Lloyd & McDaniel Sued for FDCPA Violations

Lloyd & McDaniel, PLLC is a debt collection law firm located in Louisville, Kentucky. It was established in 1952, has 91 employees, and is managed by owners James Lloyd and Greg Taylor. It has a B- rating with the Better Business Bureau.

Lloyd & McDaniel files tens of lawsuits each year against Florida consumers on credit card and student loan debts. Lloyd & McDaniel represents, among other creditors, SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust.

The Debt Relief Law Center recently sued Lloyd & McDaniel and its client, SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust, in United States District Court ir Orland, Florida, based upon it making false and deceptive allegations in a student loan lawsuit. The specific basis of the lawsuit was that Lloyd & McDaniel filed a student loan lawsuit in Osceola County alleging that:

• That SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2003-B is authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida;
• That upon the consumer's request, SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2003-B entered into a contract with the consumer;
• That the consumer obtained a loan/line of credit from SLM PRIVATE CREDIT STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2003-B; and
• That SLM made demand upon the consumer for payment, and the consumer refused to make payment in full.

All of these allegations were false.

The class-action complaint against SLM and Lloyd & McDaniel also alleged that the Defendants had filed similar lawsuits against other residents of the State of Florida that contained the same false allegations.

Attorney's Fees Awarded Against Debt Collector

Section 57.105(7) of the Florida Statutes provides for the reciprocal recovery of attorney's fees. So, if the debt collector sues a debt on a "contract" such as a credit card application and the debt collector does not prevail, the consumer/debtor may recover her/his attorney's fees against the debt collector.

The reciprocal provisions of Section 57.105(7) came to life for the consumer in Bushnell v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., 2018 WL 4374251 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2018). In Bushnell, a debt buyer initially brought and then voluntarily dismissed a collection lawsuit that was based on an account stated cause of action-that alleging that the consumer had been sent a statement of the amount owing and the consumer had not objected to the statement. The credit agreement provided for attorney fees for a prevailing creditor and Florida provides for reciprocal attorney fees. The question before the court was whether the reciprocal attorney fee statute applies where the collector's cause of action is not based on a breach of contract, but on the debtor's failure to object to a statement of account.

Although the debt buyer's case was not based upon a breach contract, the appellate court found it was based on a claim with respect to the contract. An account stated cause of action requires there to have been an agreement between the parties. Based on this reasoning, the court found the account stated cause of action is inextricably intertwined with the contract, and ruled the consumer was entitled to fees. The court also noted that in Florida there is no dispute that a consumer prevails on a lawsuit if the collector voluntarily dismisses the claim.

Court Grants Motion for Attorney's Fees Against Frontier Communications

After entry of a Final Judgment against Frontier Communications for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act for billing the plaintiffs for services that they never received, Plaintiff, Kelly Garner filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs.

Frontier Communications, through its counsel, Charles Wachter of Holland & Knight, vigorously opposed the Motion and retained the services of Jason S. Lambert, a 2012 graduate of Stetson Law School, as its expert witness.

At a hearing on November 7, 2018, in Orlando, Florida, a County Court Judge, Faye Allen ruled that: (1) Plaintiff's counsel was entitled to recover his attorney's fees against Frontier Communications at the hourly rate of $400 per hour; and (2) Frontier was required to pay the Plaintiff's expert witness, James C. Hauser, at the hourly rate of $600 for a total expert witness fee of $13,440.

FCCPA Judgment Against Frontier Communications

An Orange County Judge entered a Final Judgment against Frontier Communications for violation of the FCCPA.     Kelly and Dawn Garner sued Frontier Communications for damages for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors and any person from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices.  Frontier Communications billed the Garners for services that they never received.    Frontier Communications was represented by Jennifer Lada and Charles Wachter of Holland & Knight.  A Final Judgment against Frontier Communications was entered awarding Plaintiff, Kelly Garner, statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00.   All other claims were dismissed, including Frontier's Counterclaim.

On June 25, 2018, in accordance with the Final Judgment, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.  In addition to seeking fees for legal services for  trial and pretrial legal activities, the Motion sought fees for litigating the amount of fees.  Holland & Knight vigorously opposed that portion of the motion seeking fees-for-fees relying on the holdling of  State Farm v. Palma.  However, Holland & Knight.was unable to produce any legal authority in support of its position that a plaintiff is not entitled to fees-for-fees in an FCCPA case.

Frontier Communications has a history of billing issues.  People battling Frontier Communications over Billing Issues, Overcharges. 

Broad and Cassel fights decorated, disabled war veteran over medical bill

In October of 2017, Debt Relief Law Center filed a lawsuit under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act against Gold Key Credit and Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates, MD (FEP) because my client was receiving collection letters for medical services that were paid by the VA. I alleged, among other things, that my client was "a decorated combat war veteran with 100% disability." In response to this allegation, Attorney John P. Gaset of Broad and Cassel, LLP responded to that allegation with the following: "FEP moves to strike the allegations contained in this paragraph as they are immaterial, impertinent, and/or scandalous. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(f). In further defending the lawsuit, Broad and Cassel are seeking to recover its client's attorney's fees from this indigent, disabled, combat veteran.

How To Stop Debt Collectors from Calling.

Many consumers are behind in paying their bills?  And, many consumers are receiving calls from debt collectors.  Fortunately, the law says how and when they can do that.  For example, they can’t call before 8 a.m., after 9 p.m., or while you’re at work if the collector knows that your employer doesn’t approve of the calls.  Debt Collectors may not harass you or lie when they try to collect a debt.  And, if you ask them in writing to stop calling, they have to stop.

Debt Collectors must send you a written “validation notice” telling you how much money you owe within five days after they first contact you.  The notice must include the name of the creditor to whom you owe the money.

If you don’t want the collector to contact you again, ask for the collector’s mailing address and tell them – in writing – to stop contacting you.  Keep a copy of your letter for your files.  Send the original by certified mail, and pay for a “return receipt” so you’ll be able to document what the collector received.  Once the collector gets your letter, they are not allowed to contact you again.  Sending a letter to a debt collector you owe money to doesn’t get rid of the debt, but it should stop the contact.  The creditor or the debt collector still can sue you to collect the debt.

If this doesn’t work, contact me at 888-877-5103 or visit our website at www.ConsumerRightsOrlando.com.

Can a Debt Collector Insist That I Call Them Back?

Can a debt collector insist that I call them back?

Can a debt collector insist that they be called back that same day? Consumers are frequently confronted with this demand by debt collectors. “I must hear from you by 4:00 pm today?”

The Staff Commentary by the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC'), the agency charged with enforcement of the FDCPA, states that “[it] is a violation [of law to send any communication that conveys to the consumer a false sense of urgency.”


So, not only does that consumer not have to call back, they may have a case for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In such cases, the consumer can easily find an attorney who will represent them at no charge to them.