Collection Calls or Voicemails from Wetlman, Weinberg and Reis?

Weltman Weinberg and Reis, LPA is a debt collection law firm based in Cleveland, Ohio, that files and litigates debt collection suits throughout the United States.The firm was founded 1930 and has roughly 950 employees in nine offices throughout the United States. Weltman Weinberg & Reis, LPA specializes in bankruptcy, real estate default, consumer and commercial collection agency services.  Weltman Weinberg and Reis, LPA claims to be the largest creditors' rights firm in the country.  Weltman Weinberg & Reis, LPA represents clients on retail, real estate default, commercial and collection matters involving bankruptcy, foreclosure, evictions, probate, compliance & defense litigation, collection recovery, collection litigation & post-judgment executions, complex collections & litigation, contract review, real estate title and closing services, insurance subrogation, and corporate & financial services. Weltman Weinberg and Reis, LPA has nine offices located in Brooklyn Heights, OH; Chicago, IL; Cincinnati, OH; Cleveland, OH; Columbus, OH; Detroit, MI; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Philadelphia, PA; and Pittsburgh, PA, WWR attorneys licensed to practice in Florida, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In Monty v. Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174011 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2013), the consumer alleged that beginning in approximately early 2013 and continuing through at least July 2013, he received multiple telephone calls per week on his home telephone at phone number from the law offices of Weltman, Weinberg & Reis with regard to an alleged debt that the law firm was trying to collect from him. The telephone calls resulted in numerous messages being left on Monty’s home answering machine and he contended that Weltman, Weinberg & Reis called him at least 200 calls between January 2013 and July 2013. During this same time period, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis repeatedly called an acquaintance of Monty’s and left, and left 15 voice messages on the acquaintance’s answering machine. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis did not have the prior consent to communicate with Monty’s acquaintance concerning the alleged debt. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis moved to dismiss the Complaint on the basis that the Complaint failed to identify properly the acquaintance or state the acquaintance was an improper third party under the FDCPA. In addition, Weltman Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA contended that the Complaint did not allege that the telephone calls were harassing to constitute a valid claim under the FCCPA. The District Judge denied the motion ruling that based on the allegations in the Complaint, Monty had established a valid claim under the FDCPA.

Collection Calls or Voicemails from Unifund CCR Partners

Unifund CCR Partners was founded in 1986 and was one of the first companies to purchase defaulted consumer receivables. Unifund's founder and chief executive officer, David G. Rosenberg, founded Unifund to purchase and collect returned checks. In 1989, Unifund began buying distressed loan portfolios on a national scale from small banks and retailers. One year later, the company began purchasing portfolios from large financial institutions. Unifund CCR is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and it is one of the largest buyers and operators of consumer debt in the nation. In Unifund CCR Partners vs. Youngman, the court reversed a lower court order granting Unifund CCR Partner's motion for summary judgment. Unifund CCR alleged that it was the assignee of Chase Bank, and sued the consumer for breach of contract and account stated, seeking to recover attorneys' fees and the balance owed on a credit card issued to the consumer. The lower court granted Unifund CCR's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court held that the consumer's cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted instead. The Appellate Court concluded that, to establish standing, Unifund CCR was required to "submit evidence in admissible form establishing that Chase had assigned its interest in [the consumer's] debt to [Unifund CCR]," but it failed to do so. Unifund CCR submitted an affidavit of its agent, a "Legal Liaison" employed by Unifund CCR rather than Chase, as well as credit card statements and account balance documents. The Court found that Unifund CCR did not submit the "requisite business records to establish its standing." The "Legal Liaison" employed by Unifund CCR did not establish personal knowledge of Chase's business practices or procedures, and failed to establish "when, how, or by whom the credit card statements and account balance documents were made and kept." Because Unifund CCR did not establish a proper foundation for the admission of the credit card statements and account balance documents under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, the appellate court held that Unifund CCR did not establish its standing as assignee of Chase Bank. Thus, the consumer's motion for summary judgment against Unifund CCR was granted.

Judge Dismisses Student Loan Lawsuit

Leon County, Florida Circuit Judge, John C. Cooper, dismissed a lawsuit filed by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust for breach of contract in connection with an allegedly defaulted student loan.    Judge Cooper ruled that the complaint was defective in that it failed to attach a copy of the contract sued upon.
In response to the order dismissing the Complaint, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust filed an Amended Complaint, with several attachments, including what it contended was a copy of the assignment from the original lender.  However, the assignment offered by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust was to an entity named National Collegiate Funding, LLC and not the Plaintiff in the action.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust v. Harvey, 2013-CA-2278.

Consumers file FDCPA Class Action Against Weinstein, Pinson & Riley

Fifteen consumers filed a Class Action Lawsuit against Weinstein, Pinson & Riley in United States District Court in Orlando, Florida, alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Class Action Complaint arises out of a number of student loan lawsuits filed by Weinstein, Pinson & Riley on behalf of National Collegiate Student Loan Trust.    The Consumers are alleging that Weinstein, Pinson & Riley made misleading and deceptive statements in connection with its efforts to collect on student loans.
Ferrell, et al v Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., Case No. 6:13-cv-1965-Orl-36DAB.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article are the plaintiff’s version of the facts and must be proven with competent evidence. Moreover, these allegations may be denied or disproven by the defendants.]

Validation Notice Attached to Foreclosure Action Results in FDCPA Class Action

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) mandates that as part of noticing a debt, a debt collector must send the consumer a written notice containing -- along with other information – “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.”   This requirement is sometimes referred to as the “Debt Validation Notice.”  In addition, the Act prohibits a “debt collector” from using “any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.”
Surprisingly, many well established law firms have a fundamental misunderstanding of the application of this statutory requirement.   A random survey of foreclosure actions filed throughout the State of Florida would reveal that a 1692(g) Validation Notice is routinely attached to mortgage foreclosure complaints.  However, a “pleading,” such as a complaint in a lawsuit, can never be an “initial communication” that triggers the notice requirement under 1692(g).  Moreover, sending such a notice can be deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.”

A recent case filed in United States District Court in Orlando, Florida, alleges that Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, acting as counsel for PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed a complaint in Seminole County, Florida, to foreclose on Linda Karp’s mortgage and to enforce a promissory note.   Attached to the state court complaint and summons was a document entitled “Notice Required by the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.”  The Notice was presumably served to inform Linda Karp of her rights concerning validation of the debt and provide her with 30 days to request validation of the debt.   The summons issued by the court along with the foreclosure complaint informed Karp that she had 20 days to file a response with the court.   Karp sued Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP under the FDCPA alleging that the firm violated the Act because the Notice attached to the state court Complaint was deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.”  The lawsuit alleges that the  “least sophisticated consumer” could be deceived or confused when the summons sets out a 20-day deadline to respond to the lawsuit and the attached notice provides for a 30-day deadline to request validation of the debt.  Karp further alleged that hundreds of other consumers received the identical notice in connection with their mortgage foreclosure lawsuit.
Karp v. Shapiro, Fishman & Gache, LLP, Case Number: 6-14-Civ-Orl-000046-28TB