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.

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

Validation Notice Attached to Complaint Results in FDCPA Lawsuit

An attempted validation notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692(g) attached to a Complaint in a lawsuit may be considered as deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In Battle v. Gladstone Law Group, P.A., law firm, acting as counsel for Bank of America, N.A., filed a complaint in Florida State Court to foreclose on Gina Battle’s mortgage and to enforce a promissory note. Attached to the State Court complaint and summons was a document entitled “Notice Required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.” The Notice was presumably served to inform Gina Battle 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 State Court along with the State Court complaint informed Battle that she had 20 days to file a response with the court. Battle sued the law firm, Gladstone Law Group, and attorney Ron Gladstone, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that they violated the FDCPA because the Notice attached to the state court Complaint was deceptive and misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.” The federal lawsuit was converted into a Class Action alleging that that the class was so large that joinder of all members of the Class was impractical and that the class was in excess of 100. The District Judge ruled that an FDCPA notice incorporated into a mortgage foreclosure summons and complaint, such as the one used by the Gladstone Law Group, does not necessarily effectively convey notice of the rights to the “least sophisticated consumer.” The Court went on to say 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.
Battle v. Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Case Number: 12-14458-Civ-Martinez-Lynch.

"Least Sophisticated Consumer" Standard Under the FDCPA

The Eleventh Circuit and the majority of federal circuit courts have adopted the “least-sophisticated consumer” standard in analyzing claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).   The least-sophisticated consumer standard is consistent with FDCPA’s goal of expanding the consumer protections originally provided by the Federal Trade Commission Act.   The purpose of the least-sophisticated-consumer standard, here as in other areas of consumer law, is to ensure that the FDCPA protects the gullible as well as the shrewd.   No requirement of proof of actual deception of the consumer is necessary.
Courts apply this objective standard in order to implement the FDCPA’s dual purpose: to protect consumers against deceptive debt collection practices and to protect debt collectors from unreasonable constructions of their communications to consumer.    The least sophisticated consumer will be presumed to possess a rudimentary amount of information about the world and a willingness to read a collection notice with some care.    However the test also has an objective component in that while protecting naive consumers, the standard also prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection communications by preserving a quotient of reasonableness.

Massive Student Loan Filings by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust has filed a large number of lawsuits against consumers in the Central Florida Area.  These lawsuits are defective on their face as there are no allegations of assignment stated in the complaint.  Moreover, many of the lawsuits are being filed by a Seattle, WA law firm by the name of Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S. Based upon the failure of these crucial allegations, the lawsuits are ripe for dismissal. Just in 2013, Anthony Colunga of Weinstein Pinson & Riley has filed over 67 lawsuits against Orlando consumers; 36 lawsuits against residents of Seminole County; and, 33 in Volusia County, all on behalf of National Collegiate Student Loan Trust.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust is a Delaware Trust that is currently pursuing many consumers in the Central Florida area on student loans. In most cases, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust is the holder of a loan but does not have the necessary assignments needed to prosecute the case.

Other law firms that represent National Collegiate Student Loan Trust in Central Florida are:

Pollack and Rosen, P.A.
Anthony Colunga, Esq.
Hayt, Hayt & Landau, P.L. 

Class Action filed againt Udren Law Offices for violations of FDCPA

A class action lawsuit filed in May of 2013 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, against Udren Law Offices, P.C., Courtney Jared Bannan and Mark J. Udren. Case 2:13-cv-14219-DLG. The lawsuit alleges that in connection with the filing of mortgage foreclosure actions, the validation notice stated that the consumer must object to the alleged debt "in writing." This practice has been ruled as a false, misleading and deceptive practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 130 S. Ct. 1605, 1634–35 (2010).

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other class members, is seeking statutory and emotional damages against Udren Law Offices and has demanded a trial by jury.

[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.]

Northstar Mortage pursues collection after bankruptcy discharge

On March 18, 2013, a lawsuit was filed by James Dooley under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, alleging that Dooley had a mortgage with Bank of America which eventually went into default. In August of 2011, Mr. Dooley filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge in January of 2012. The mortgage with Bank of America was listed on the bankruptcy schedules. Notwithstanding the discharge of the note, Nationstar Mortgage continued collection activities against Mr. Dooley attempting to collect the discharged debt.

In an unrelated case, another lawsuit was filed in April of 2013 also under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, alleges that consumers took out a mortgage with MorEquity. In August of 2010, consumers filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge in November of 2010. The mortgage with MorEquity was listed on the bankruptcy schedules. Notwithstanding the discharge of the note, Nationstar Mortgage continued aggressive collection activities against the consumers including collection calls and collection letters attempting to collect the discharged debt.

Both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act make it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

Plaintiffs in both lawsuits are seeking statutory and emotional damages against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and have demanded a trial by jury.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article 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.]

Ocwen Loan, Udren Law Offices, sue consumer after Bankruptcy Discharge

A lawsuit filed in April of 2013 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, Case No. 6:13-cv-625-Orl-cv-22DAB, alleges that in November of 2006, the consumer took out a mortgage with the predecessor in title of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. In November of 2009, consumer filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge in April of 2010. The mortgage with Ocwen was listed on the bankruptcy schedules. Notwithstanding the discharge of the note, on March 13, 2013, Ocwen and Udren Law Offices sued the consumer for foreclosure in Osceola County, Florida, on the discharged note and mortgage.

Correspondence indicates that Ocwen Loan Servicing was fully aware of plaintiff's bankruptcy for over one year prior the the filing of the foreclosure action. After the federal lawsuit was filed, Udren Law Offices filed papers in the foreclosure proceedings dropping all claims againt the consumer seekign persoanl liability.

Both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act make it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

The consumer is being represented by N. James Turner of Orlando, FL.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article 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.]

Midland Funding, Pollack & Rosen, sue wrong person on alleged debt

A lawsuit filed in April of 2013 under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in United States District Court, Orlando, Florida, alleges that Midland Funding, LLC and Pollack & Rosen, P.A. sued the wrong person in county court in Orlando. To make matters worse, Midland Funding, LLC, through its managing attorney, Amanda Duffy, filed another case against the same wrong person on the date that the federal case was filed.

The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act makes it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

Plaintiff is seeking statutory and emotional damages against Midland Funding, LLC and Pollack & Rosen, P.A. and has demanded a trial by jury.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article 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.]

Lawsuit: JPMorgan Chase & Co. photographs consumer's home who has no mortgage

A lawsuit filed in April of 2013 under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in Seminole County, Florida, alleges that a representative of JPMorgan Chase & Co., was observed photographing the Plaintiff's home, taking notes and then attaching a collection notice to her front door. Too exacerbate the situation, the JPMorgan Chase & Co. representative was observed by the Plaintiff's son. The note said: "IMPORTANT - PLEASE CALL JPMorgan Chase & Co. - "WE ARE EXPECTING YOUR CALL TODAY."

The Complaint goes on to allege that the homeowner had no mortgage or other loan with JPMorgan Chase & Co.

The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act makes it unlawful for any person, in attempting to collect a debt, to: "Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist."

The lawsuit relies, in part, on the "least-sophisticated consumer standard" which has at its purpose to expand the consumer protections originally provided by the Federal Trade Commission Act and to ensure that the consumer collection practices laws protect the gullible as well as the shrewd.

Plaintiff is seeking statutory and emotional damages against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and has demanded a trial by jury.

[The allegations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit described in this article 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.]