments and the sale of the government's stakes in the institutions receiving aid, Reilly said in a statement.

"Taxpayers have already received over $16 billion in profits from all TARP programs and that profit could be considerably higher as Treasury sells additional (stakes) in the weeks ahead," she added.

The panel, one of three oversight mechanisms Congress mandated for the bailout that it enacted at the height of the financial crisis in October 2008, makes periodic assessments of how the government is managing the rescue program.

Banks once threatened by the undertow of a Wall Street collapse are now posting profits and proposing generous bonuses for their executives.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced last month that the politically unpopular bailout program, originally slated to expire at the end of last year, would be extended until Oct. 3. The Obama administration says the fund is still needed to prevent further turmoil in the banking system.

The extension set up a struggle between Democrats who favor using some of the leftover TARP money to help generate jobs, and Republicans who say it should be used to shrink soaring budget deficits.

The administration projects that the losses to the government from the bailout will be around $116 billion — compared with an estimate of $340 billion in August. Most of the losses are expected to come from the rescue of General Motors and the bailout of insurance conglomerate American International Group Inc.

"Our stewardship has shown measurable progress," the Treasury spokeswoman's statement said.

President Barack Obama plans to announce Thursday a new fee on the country's biggest financial firms to recoup as much as $120 billion in TARP funds.

The panel's report noted that Treasury has put forward three principles to guide its decisions of when to sell the assets: maintaining the stability of the financial system, preserving the integrity of individual financial institutions, and maximizing return for taxpayers.

"These principles may sometimes be at odds with one another," it said. The most profitable time to sell an asset may not be the moment that best maintains financial stability or buttresses an institution.

Besides Warren, the panel also includes Paul Atkins, a former member of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Richard Neiman, superintendent of banks at the New York State Banking Department; Damon Silvers, associate counsel of the AFL-CIO; and corporate tax lawyer J. Mark McWatters.

American Express, GC Services and West Asset Management

2010-01-07T10:07:00.000-08:00

American Express used to be a respected name, now they hang out with bottom feeders.

Someone had an account sent to GC Services in January of 2009. They sent DV letter and GC never replied. GC kept sending invoices, the person kept paying American Express.

Then this document showed up, looking, for all the world, like it is from American Express. But, it isn't. The customer service PO Box for American Express is PO Box 981540, El Paso TX 79998-1540.

The Omaha, NE PO Box on this letter belongs to West Asset Management.

The confirmation was in a call, from (804) 952-9979. The message said "call American Express" but the number belongs to West Asset Management.

Best advice to them-write to American Express, pointing out the fraud, and write a DV letter to this address.

Going After Mann Bracken…

2010-01-01T11:52:00.000-08:00

Happy 2010.

Mann Bracken's website is down.

Even though it seems they are closing, they are legally still in business. If they have harassed you or owe you money, this is the time to go after them.

Their registered agent (where you would serve a lawsuit):

Mann Bracken
c/o CT Corporation System
1201 Peachtree St SE
Atlanta GA 30361

Their main office is:
Mann Bracken
702 King Farm Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

and W. Chris Bracken III has relocated his law office to his house:
3516 Paces Ferry Circle
Smyrna, GA 30080

If there are enough pending lawsuits (and judgments!) against them, no one will touch them. Serves them right!

Associate attorneys such as Matthew Linkie, Scott Kramer, and Chris Diwan may not have much liability, but no law firm in their right mind should consider hiring them. The status of Connell Loftus, sometimes described as an owner, is not known.

Widow Claims Collection Agency Hounded Husband to Death!

2009-09-24T14:25:00.000-07:00

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009: TAMPA, Fla. – A widow claims that debt collectors hounded her husband to death with as many as nine caustic calls per day, causing stress that contributed to his fatal heart attack. She's suing the Florida couple's mortgage company in a unique wrongful death case.

Dianne McLeod wants Green Tree Servicing to pay damages for what she said are illegal collection practices that led to her husband's heart failure on Dec. 4, 2005. Her 57-year-old husband, Stanley, was already in poor health from a heart attack years earlier that also had left him on disability.

An executive at Green Tree Servicing called the claim "outrageous and meritless."

Lawsuits against debt collectors alleging illegal practices are common. But McLeod's Tampa attorney, William Howard, believes it's the first time one has ever been sued for wrongful death. John Nemo, a spokesman for the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals, said he's not aware of it happening before, either.

"I think people in the legal community are watching to see how it unfolds, because it's a pretty unique case," Nemo said.

Stanley McLeod had a heart attack while working at Sears in 1997, Howard said, and was never able to work full-time again. The family eventually fell behind on payments on their manufactured home in Keystone Heights near Gainesville.

Dianne McLeod said the collection calls from Green Tree Servicing, sometimes as many as nine per day, intensified in August 2005 and wore on her husband's health.

"His breathing got really labored, his face was red, he was sweating, you could tell he was getting ill" after the calls would come, she said in an interview.

Some of the calls were recorded on the family's answering machine, and Howard said he is eager to play them for a jury.

In one recorded message, an angry male caller says: "Stanley McLeod, you need to call Green Tree and get your act together and make a payment on your mortgage. Quit playing games." Then, presumably referring to the emergency aircraft that flew McLeod to the hospital after his heart attack, the caller said: "Why don't you have that helicopter pick you up and bring that payment to the office."

Other recorded calls gave him a deadline to pay a certain amount and threatened foreclosure. Some implored McLeod to call back so the company could try to work out payment arrangements with him.

Howard said the number and harassing tone of the calls broke Florida law. He said the company also illegally called a neighbor and McLeod's brother and grandson regarding the debt.

Howard sued Green Tree on the family's behalf in 2005, then added the wrongful death count in 2006 after Stanley McLeod died.

The case has been winding its way through courts since. Earlier this month, the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Florida again ruled against Green Tree in the company's efforts to force the case into arbitration. Howard said he will ask a judge to set the case for trial soon. He hasn't decided yet how much he will seek.

"What happened to Stanley McLeod happened to a lot of people," said Howard, who has about 500 pending cases that claim undue harassment by debt collectors. "To be held hostage in your own home is a terrible thing. It's a helpless feeling."

Howard works for the law firm of Morgan & Morgan, which has offices around the state, heading a division that sues debt collectors for unfair collection practices.

Brian Corey, senior vice present and general counsel for Green Tree Servicing, said the company is preparing to take the case to trial.

"We deny that collection calls, whether the content, number or timing, led to Mr. McLeod's death, and we look forward to defending this matter in a court proceeding instead of in the media," Corey said.

Joe Little, professor emeritus at the University of Florida law school, said Howard will have to convince a jury that harassment by the mortgage company was egregious enough to warrant punishment, and that the stress of the calls hastened McLeod's death.

Howard isn't likely to have an easy time connecting those elements for jurors, Little said, especially if McLeod was already in poor health when the calls began.

Nemo said the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act generally outlines the do's and don'ts of how collectors can operate. Most states also have statutes that augment the federal law, he said.

Just For You Communications

2009-09-20T11:32:00.000-07:00

From a reader:

"On Friday July 27th of this year..I got on-line to view my checking account. I discovered that a company (Just For You Communications) who is suppose to be a marketing company has tried to draft a check to withdraw $110 from my account. I called my bank and they said it was done on Tuesday (July 24th) and I would need to sign a stop payment in order to stop the transfer of funds.

I did and it cost me 20 dollars. The bank did not seem to care that this was an unauthorized transaction and as I discovered later has been done to 47 other people. I called this company (JFYC) they said they were a collection agency and that they were authorized by AT&T to collect these funds for a debt I owed them. I called AT&T collection dept. and they informed they did not do business in that manner and had no knowledge of this company. Also I did not owe them anything. The person at JFYC also told me they would send me the paperwork they received and it should get to me in 7-10 days. I have yet to see it. I contacted the FTC the BBB and Consumer Affairs..the only one that told me they would investigate was the FTC. This is fraud and invasion of privacy...my question is does anyone care?

After doing this at least 47 times before...why hasn't this business been stopped? I want to know how they got my personal information? Can anyone answer these questions?"

Does anyone have any information about Just For You Communications?

Return Receipts: A NECESSITY

2009-09-19T09:52:00.000-07:00

The prevalence of unethical and illegal practices by collection agencies means, unfortunately, that all correspondence sent to them must be sent return receipt requested.

Some agencies, such as Penncro, refuse to accept return receipt mail. The way around this is to get the address of the payment department, and send it there in an enveloped marked "payment processing." Tricky? Yes, but you will have proof that Penncro received it.

GC Services habitually ignores return receipt debt validation letters. This idiotic practice, apparently the brainchild of (soon to be unemployed?) GC Services executive Eric Bernhagen, is about to cost them a lucrative account with American Express.

In a recent lawsuit, Mann Bracken claimed not to have received a debt validation letter. They had to settle because the consumer had proof that it had been received by Mann Bracken.

Chris Diwan, associate attorney at Mann Bracken is often the one to sign the "we have no record of this" letters. He is also the one put under the microscope when the return receipt is produced.

Use them. They are cheap (see sample) and you can get delivery confirmation in emai!

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against NAF

2009-09-17T00:13:00.000-07:00

August 17, 2009: The law firm of Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who used NAF's arbitration services during the period from June 1, 2006 to the present, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Until recently, NAF held itself out as a leading forum for consumer arbitrations, which is how many consumer debt disputes are resolved. An arbitration forum must above all be impartial, so that consumers can be confident that their disputes with creditors (e.g., banks, credit card companies, phone companies, etc.) will be heard fairly, as would be the case if the dispute was resolved by a court of law.

The class action lawsuit filed against NAF and related parties alleges that NAF has misled consumers for years in this regard because it was owned by and/or beholden to a debt collection agency and debt collection law firm (Mann Bracken) such that in reality it was a debt collector, not a neutral forum for resolving disputes by the debt collection industry against consumers. The result of these alliances was near perfect success rates by debt collectors against consumers in NAF arbitrations.

Wells Fargo and Cheronda Guyton: Call for Investigation

2009-09-16T05:53:00.000-07:00

Wells Fargo would like for you to believe that the Cheronda Guyton incident is an isolated occurrence.

Guyton, a senior vice president, moved into a multi-million dollar foreclosed property controlled by Wells Fargo and held lavish parties there.

Neighbors reported this after several months. Wells Fargo, hoping to do damage control, fired Guyton.

That is closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

Wells Fargo should have had means to detect, almost immediately, that the property was not being shown to potential buyers.

Wells Fargo should have acted in a matter of hours, not months, to reports that Guyton was living in the house. Wells Fargo should not only have fired Guyton, but pressed theft and trespass charges against her.

At this point, Wells Fargo, at its own expense, should be required to conduct a top to bottom audit of procedures involving control of foreclosed property.

The results of this audit should be made available to taxpayers, who are Wells Fargo shareholders.

Wells Fargo should be required, at its own expense (as in not with bailout money) to implement proper controls to ensure that this will not happen again.

Wells Fargo should be required, at its own expense, to conduct thorough internal investigations to demonstrate this was NOT an isolated incident.

Collector Abuses Senior Citizen, Has to Pay!

2009-09-05T07:47:00.000-07:00

When senior citizen Dorothy Jones got home from having heart surgery, she thought the worst of her troubles were behind her. Then she got a call from a debt collector who didn't care that she was recently hospitalized. "He called me a thief, a liar, and said he was glad I wasn't his grandma." After days of the calls and abusive language, Jones found herself back in the hospital due to the stress and anxiety. Weeks later, she received a large check as a result of the collector's obnoxious behavior.

Victims like Dorothy can now call the Collection Complaint Hotline at (800) 379-0688. Since many collection agencies still believe that being "nice" doesn't get the bill paid, some continue to use threats or find other ways to harass to get people to pay up. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), collection complaints have risen steadily since 2003. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a code of conduct which collection agencies must follow by law.

If they continue to call you at work after you ask them not to, or treat you rudely, or disclose your debt to any third parties; you may be entitled to money damages. "If they violate the requirements under the law, a victim can receive a speedy settlement, typically around $1500," says attorney Jeffrey Hyslip. In addition, the debt collector is required to pay the attorney fees for anyone that successfully sues them. Consumers can call the hotline to speak with a counselor about a troubling experience they are having with a collection agency. If a violation is found, the department will file a collection complaint and seek compensation from the collector. Hyslip, a former debt collector himself, has assisted over 5000 consumers with collection complaints. The group has helped victims recover over $3 million in the form of settlements. The Collector Complaint Hotline has been a useful ally for numerous consumer groups.

Andrew Cuomo SHUTS THEM DOWN!

2009-08-20T06:28:00.000-07:00

August 18, 2009: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a lawsuit against a Buffalo-based debt collection operation over allegations the organization violated federal and state laws.

The lawsuit seeks to shut down 13 debt collection companies run by Buffalo residents Omar Smith, Narvell Benning and Keith Marshall (collectively, the "Benning-Smith Group").

More than 850 complaints have been filed with Cuomo's office, the Federal Trade Commission and the Better Business Bureau, according to Cuomo.

The complaints allege Benning-Smith Group employees routinely posed as law enforcement officials threatening to arrest or to physically harm consumers unless they made arrangements to pay the company.

In addition, the group allegedly sexually harassed and verbally abused customers, according to Cuomo.

"This company made lies, threats and abuse their calling cards in their efforts to manipulate and take advantage of consumer's already facing tough economic times," Cuomo said.

"They did everything they could to demean and humiliate their targets, stooping so low as to sexually harass and verbally abuse individuals nationwide."

The Benning-Smith Group operated under several names, including: Abrams, Burke & Associates; Benning and Smith Acquisitions, Inc.; Brady and Caruso, LLC; DebtPayments.com, LLC; Fredericks, Goldstein & Zoe; Graham, Noble & Associates Bookkeeping; Graham, Noble & Associates LLC; Graham, Beagle & Associates LLC; Kingman, Cole and Associates, LCC; Marshall and Ziolkowski Enterprise, LLC; Marshall Ziolkowski Acquisitions, LLC; Lansky, Goldstein, Zoe; OLS Payment Services; and University Debt Collection.

Cuomo's office claims the defendants used their false law enforcement identities to coerce customers to make payments on inflated prices.

In addition, collectors allegedly called consumers "drunks," "scumbags," and "deadbeats" on several occasions, according to Cuomo.

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the New York State debt collection and consumer protection laws prohibit individuals or entities from posing as law enforcement officials.

The law also prohibits individuals from using deceptive and harassing tactics to collect unpaid debt.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of several other lawsuits aimed at breaking up allegedly fraudulent debt collection practices. In June, Cuomo obtained a court order shutting down another Buffalo-based debt collection firm over allegations of racketeering.

Avoid Calling 800/"Toll Free" Numbers

2009-08-13T05:33:00.000-07:00

First of all, in this day and age there's really no such thing as a long distance call any more.

But more importantly, (800), (866) and other "toll free" services capture the calling number, even if you push *67 first!

Collection agencies use these numbers to get your phone number.

It is just that simple!

As we'll show in a future article, you're better off not to talk to them at all.

If you must speak to them, call on a non-800 number and dial *67 first to block your caller ID.

If the only number is an 800 number (and this is rarely the case, but they can make it difficult), then call from a throwaway phone or pay phone.

DO NOT let them get your phone number. It will lead to harassment and problems!

Corporate 180

2009-06-25T11:12:00.000-07:00

We're still not completely sure about this one, but, we thought we'd pass it along:

This company appears to troll through court records looking for people who are being sued. They then attempt to contact them offering a wide range of dubious solutions and plans.

Corporate 180 might, for example, find that a company called “Wazoo Enterprises” was sued. Their inept team of researchers will find contact details for “Wazoo Products” and pass that along.
A Corporate 180 representative will then contact “Wazoo Products” and want to discuss the issue. “Wazoo Products” of course knows nothing about it.
One of the Corporate 180 callers is Helen Evans. She calls from (703) 286-5536. Her number at Corporate 180 is (703) 222-2180.
These people have nothing of any value whatsoever to offer. Avoid them. Do business with them at your own risk and peril.

(812) 647-9798

2009-06-08T15:50:00.000-07:00

Tired of calls from this number, (812) 647-9798? So is everyone else.

It belongs to a company called CMC. Their main number is (812) 647-9700. But, you often don't get far calling to complain.

The company collects for credit unions, and a lot of calls are asking you to get your neighbor to call them.

One person sent this: call Sharon Baymon, she's on (800) 854-9846, extension 2217. She's in charge of the calls from this number. Start by asking politely, but don't hesitate to let her know what you think.

Saudi Arabia Passes a Version of the FDCPA!

2009-05-04T10:26:00.000-07:00

Saudi Arabia may ban marriage for girls below 18, a government minister said after a case of a young girl being given as a child bride in payment of a debt drew international outage and embarrassed the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is a patriarchal society that applies an ascetic form of Sunni Islam which bans unrelated men and women from mixing and gives fathers the right to wed their sons and daughters to whomever they deem fit.

Many Saudi clerics, including the kingdom's chief cleric Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al al-Sheikh, endorse the practice of marrying underage girls, arguing that in doing so they avoid spinsterhood or the temptation of engaging in relationships outside the wedlock.

Many young girls in Arab countries that observe tribal traditions are married to older husbands but not before puberty. Such marriages are also driven by poverty in countries like Yemen, one of the poorest countries outside Africa.

Junk Debt Buyer Roundup

2009-04-19T06:55:00.000-07:00

This is a current list of some of the worst in the industry.

If they call you, lie to them about anything and everything. They have no authority. Keep all correspondence. Record all calls. Tell them the calls are being recorded!

If they are a law firm or represent themselves as one, file a complaint with your local bar association.

Adam Jeffrey Katz, P.A.
Andreu & Palma, P.A.
Arrow Financial Services, LLC
Asset Acceptance, LLC
Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc.
Bray & Lunsford, P.A.
CACV, LLC aka CACH, LLC ("Collect America")
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
David E. Borack, P.A.
The Law Offices of Erskine & Fleisher
The Law Offices of John P. Frye
Financial Independence Services Corp.
Hayt, Hayt & Landau
Jacobson, Sobo & Moselle
Law Offices of Melissa A. Ferris, P.A.
LVNV Funding, LLC
Marcadis & Associates, P.A.
Shafritz & Braten, P.A.
Midland Credit Management
Midland Funding
Hudson & Keyse, LLC
Palisades Collections, LLC
Pollack & Rosen, P.A.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
Rubin & Debski, P.A.
Law Offices of Harold E. Scherr
Sprechman & Associates, P.A.
NCO Financial Systems
Unifund CCR Partners, G.P.
Wagner & Hunt, P.A.
Mann Bracken, LLP or or Eskanos & Adler LLP or Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP
Zakheim & Associates, P.A.

Saudi Arabia: Child Brides are LEGAL Debt Payments!

2009-04-12T08:23:00.000-07:00

It is only a matter of time before Mann Bracken, Atlantic Credit and Finance, John P. Frye, Arrow Financial, Penncro, and the rest have branch offices in Saudi Arabia!

"ONAIZA, Saudi Arabia, April 12 -- A Saudi Arabian judge has refused to overturn a ruling that declared the arranged marriage of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old man legal, a relative says. The judge, Sheikh Habib Habib, ruled for the second time Saturday in Onaiza that the girl's marriage to a friend of her father's was legal and binding. He said the child wife could file for divorce once she reached puberty. An unnamed relative of the girl told the broadcaster that Habib, who first refused to annul the marriage last year, reconsidered the case upon the girl's mother's appeal. The mother's attorney, Abdullah Jutaili, said the girl's father arranged the marriage with his "close friend" to pay off a monetary debt. The relative said the girl's mother, who is divorced from the father, will continue to seek to overturn the marriage. An appeals court in Riyadh will reportedly consider the case again in a hearing set for next month."

Harold Wickline - Pioneer Credit

2009-04-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

Harold Wickline has had a long history in the collections field. His first position was at GC Services. He was there from 1974 to 1992.

He would still be there, but GC tanked due, in part, to his mishandling of student loan accounts.

He is currently President and CEO of Pioneer Credit Recovery. It is one of the worst in the industry.

It is only a matter of time before Wickline makes another mistake and destroys Pioneer. If anything positive is to be said about him, he has made money for others by violating consumer rights!

Getting Out of People Finders

2009-02-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

People Finders make it easy to get out! All you have to do is send them a signed, written request. Send a stamped self addressed envelope so they can respond. The address to write to is: People Finders Opt Out 1821 Q Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Someone did this. It took about a week to get the attached letter back.

People Finders had six addresses. Two had mistakes and one was completely wrong, so it pays to do this, all it costs is two stamps!

Do this now! Make it harder for Mann Bracken, Wolpoff Abramson, Eskanos Adler, Connell Loftus, Matthew Linkie, Chris Diwan, John P. Frye, Atlantic Credit and Finance, Richard Woolwine, Kelly Woolwine, AFNI, United Recovery Systems, and the rest of these people to find you and harass you!

Good luck!

Get Out of Intelius!

2009-02-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

Intelius is a public records database used by many collection agencies to help track you down.

But, did you know that getting out of Intelius is easy?

Send a fax to (425) 974-6194. The fax must include a copy of your driver's license, but cross out the picture and driver's license number.

Easy! You are now OUT of Intelius. One less way for Atlantic Credit and Finance, John P. Frye, Woolwine, Mann Bracken, and the rest to find you.

We'll show you how to get out of other databases soon!

Enemy and Friend!

2009-01-03T09:11:00.000-08:00

Look at this guy's blog: http://debtcollectionlawyer.blogspot.com/

OK, we know what you're thinking, he's just another one of these annoying debt collectors. You're right.

But, he gives a lot away about how these people operate. Knowing how the enemy works is useful!

For example, he tells how to collect from self employed people. So, if you're self employed, read his article and make sure none of this will work!

Saudi Arabia: 8 Year Old Daughter Traded to Settle Debt!

2008-12-24T07:03:00.000-08:00

What will they think of next? Will the people from Atlantic Credit and Finance, The Law Office of John P. Frye, Penncro, Mann Bracken, Afni, Axiant, and the rest be making a fact finding trip to Saudi Arabia to see if they can add child marriage to the list of dirty collection tricks?

**********

December 24, 2008

A Saudi judge recently refused to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man -- a union apparently arranged by the girl's father to settle his debts.

On Saturday, the judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, dismissed a petition brought by the girl's mother because she "is not the legal guardian of the girl," the woman's lawyer Abdullah al-Jutaili said.

"Therefore, she cannot represent her daughter in these proceedings," al-Jutaili said.

Her parents are separated, he said.

According to the lawyer, the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his.

The judge did ask for a pledge from the husband, who was in court, not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili.

The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said.

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.

"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Human Rights Commission, a Saudi government-run human rights group, said his organization is fighting against child marriages.

"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia," al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed."

The spokesman said he did not have specific details about this case but his organization has been able to stop at least one other child marriage.

Aspire's Red Ink: Part 2

2008-11-29T15:21:00.000-08:00

Aspire Visa has suspended its cards and is engaged in furious collection activity before it and Compucredit go out of business. A lawsuit filed against them by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may have had something to do with it!

Be wary of them. Make sure you owe before you pay.

Aspire VISA Prints Its Own Red Ink!

2008-11-20T11:53:00.000-08:00

If you are having trouble with Aspire VISA payments, you are not alone.

It seems something has gone wrong with the magnetic ink printing of the payment slips. Your payment goes into what they call "UTF" or "unable to find" status and they return it. Of course, since your payment is not applied, your account becomes delinquent.

Is this a scam to get late fees? Possibly. Is this just simple incompetence? Most likely.

Should you complain and stand up for your rights? DEFINITELY.

Aspire VISA is something Henry Paulson and the other "bailout masters" need to take a good hard look at.

Tough Times, More Violations!

2008-10-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

October 30, 2008

After several years in which Americans were buying stuff on credit they couldn't afford, a rapidly increasing number are complaining about getting harassed and abused by bill collectors.

Nearly 71,000 people filed such complaints with the Federal Trade Commission last year, roughly double the number in 2003. In addition, more than 14,000 complained to the Better Business Bureau. Thousands more lodged grievances with state and city officials.

"And it is going to get worse," warned David Polino, a Better Business Bureau expert on collection agencies and president of the BBB chapter in upstate New York. "With the recession, with the horrible credit problems, this is going to be off the charts."

Regulators and consumer groups say the rise in complaints reflects the rapidly increasing number of Americans who took on more debt than they could handle during the free-spending, easy-credit days that preceded the current economic crisis. The complaints are also being attributed to the explosive growth in the number of companies that buy up bad consumer debt at a discount and try to collect whatever they can.

U.S. law allows creditors to take aggressive steps to collect a debt, including going to court to freeze a debtor's bank accounts. But there are also rules: They may not call before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. They may not repeatedly use the phone to annoy you. They cannot curse or threaten to have you arrested. They cannot lie about the likelihood of legal action, or tack on unwarranted charges.

People who owe money are often themselves rude and abusive to bill collectors, use obscene language and hurl death threats. But under the law, bill collectors are not allowed to respond in kind.

Nearly 39 percent of the people who complained to the FTC last year accused an agency of either demanding a larger payment than legally allowed, or seeking money they didn't owe at all.

Bob Silvers of San Jose, California, said a company called Bay Area Credit Service has been hounding him over a disputed $60 ambulance bill from 2002 by bombarding him with calls that begin early in the morning and sometimes continue all day.

"I get between three and nine calls a day, six days a week," said Silvers, who claims the agency has ignored his demands to stop calling. "It's just constant harassment."

A spokesman for Bay Area Credit said he was unfamiliar with Silvers' dispute, but said it is against company policy to use the telephone to browbeat people.

West Virginia's attorney general sued a Florida company this month, accusing it of trying to intimidate people into paying delinquent cell phone bills by falsely threatening them with arrest, harassing their relatives and contacting their employers.

One 72-year-old retiree targeted by the company, Florence Gifford of Gypsy, West Virginia, said she didn't believe she owed anything, but forked over $304 anyway after collectors used foul language and threatened to send a sheriff's deputy to her door.

In New York, authorities said one collector was recently disciplined for threatening to have immigrant debtors deported.

"We're starting to see more of the more serious types of harassment," said Jonathan Mintz, New York City commissioner of consumer affairs. His office investigated 1,277 complaints last year, up from 508 in 2004.

The collection industry is quick to point out that complaints don't necessarily equal improper conduct.

The company being sued in West Virginia, Charles Howell and Associates, denied its collectors had used bad language or threatened anyone with arrest.

"There's no lick of any sort of proof," said the company's president, Gregory Wells. "The only thing they have is the word of someone who owes money and is trying to get out of paying."

Rozanne Andersen, general counsel of ACA International, a trade association for debt collectors, chalked up much of the increase in complaints to America's growing debt problem.

According to the Federal Reserve, American consumers now owe around $969 billion in revolving debt -- the type of debt that people have on their credit cards -- compared with $770 billion in 2003.

Some 4.5 percent of all bank-issued consumer credit cards were delinquent in the second quarter of 2008, versus 2.4 percent in 1990, according to the American Bankers Association.

"There has been a tremendous increase in the volume of bad debts," Andersen said. "That is not an excuse, because we do take these complaints very seriously. But some of these complaints involve consumer misunderstanding of the law, or just frustration."

Regulators say many of the most serious complaints seem to be aimed at a particular type of debt collection agency: companies that specialize in buying old accounts that have defied all previous attempts at collection. There are hundreds of such companies, compared with as few as a dozen a decade ago.

These companies pay pennies on the dollar to acquire portfolios of "zombie debt" from phone companies, banks, health care providers and stores.

"We've seen people being pursued over debts that are 8, 9 or 10 years old," said Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson.

Those attempts to collect on older debts that have changed hands several times can be problematic, said the BBB's Polino. Some of the record-keeping on those accounts is so slipshod, he said, that collectors find themselves hounding the wrong people, or chasing accounts that were paid off long ago.

Swanson sued an Illinois debt-collection agency, AFNI Inc., in July, accusing it of failing to verify that old bills were legitimate before going after debtors. AFNI's vice president Jim Hess defended the company's efforts to verify debts and blamed some of the problems on an increase in identity theft.

Ernestine Williams, a 55-year-old widow in Morristown, New Jersey, walked into her bank over the summer to make a deposit, only to learn that her account had been frozen at the request of a company that purchased her delinquent Pep Boys repair bill.

The company is demanding $2,135 immediately to unfreeze her account -- an amount that includes about $400 in fees and interest on top of her original debt. Williams said she has had financial problems since her husband died and needs more time to pay.

"It's ludicrous," Williams said. "I'm trying to get back on my feet so I can pay my bills. It's embarrassing. I've already pawned all my jewelry. I don't have anything."

Axiant: New Kid On the Block?

2008-10-24T17:10:00.000-07:00

Let’s talk about Wolpoff and Abramson’s merger with another collection agency and gun for hire, Mann-Bracken. Neither of these two companies have a savory reputation in the eyes of many.

So who are these guys and why should we care? First up is Mann-Bracken. From Mann-Bracken’s website:

An effective use of required demand letters, telephone collections strategies, and, when appropriate or by direction, filing a law suit has marked our success. In 2001, we pioneered the use of arbitration in collection matters and have shown clients a principled and efficient means of negotiating with delinquent customers. Protecting our clients’ rights as creditors is central to all our activities.

Mann Bracken employs both predictive and manual dialing campaigns and has state-of-the-art call monitoring and account auditing. MB is licensed to collect in all fifty states and employs a full time compliance team and full time trainer.

Note of course that Mann Bracken is something odd. Victor Johnson, operations manager at Mann Bracken told the press that Doug Mann "took his check and bailed" and that the new boss, Chris Bracken, is a real tyrant. People are afraid of being fired for even knocking on his door!

So basically, if you’ve gotten the automated collections call, it’s probably from Mann-Bracken. In addition, they “pioneered” the use of arbitration, an unsavory practice in which consumers prevail just .2% of the time. The Better Businsess Bureau reports that Mann-Bracken has an unsatisfactory rating due to “numerous unresolved complaints and failure to respond to inquiries”.

Wolpoff and Abramson has an equally unsatisfactory rating with the BBB. W & A just sold a large portfolio of debt to another collections baddie, Palisades Collection.

W & A also are no stranger to arbitration and have profited mightily by taking clients through the National Arbitration Forum.

To add insult to injury, Mann-Bracken just completed a merger with GA and Eskanos and Adler Concord, CA. So now we have Wolpoff and Abramson, Mann-Bracken, GA and Eskanos and Adler, a bunch of law firms that are the basis of Axiant!

John P. Frye: Earning a Dishonest Living!

2008-10-24T17:00:00.000-07:00

Teresa Hughes - 29 Jul 2008

These people keep calling me about an old credit card debt. They are rude and everytime they call they talk to my husband about this debt and he is not down as an authorized user and didn't have my permission to talk to them about my debt. They wanted us to give them our checking account info so they could withdraw money that we didn't have. We tried to make payment arrangements and asked for the address but they refuse to give us the address to send in the payments.

Caller ID: law office jp
Caller: law office of JP frye
Caller Type: Collection Agency

Check By Phone - NO

2008-10-22T16:27:00.000-07:00

Paying by check by phone can be convenient, but it can get you into trouble if you are dealing with an unscrupulous or dishonest collection agency.

There have been many complaints. You owe $500, you approve a check by phone for $50. They take the $50, but then take more.

By the time you find out, the money is gone and very hard to get back.

So just say no. If they press you, tell them your bank charges $50 for each one or that your account doesn't support it. They will make noise but they will back down.

And, if you have no choice, make sure you contact your bank IMMEDIATELY. Tell them you have authorized a check by phone for whatever the amount is, but no more. Tell them you will hold them (your bank) responsible if more is taken out.

They will wait for a check or money order. You will also be able to trace the money if they claim they did not get it.

Giving a collection agency permission to do a check by phone is asking to be robbed. Just don't do it!

Allied Interstate: Sound Advice!

2008-10-13T14:26:00.001-07:00

From their name, you'd think Allied Interstate was a trucking company. But, they're not. They're a collection agency and "members in bad standing" of the Collection Agency Hall of Shame!

Allied Interstate is one of the sleaziest collection agencies in the world. The Minneapolis debt collectors are known to harass consumers repeatedly, even when they are told to stop calling.

This kind of harassment is in violation of federal law under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Allied Interstate was sued by the Minnesota attorney general for repeatedly calling innocent consumers despite requests to stop. Allied Interstate eventually agreed to a settlement that prohibits them from contacting such consumers after being told that they don't owe the debts in question.

Will that be enough to stop the harassment? It’s highly doubtful. There are more complaints to the Federal Trade Commission about debt collectors than about any other industry. Yet, despite the many complaints and class action law suits, debt collectors are still managing to harass consumers on a regular basis. In many cases, the consumers don’t even owe the money. They simply play off the collector to stop the harassment.

Under the FDCPA, collectors are supposed to advise consumers that they have a right to dispute the debt, but that if consumers don't do so promptly and in writing the collector can assume after 30 days that the debt is valid. This consumer right is called debt validation and should always be practiced. A consumer should never pay on a debt unless it is proven. Once collectors are notified that they've contacted the wrong party or that the consumer denies owing the debt, the companies are supposed to provide proof of the debts' validity. If they can't supply the proof, collections are required by law to cease.

They are also required to remove the debt from your credit report.

The best way to stop Allied Interstate and other miserable collectors is to know your rights and to let them know that you know your rights. Otherwise they will take advantage of you as they have so many other innocent people that didn’t deserve it.

First Person: Pinnacle Collection

2008-10-12T14:04:00.001-07:00

June 15, 2008 by Dea Foster

Pinnacle Collection Agency Complaint - Highway Robbery

Collection services was sent my Westgate Lakes Account on March 17, 2008, this year. Their fees as of right now are $614. I cannot use my timeshare until I pay this $614 although I have paid up the fees and maintenance on the timeshare in full.I have in my possession a letter dated 2/20/2008 from CFI Resort Management, an arm of Westgate Lakes, Orlando, asking me for payment.

I called them in February and made payment arrangements to pay (end of May, beginning of June) when income tax came in. This is notated in writing on that letter and made the day of the call.June 3, I paid the amount in full to Westgate via telephone. About 5 days later, I contacted Westgate Lakes to schedule the week, wishing to move the week to Northwest Florida area.

I was informed that WGL cannot talk to me about the account because I owed them money.Well, one big hulabaloo went on about me explaining I paid. Then, without confirming receipt of my $1466, I hung up the phone, called my husband at work and he found out through pinnacle that WGL has the money, but we still owe $614 in collection fees. Now, remember, they haven't had the case but since March 17, 2008 and AFTER the payment arrangements were made with Westgate.

I KNOW I made the arrangements because of my date/time/when to pay notes, etc.The $614 is exuberant and I need advice on what to do with this. I know I need to contact the BBB or Federal Trade Commission before I do an attorney, but if anyone out there has advice on how to handle this, I would appreciate it. I am sick and tired of taking this kind of thing. With homeowner's insurance and property taxes in Florida sky-rocketing, and gas reaching all-time high, you THINK these people would realize $614 for a 2-month period of NOTHING...NO LETTER IN MAIL, nothing...would be wrong morally if not illegal!

Frye and Woolwine: Rotten in Roanoke!

2008-10-07T12:58:00.001-07:00

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Roanoke debt collector draws complaints

Most of the complaints against Atlantic Credit & Finance allege that their collectors harass debtors.

By Deirdre Conner

A Roanoke debt collection agency celebrated as the one of the nation's fastest-growing companies routinely harasses debtors and violates federal law, according to legal proceedings and complaints filed with consumer advocates and a state government agency. Atlantic Credit & Finance Inc., a company that buys defaulted credit card debt and tries to recover it, has been sued nearly two dozen times in federal courts and at least twice in state courts for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The federal law spells out what debt collectors can and can't do when attempting to collect debt from consumers. Allegations in lawsuits and complaints against the company describe an assortment of illegal tactics used by collectors to get debtors to pay up, including repeatedly calling their employers after being asked to stop, and posing as attorneys. In the past three years, the Better Business Bureau has received more than 100 complaints about Atlantic Credit & Finance, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has received 31 complaints.

Company President Kelly Woolwine declined to respond to questions about the lawsuits and complaints, saying it was against company policy.

Other representatives from Atlantic Credit & Finance and affiliated companies also declined phone and e-mail requests for comment.

Most of the complaints against Atlantic Credit & Finance and its affiliated companies allege that their collectors harass debtors and their employers to intimidate debtors into paying. But it is illegal for debt collectors to tell third parties about a debt and to call a debtor's place of employment when they have been asked verbally not to. Though it buys the debt, Atlantic is considered a debt collector under the FDCPA.

Debt collectors must altogether stop contacting a debtor if that request is in writing, though the collector may still notify the debt-holder that it intends to pursue a "specified remedy."

While many think the FDCPA is being flouted across the industry, many debt collectors have not received as many complaints or legal filings as Atlantic Credit & Finance, according to a database of federal lawsuits. Two other long-standing Roanoke-area debt collection agencies, CCA Collections and SCA Credit Services, had only three federal FDCPA lawsuits over the past 10 years. Both are members of the Better Business Bureau, which means they must respond to complaints and maintain a "satisfactory" record.

The pressure of constant calls at work from Atlantic collectors stretched Dewayla Connor of Texarkana, Texas, nearly to the breaking point. She said an Atlantic collector called her over and over at work despite repeated requests to stop. When the collector called her boss, Connor feared for her job. When the collector told a resident at the apartment complex she manages about the money Connor owed, her supervisor was furious, she said. Connor said she didn't have the $850 they said she owed on what she thought was a $200-limit credit card, but she was afraid her job might be in jeopardy.

"If I had the money, yeah, even though I don't think I really owe it, I have to start thinking about my son and job. I would have paid to save my job if I had had the money," Connor said. "It was embarrassing. I mean, I wanted to leave my office for the day. It really affected my work." Connor complained to the Better Business Bureau.

Richard Tierney, a Massachusetts resident, had an employer who was not as understanding when he continued to get calls from an Atlantic collector even after he asked them to stop calling him at work. He sued Atlantic last year in federal court for alleged FDCPA violations that he said got him fired from his job. The case was settled in Tierney's favor on July 30. The settlement amount was not disclosed because of a confidentiality clause requested by Atlantic and agreed to by Tierney, according to Tierney's attorney Christopher LeFebvre.

The agreement prevents any of the parties from talking about the terms of the settlement.

Two lawsuits filed in Texas this summer detail allegations that are similar. Michael Ford of Harris County filed suit against Atlantic in June, alleging that a collector called his employer and his home so frequently that he was forced to unplug his telephones. According to the complaint, the collector would call back after Ford hung up on her, often as many as 10 times in a day.

Stephanee Horton also sued Atlantic in June in Texas, claiming that collectors called her office so much that her co-workers were able to recognize their voices. When told that Horton was not in the office, collectors responded by calling the co-workers "liars" and demanding they put Horton on the phone, the complaint said. The settlements for Ford and Horton came within two months of the initial filings and also included confidentiality agreements.

There's no doubt that debt collection is by nature an unpleasant process, said Julie Wheeler, president of the Better Business Bureau of Western Virginia. The recourse when consumers owe money is more complicated when debt is unsecured, such as with credit card accounts. Unlike cars or mortgages, collectors can't physically repossess past-due balances.

But unpleasant is not the same as illegal, experts say, and sometimes people do exaggerate claims because they are upset. "In the situation where someone's trying to collect debt, there's not a nice way to do it," Wheeler said. Still, the unusually high volume of unanswered complaints earned Atlantic Credit & Finance an "unsatisfactory" report with the BBB, she said. "I haven't independently verified [each incident], but by the fact that we've received this many complaints with the same string of information flowing through them leads me to believe that that is what's taking place," Wheeler said.

"We do look for patterns, and hearing the same things from people all over the country - there's a pretty good chance that there's proof in that."

Growing company

Atlantic Credit & Finance's expansion has been meteoric.

Atlantic, started as a basement operation by brothers Kelly and Richard Woolwine, was named to Inc. magazine's top 50 fastest-growing private companies in 2002 and 2003. The company projected $65 million in 2004 revenue, and has another office in Columbia, Md. In May, plans were announced to open a new center in Henrico County under the name Virginia Credit & Finance, which the company said would be a "servicing partner" of Atlantic. And it has plans to open offices in West Palm Beach, Fla., and Phoenix in 2005, according to a press release.

In June 2003, Atlantic was awarded a $150,000 grant by the Virginia Department of Business Assistance to train the 226 workers it planned to add to the payrolls at a new Roanoke office on Orange Avenue. The company had used only about half the amount as of August, the department said. The grant was part of an economic development recruiting effort, where Virginia competed with Maryland for the site relocation and expansion. About 260 people work at the Roanoke office, according to a job advertisement the company ran on Aug. 25 in The Roanoke Times. The company is in ways much like any other rising star. It was even honored this year for its first employee fund-raising campaign for the United Way. But most corporations do not have an internal telephone directory in which employees are listed by name and working alias.

Strategies to collect debt at Atlantic Credit & Finance ranged from honest and polite to deceptive and outrageous, according Bryan Cruise of Roanoke, who said he was once one of Atlantic's highest-earning collectors. Cruise said repeatedly calling a debtor's employer was a common technique, and frequently his own most effective tool. Cruise worked at Atlantic two separate times for a total of more than three years. He is currently employed elsewhere and said he now regrets much of his time at Atlantic.

Other collectors apparently used more creative tactics: Cruise said he once heard someone call a debtor's neighbor to ask where they were. Learning that the person was shopping at a nearby Wal-Mart, the collector called the store and had the person paged over the loudspeaker to the front desk to talk to them about a debt, he said.

Others threatened to have debtors arrested, or screamed profanities at them over the phone, Cruise said. After initially working on the collection floor, Cruise later worked in a newly formed compliance department, where part of his job was to respond to lawsuits and agency complaints.

Other former employees contacted for this report declined to speak on the record.

Collectors would also tell debtors that they would place liens on their houses, garnish their wages (both of which are illegal in some states), or even have them arrested, Cruise said, tactics similar to those alleged in lawsuits against Atlantic.

Settlement history

Matthew Johnson, senior research and compliance attorney at ACA International, a trade association of debt collectors and creditors, said he could not comment on whether Atlantic Credit & Finance or its affiliated companies have complaints lodged against them or have been subject to disciplinary action. It is made public if a company is suspended or expelled from the association, which happens infrequently, he said. He said that, in general, most ACA members "try to do it right."

Both Atlantic and The Law Office of John P. Frye are ACA members. Members of ACA are required to agree to an ethical code of conduct. The Law Office of John P. Frye lists an address next door to Atlantic, and has sent out collection letters for Atlantic. Johnson said that generally speaking, it is not a good strategy for debt collectors to settle every case that is filed against them, especially if they are wrongly accused. "Agencies don't like to settle too much if they think they've got a solid defense," he said.

While it can be more cost-effective to settle cases, companies that settle too often might open themselves up for more lawsuits, Johnson said. Cruise said he did not know of a time when Atlantic had won an FDCPA case in court. All of the court documents found for this article showed that Atlantic settled cases.

Representatives of Atlantic Credit & Finance declined to comment on the issue.

Private enforcement - allowing consumers to sue for statutory damages and litigation fees over violations of the FDCPA - was built into the design of the law when it was passed in 1977.

The Federal Trade Commission oversees broader enforcement of the FDCPA and takes action against the worst offenders. But few attorneys specialize in fair debt collection cases, and the FTC's resources are limited, consumer advocates say.

Thomas Kane, coordinator of FDCPA enforcement and education at the FTC, said he could not comment on whether Atlantic Credit & Finance is or has ever been the subject of an FTC investigation. The company has never been publicly fined or prosecuted by the FTC, Kane said.

Atlantic Credit & Finance is affiliated with at least three other companies: The Law Office of John P. Frye, Virginia Credit & Finance, and Rosewood Hudson & Associates. Its Columbia, Md., office was set up with the name Rosewood Hudson & Associates, but it later merged with Atlantic. "Rosewood Hudson holds itself out as being a law firm, when in fact they are nothing other than a collection agency. That was the primary target of our lawsuit," said Brian Bromberg, an attorney in New York City who sued Rosewood and Atlantic over calls made in July 2002. In the suit, which was settled for $1,500 plus attorney fees and court costs, answering machine tapes showed that a collector called the plaintiff claiming to be an "asset investigator for the law firm of Rosewood Hudson," Bromberg said.

Virginia State Corporation Commission records show that Rosewood Hudson & Associates merged with Atlantic Credit & Finance in March of this year. But it did not list Rosewood Hudson as a law firm.

Earlier this year, plans were announced for a new company called Virginia Credit & Finance, which is to be a "servicing partner" of Atlantic, according to a press release from the office of Gov. Mark Warner. It will be located in Richmond.

Consumers have also received letters claiming to be from both Atlantic Credit & Finance and The Law Office of John P. Frye. The Virginia State Bar officially lists John P. Frye as a lawyer who has an office in Mechanicsville.

Steve Conley, an attorney in Louisiana, filed a lawsuit in federal court Aug. 20 against The Law Office of John P. Frye for sending a collection letter to his client Herbert S. Williams. Conley said the letter illegally implies that Williams would be sued. "If a consumer gets a letter that says he's going to be taken to court, he knows the price of poker just went up," Conley said.

"So if the attorney is not involved in this file, and if it is, in fact, a collection agency masquerading as a law firm, then that's a very unfair and deceptive practice." John P. Frye is not licensed to practice in Louisiana, according to its state bar. "The letter conveys the impression that the lawyer is going to file against the debtor in court in Louisiana. The letter is deceptive if the lawyer is not actually licensed in the debtor's state."

John P. Frye did not return messages left at his offices in Mechanicsville and Roanoke.

Conley said he believes the letters are produced "by the hundreds of thousands."

Spiraling debt

Business is booming for debt collectors everywhere. In the last decade, consumers bought more and more on credit, and with the recent economic downturn and ensuing job losses, many of those bills went unpaid. Consumer debt stood at $2.01 trillion in July, according to the Federal Reserve. Average credit card debt per U.S. household has nearly tripled, from $3,646 in 1993 to $9,205 in 2003, according to CardWeb.com.

At the same time, debt buying has bloomed as a new industry. Atlantic claims its key to success is buying charged-off debts from major credit card issuers using a proprietary statistical model that identifies which accounts are most likely to be paid. Debt buying is growing in part because federal regulators have been urging financial institutions to more quickly clear their books of delinquent debt, said William Lund, director of the Maine Office of Consumer Credit Regulation, a state that has what most consider to be the country's strictest debt collection laws and enforcement. "It's a clean sale, and it is oftentimes for three or four or five cents on the dollar, even as low as two cents on the dollar," Lund said. "For a savvy debt buyer, it can be very remunerative."

Jerry Jarzombek, a lawyer in Fort Worth, Texas, who sued Atlantic Credit twice for FDCPA violations, said debt buyers can present a different set of problems to consumers than traditional third-party debt collectors because they are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Because Atlantic owns the debt, the money collected goes to the company, not a credit card issuer on whose behalf they are collecting. "It's my opinion that they're scavengers. They find the decaying carcass of an account somewhere, buy it for pennies on the dollar and try to collect on it," Jarzombek said. "If I'm a debt collector and I file my case [against a debtor], maybe as high as a half will never be answered. That 50 percent of default judgments - it will go on their credit report again. Then they will have to answer to me before they try to buy a car."

In addition to the federal law, some states have decided to regulate debt collectors on their own in a variety of different ways. Some require agencies to have bonds and licenses to collect in their states, and some have their own laws regulating collectors. Virginia is not one of them. There is anecdotal evidence to show that consumers in states with strong enforcement don't get harassed as much. Wheeler said the BBB has received no complaints from consumers in Maine, Colorado and West Virginia.

Creditors' Interchange: Voicemail Abusers!

2008-10-07T12:55:00.000-07:00

In March of 2006, a collector with Creditors' Interchange using the name "Damon Wilson" allegedly changed the outgoing message on a cellphone belonging to a supposed debtor named "Delores" of Manchester, NH.

As a result of a complaint, Wilson was terminated, and was the subject of a criminal investiagation, as was Creditors' Interchange.