Credit - Collection - Economic News
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
How to get a NEW collection account deleted and PERMANENTLY closed
This is another new Liars and Cheats EXPOSED blog:
Credit Reporting and Debt Collection News
It looks like I successfully installed an mp3 player (I LOVE WordPress!) and I’m looking forward to posting many collection recordings with my analysis.
My first post is not just about deletion, but how to get PERMANENT closure of a collection account owned by a debt buyer and why it is so IMPORTANT to record those collection calls.
Notably, my client offered to SETTLE the account for $750 after he received their initial collection letter and prior to their reporting to the credit bureaus. He RECORDED the call, conducted himself PROFESSIONALLY, recorded the voice mails they left for him and then he paid me $300 for a “settlement”—not a bad deal for him!
As long-time readers know, I successfully sued IC Systems over PHONE CALLS—nothing else. It’s the EASIEST way to document FDCPA violations because collectors just can’t stick to the script.
So I posted the rather funny message the collector left on my client’s voice mail, but I removed the collector’s name as they did delete and close the account.
Consider this “collection” reporting.
Had they NOT cooperated, they’d be featured on their own blog. And I don’t even have to delete after 7 years.
I recently moved two of my published FTC and AG complaints to Liars and Cheats EXPOSED blogs:
Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery FDCPA and FCRA Complaints with FTC and Attorneys General
Credit Bureau Experian and DeVry Reporting False Late Payments and Refusal to Delete
It’s a LOT of work to publish these complaints, but it’s well worth the effort in the long run. Collectors and creditors can see that I’m not bluffing.
Credit - Collection - Economic News • (0) Comments • Permalink
New blog about credit reports, scores and scams
Please subscribe to http://liarsandcheats.info/free-credit-reports-and-credit-scores/ for updates with news about credit reports and FICO scores.
Credit - Collection - Economic News • (0) Comments • Permalink
Monday, March 01, 2010
Capital One debt collection attorneys Erskine & Fleisher settled Florida FDCPA suit for $120,000
Here is the press release:
Boca Raton resident Steven J. Pincus incurred legal fees in excess of $100,000.00 dollars defending an alleged credit card debt of $800.00 dollars. Pincus later sued the debt collector in federal court for filing a time-barred lawsuit, a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The debt collector settled the matter for $120,000.00 dollars on February 15, 2010.
Hollywood, FL (PRWEB) March 1, 2010—Scott D. Owens, a partner at Cohen & Owens, P.A. (http://www.DebtDefense.com), has settled a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Steven J. Pincus against a Florida-based debt collection law firm, The Law Offices of Erskine & Fleisher. The federal lawsuit was originally filed in the Southern District of Florida on November 14, 2008 (Steven J. Pincus v. The Law Offices of Erskine & Fleisher, et al., Case No. 08-CV-81357).
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
Scott D. Owens, Esq.On November 20, 2007, Steven J. Pincus was sued in Palm Beach County Small Claims Court for a 3.5 year old Capital One Bank credit card debt of $803.95 dollars (Capital One Bank v. Steven J. Pincus, Case No. 502007SC016285). Though Pincus disputed the debt, he offered the credit card company a few hundred dollars to simply make the case go away and move on about his life. Capital One Bank rejected his offer so Pincus decided to hire Hollywood, Florida Attorney Scott D. Owens to defend him in state court and level the playing field against the $165 billon dollar credit card giant.
To the shock and horror of Pincus, Capital One Bank and its Florida attorneys launched a crusade against the 56 year old resident of Boca Raton, forcing him to incur more than $100,000.00 dollars in legal fees. Pincus’s attorney argued that although the case was filed in Florida, the proper time frame to file suit should be determined using Virginia law, which has a three year statute of limitations as opposed to Florida’s four year statue of limitations governing credit card debts. The legal argument is considered rather novel as most attorneys are unaware that debt collection lawsuits may be subject to another state’s (shorter) statute of limitations.
“Its right there in black and white,” explained Owens, “though somewhat obscured in the six point font multi-page cardholder agreement, it does in fact state that the governing law is that of Virginia – not Florida.” Owens further elaborated, “it gets a little less clear as to what is the applicable statute of limitations in Virginia, however, in order for it to be considered a written contract and thus subject to a five year limitations period, the agreement must be signed by the consumer – the Capital One Bank cardholder agreement, like most others, is never in fact signed by anyone.” In September 2008, Palm Beach County Court Judge Ted S. Booras ultimately agreed with Pincus’s attorney, ruling that that the cardholder agreement was “an oral contract subject to Virginia’s three year statute on limitation which was violated by the filing of this action in excess of three years from the date of the last transaction.”
Shortly thereafter, Pincus turned the tables and again hired Owens, this time to go after the Capital One Bank’s attorneys in federal court. Pincus filed a one count complaint for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Owens explained, “as an original creditor, Capital One Bank is typically exempt from the FDCPA but their debt collector attorneys do not enjoy this luxury.” The FDCPA allows plaintiffs to sue for $1,000.00 dollars in statutory damages plus any actual damages suffered by the consumer. Attorneys, such as Owens, are able to file such actions because the statute allows the for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. The federal case was also heavily litigated but eventually the Defendants relented and settled the lawsuit on February 15, 2010 for $120,000.00 dollars. “They didn’t admit any fault,” said Owens, “but then again law firms don’t generally write large checks when they think they’re in the right.”
Mr. Owens has filed several similar actions in federal court against other Florida debt collectors. He hopes that the Pincus settlement will give pause to those debt collectors who continually file time-barred lawsuits.
About Scott D. Owens, Esq.
Scott D. Owens, is a partner at the law firm of Cohen & Owens, P.A. located in Hollywood, Florida. The focus of his practice is consumer protection, which encompasses both defending debt collection lawsuits in state court and litigating claims against debt collectors in federal court, principally for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Mr. Owens is a 2000 graduate of New England School of Law and an active member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA).Contact Information:
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
Cohen & Owens, P.A.
3801 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. 200
Hollywood, FL 33021
Toll Free: 1-877-DEBT-FLA
Local: (954) 923-3801
Scott(at)CohenOwens(dot)com
http://www.DebtDefense.com
I find it most amazing that Cap One would even sue for $800—which most likely was 60% fees and interest.
I just looked at the docket for this case and after 1.5 years of litigation there are LOTS of filings, discovery issues and motions and I’ll be downloading many of the documents because one of the FDRS “debt relief” victims is sued by Cohen & Slamowitz. It is incredible that they have absolutely NO respect for consumers and I’ve been working the last couple days to get most of the filings and especially my communications with Cohen & Slamowitz and the FACTS posted.
A key issue is once again SERVICE. Apparently the server falsified the affidavit of service and Cohen & Slamowitz couldn’t care less.
I’ll post the link here once the blog is open.
Credit - Collection - Economic News • (0) Comments • Permalink
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
New Life Solutions—another debt settlement fraud
I was going to post about the FREE credit report scams, but a Google ad caught my attention and I got totally sidetracked.
FED Credit Debt Relief and New Life Solutions SCAM
It’s truly fascinating to see how the regulators KNOW that they’re scamming people, but they do NOTHING to stop them. Of course they’re located in Southern California, the financial fraud capital of the world.
And if you think that they got my attention because of the name so similar to Federal Debt Relief System, you’re right. But they’re ALL scammers, there is not a single debt settlement company I can recommend.
Credit - Collection - Economic News • (0) Comments • Permalink
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Texas court of appeals affirms summary judgment - WYATT v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCING
This is a very interesting case for all the morons on the web claiming that creditors are subject to the FDCPA, that creditors have to validate and that consumers can oppose the sale (assignment) of their accounts to scummy outfits like Capital One.
Wyatt cites the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692 et seq. (West 2009), to support his assertion that he was entitled to withhold payments because COAF did not verify its assignment via certain statutorily mandated procedures. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not apply here, however, because COAF does not qualify as a “debt collector” under the Act. See Neff v. Capital Acquisitions & Mgmt. Co., 352 F.3d 1118, 1121 (7th Cir. 2003) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies only to “debt collectors” as defined by Act); 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector” for purposes of Act).
It doesn’t matter how many times I post that creditors aren’t subject to the FDCPA, there’s an endless supply of IDIOTS polluting the internet with “sample letters” as sent by Wyatt (included in the court’s opinion.)
The court did a very good job summarizing what exactly happened:
WYATT v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCING
While the court of course AFFIRMED the summary judgment against Wyatt (as per the law), it did NOTHING about Capital One’s truly outrageous practices.
1) Capital One filed a contempt motion for the violation of an order NEVER served.
On June 20, 2002, COAF sued Wyatt in McLennan County to regain possession of the Kia. The court issued a writ of sequestration that, for reasons not revealed in the record, was returned unserved. COAF then filed a motion for contempt against Wyatt, apparently for refusing to comply with the writ of sequestration even though it was never served on him.
I’m also aware of several consumers who sued Capital One for similar practices.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the filings and they’ll most likely settle with a confidentially agreement.
Any attorney engaging in this type of misconduct ought to be DISBARRED.
2) The INTEREST charged by Capital One
Finally, COAF submitted affidavits establishing that Wyatt owed it $18,633.33 for its losses on the sale of Wyatt’s car. Wyatt did not controvert that amount, so COAF was entitled to recover it on summary judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 185. COAF was also entitled to recover its attorney’s fees because it sued on a written contract. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).
Why did Wyatt NOT challenge the interest?
At least he could have made an EFFORT and pointed out that Capital One pays NO interest on the money it CREATES when it makes loans. He probably would NOT have prevailed in court, but it sure would be nice to have the judges DISCUSS those FACTS so that people realize that it is TRUE and that I’m NOT spreading ludicrous conspiracy theories. I’d like to see appeals court discussions of these issues.
Of course EVERYBODY should have the RIGHT to determine who a debt can be assigned to.
Texas law and all our laws have to be changed to take the powers away from corrupt bankers and corporations. Nobody with half a clue would want a loan with a scummy outfit like Capital One.
Unfortunately, the ONLY way to get CHANGES is to stop paying our debts.
If everybody who qualifies for bankruptcy stopped paying their unsecured debts and “under water” home and auto loans to the big commercial banks, they’d be in serious trouble and WE would get the laws we deserve.
The tree of liberty is wilting.
Credit - Collection - Economic News • (0) Comments • Permalink
