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.]

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.