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.

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.

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.]

Lawsuit: Bank of America/Kass Shuler, Continue Pursuing Foreclosure/Auction After Modification

A lawsuit filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in Unites States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando, alleges that Bank of America and its law firm, Kass Shuler, P.A., continued to prosecute a mortgage foreclosure action up to obtaining a final judgment setting a public sale date, despite the fact that the homeowners had obtained a permanent modification from Bank of America and were current on their mortgage payments.

The facts of the case begin with Bank of America, through its successors in interest, extending credit to the Plaintiffs through a first mortgage on their primary residence, Loan No. 164910692.

At some point prior to December of 2012, the mortgage went into default and on November 22, 2011, Bank of America , through its attorneys Kass Shuler, P.A., filed a mortgage foreclosure action against the Plaintiffs in Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida, alleging, among other things, that Plaintiffs were in default on their mortgage.

After November of 2011, Plaintiffs made application to Bank of America, for a modification of their existing first mortgage so that they would be better able to satisfy their financial commitments to Bank of Americasaid Defendant, and, most important, keep their home.

Plaintiffs provided Bank of America with all of the documents and other information that they required in order to obtain the loan modification.

Plaintiffs applied for the loan modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) which, according to Bank of America’s website: “is one of the federal government’s Making Home Affordable programs. The government’s goal for modifying your loan is to help you get a more affordable and sustainable monthly mortgage payment.”

In processing the application for loan modification, Bank of America, represented to the Plaintiffs that if they successfully made all of their Trial Period Plan payments, they would receive a permanent Modification Agreement explaining the changes to their loan terms and that once this document was been signed, notarized and returned to Bank of America, the modification would become permanent.

On December 18, 2012, Bank of America approved the Plaintiffs’ loan modification request and, according to documents, the modification would become permanent upon the Plaintiffs signing and returning the enclosed documents.

Plaintiffs anxiously and gratefully accepted the loan modification, executed a Loan Modification Agreement and returned it to Bank of America.

In full compliance with the Loan Modification Agreement, Plaintiffs continued to timely pay to Bank of America, each and every monthly mortgage payment required under their modified mortgage.

According to the lawsuit, Kass Shuler, P.A. submitted documents to the Circuit Court in the mortgage foreclosure action, contending that the Plaintiffs were in default on their first mortgage with Bank of America when, in fact, the Plaintiffs were current with respect to their obligations with Bank of America.

On March 6, 2013, Plaintiffs received a conformed copy of a Final Judgment for Plaintiff ordering that unless they paid a total of $353,985.67 to Bank of America, that their home would be sold at a public sale to the highest bidder on June 4, 2013 at 11:00 am.

The lawsuit further alleges that the Final Judgment for Plaintiff was drafted and prepared by Kass Shuler, P.A. and all of the information contained therein was supplied and furnished by Kass Shuler, P.A.

The fact and content of the Final Judgment was a complete shock to Plaintiffs because they had faithfully made all of their payments to Bank of America under the terms of the modified mortgage.

The lawsuit also alleges that Kass Shuler, P.A. promoted and reinforced its public image through its website, marketing materials, and other forms of advertising, for the purpose of creating the impression that it possessed special expertise in the areas of foreclosure litigation and problem resolution. What follows is a direct quote from the Kass Shuler, P.A. website:

"Nationally recognized for its experience and expertise in representing creditors throughout the state of Florida, our Collections department comprises highly qualified attorneys, paralegals, investigators and collectors specializing in both commercial and retail matters. Our exceptional online database system allows clients to easily access case status, promoting optimum communication and process efficiency."

Plaintiffs have requested statutory damages, declaratory relief and emotional damages 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.]

Consumer Protection from Unwanted Cellphone Calls

Recent headlines have drawn attention to a prevalent consumer complaint - unwanted cell phone calls. A class action lawsuit against Papa John’s involves franchises that sent customers a total of 500,000 unwanted text messages in early 2010 offering deals for pizza. Some of these texts were sent during the middle of the night. The lawsuit is based upon the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The TCPA was enacted into law to “protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers” by placing certain restrictions on the use of unsolicited, automated phone calls made by telemarketers who were “blasting” out advertising by the use of both “facsimile machines and automatic dialers. An essential requirement of a TCPA claim is that the phone call be sent to a cell phone by use of auto dialing technology which either (1) utilizes a so-called “random or sequential number generator” or (2) automatically leaves a prerecorded, as opposed to a live, message.

In the context of debt collection practices, creditors have contacted consumers by cell phones on a regular basis. If a debt collector is found to have violated the TCPA, the consumer is entitled to recover statutory damages of $500 per call, and up to $1500 per call if the violation is willful, without any cap on damages. Claims under the TCPA by consumers against debt collectors are frequently joined with actions brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

For more information, visit us at Consumer Rights Orlando.

Offer of Judgment Halts FDCPA Lawsuit

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides that, at least fourteen days before trial, a defending party may serve a plaintiff with an offer to allow a judgment on specified terms. Several recent district court opinions have rules that an offer of judgment providing the plaintiff with the maximum allowable relief will moot the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim. Moten v. Broward Cnty., No. 10-62398-CIV, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19332, 2012 WL 526790, at 2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2012); see also Mackenzie v. Kindred Hosp. E., LLC, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1218-19 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (dismissing FLSA claim as moot after plaintiff rejected Rule 68 offer where offer exceeded amount plaintiff could have received at trial).

In Young v. AmeriFinancial Solutions, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125661 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2012), plaintiff filed an action against defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which provides that damages in an action brought by an individual shall not exceed $1,000.00. Defendant served an Offer of Judgment proposing to have judgment entered in the about of $1,001, plus attorney's fees incurred prior to the date of the offer. The Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the offer of judgment would provide plaintiff with the maximum allowable relief on her claims. Therefore, the court concluded, that the action was moot and the Court would no longer have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.

For more information about the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, ot, its state law counterpart, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, visit us at:

• Stop Collection Harassment;
or
• Consumer Rights Orlando

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “debt collector[s]” for certain prohibited debt collection practices. A debt collector who “fails to comply with any [FDCPA] provision . . . with respect to any person is liable to such person” for “actual damage[s],” costs, “a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court,” and statutory “additional damages.” § 1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), § 41 et seq., which is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). See § 1692l. A debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subject to civil penalties enforced by the FTC. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), (C). A debt collector is not liable in any action brought under the FDCPA, however, if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” § 1692k(c).