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.

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: 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.]

Lawsuit: Bank of America Manipulated Financial Information to put Consumer in Default on Mortgage

A lawsuit filed in Lake County Florida in March of 2013 alleges that the wife/homeowner, Mrs. Davis, became disabled and unable to work and made application to Bank of America for a modification of their mortgage so that they would be better able to satisfy their financial commitments and, most important, keep their home. Mr. and Mrs. Davis provided Bank of America with all of the documents that they required in order to obtain the modification. The application for modification was made pursuant to he Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) which, according to the 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.”

According to the lawsuit, in connection with the application for loan modification, Bank of America represented to Mr. and Mrs. Davis that if they successfully made all of their Trial Period Plan payments, they would receive a 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 or about February 16, 2012, Bank of America approved the Plaintiffs’ loan modification request and, according to Bank of America, the modification would become permanent.

After receiving approval for their modification, Mr. and Mrs. Davis continued to timely pay to Bank of America each and every monthly mortgage payment required under their modified mortgage.

It is alleged that on or about February 20, 2013, at 7:50 a.m., Mrs. Davis received a telephone call from an employee of the Bank of America by the name of Gabby, who informed her that they were $17,000 behind in their mortgage payments. The fact and content of the early morning telephone call was a complete shock to the Davises because they had faithfully made all of their payments to Bank of America for over 11 months under the terms of the modified mortgage. In the February 20, 2013 early morning telephone conversation, Gabby told Mrs. Davis to look at her statements from Bank of America and that she would see the basis for the claim of arrearage of $17,000. Mrs Davis immediately looked at her statements but saw no arrearage. During the February 20, 2013 telephone call, Gabby also told Mrs. Davis that Bank of America was going to file a foreclosure action against them.

At the time of the February 20, 2013 call from Bank of America threatening foreclosure, the father of Mrs. Davis had recently passed away and she was in a state of mourning.

Fortunately, Plaintiffs had maintained all of their records relative to the balance of the modified mortgage with the Bank of America and all of these records indicated that their mortgage with Bank of America was current. However, according to the lawsuit, a few days after the threatening phone call, Mrs. Davis checked her online account with Bank of America to again verify financial information, outstanding balance and list of payments previously made to Bank of America under the modified mortgage. To her shock, Mrs. Davis discovered that Bank of America had manipulated the online financial information in Plaintiffs’ account to show that the Plaintiffs’ mortgage was not current but was in arrears.

Plaintiffs have demanded a trial by jury.

Collection Calls from Bank of America

A Deltona Florida woman had a mortgage with Bank of America and, like many today, needed to modify her mortgage. So, she hired a lawyer a requested a loan modification from Bank of America.

In the process of the modification process, the consumer's attorney sent a letter to Bank of America and formally asked them not to contact her for any reason regarding her mortgage. This type of notification is normal and both state and federal law prohibit a debt collector from contacting the consumer after receiving such letter. Bank of America ignored the letter and continued to contact the consumer.

So, the consumer retained additional counsel who specializes in fair debt collection practices. The new debt lawyer contacted the legal department of Bank of America and requested that the cease all collection calls to the consumer in accordance with state and federal law. Bank of America continued to make collection calls to the consumer. In frustration, the consumer, through her expert debt lawyer sued Bank of America requesting that they stop making collection calls in accordance with the law. Bank of America continued to call the consumer. Then, finally, the case was settled. Bank of America presented the consumer with a lengthy settlement agreement containing a confidentiality agreement. The consumer reluctantly agreed and her debt lawyer agreed to the essential terms of the settlement agreement. However, Bank of America legal department had to have final approval of the settlement agreement. Well, that approval process must have gone to the same department that approves loan modifications. The settlement was never approved, the consumer never received her settlement funds and, her loan modification has still not been approved. Is that the end of the story? No, the consumer is still receiving collection calls from Bank of America.

In most debt harassment cases, Bank of America is exempt from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because they are attempting to collect their own debts - a specific exemption in the law. However, they are not exempt under the Florida Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as that law applies to "any person."

Bankruptcy Discharge trumps arbitration agreement in FCCPA suit

Yancy Harrier was a former customer of Verizon and in July of 2010, Harrier filed a Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy. Harrier's bankruptcy schedules listed Verizon as a creditor in the amount of $834.00. In October of 2010, the bankruptcy court entered a discharge order in Harrier's bankruptcy proceedings providing Verizon with notice of the discharge.
Harrier contended that despite the bankruptcy discharge, Verizon called him regarding the alleged debt on two occasions and e-mailed him regarding the alleged debt on one occasion. Harrier contended that these communications violated the FCCPA and the TCPA and filed suit based upon those statutes. Verizon moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings based on arbitration clauses contained in the agreements between Harrier and Verizon. The Court denied Verizon's motion.
The Court ruled that it would be inappropriate to compel arbitration under an agreement that was discharged in bankruptcy and that "a holder of a claim and the debtor" is enforceable only to the extent that certain conditions, such as reaffirmation of the agreement, are met. The Court was also persuaded by the fact that Harrier was not suing on the basis of the agreement.
Harrier v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communs. LP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142428 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2012).
For more information, visit Stop Collection Harassment.