Friday, November 17, 2017
Shuster & Saben, LLC filed suit against Bank Of America (BofA) on behalf of an Orange County, Florida homeowner. In 2012, Bank of America filed a foreclosure action against our client. The client hired a Tampa based lawyer to defend the foreclosure action. In 2014, the judge of the foreclosure division entered summary judgment in favor of the homeowner and against Bank of America. Pursuant to Florida Statute 57.105(7) when a bank loses a foreclosure action the bank cannot recover the attorney’s fees it paid its lawyer or the filing fees it paid to the court. Nonetheless, even after Bank of America lost the foreclosure action it continued to send monthly mortgage statements that lumped in the past attorney’s fees into the total amount due.
Shuster & Saben, filed suit against Bank of America for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) for attempting to collect sums that Bank of America had no right to collect. The lawsuit also alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because Bank of America’s statements failed to adequately disclosure the nature of the changes it sought to collect, and failed to adequately explain that the charges included in the statement were attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the prior foreclosure action. Finally, the firm brought RESPA claims for Bank of America’s failure to timely respond to a Qualified Written Request submitted on behalf of the client. To read a redacted copy this lawsuit click here.
About Shuster & Saben: At Shuster & Saben consumer protection law does not end with defending consumers from foreclosure actions and debt collectors. We sue banks, loan servicers, junk debt buyers, and debt collectors who violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or who call the consumers cell phone without permission in violation of the TCPA.
Friday, February 24, 2017
The lawyers at Shuster & Saben filed suit in Orange County, Florida against Bluestem Brands, Inc. a company that does business as Fingerhut on behalf of a Orlando resident. The suit alleges that Fingerhut called our client 59 times in a mere 19 days. The lawsuit was filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a/k/a the TCPA. The TCPA prohibits any company from calling a consumer’s cell phone using automated dialing systems unless the consumer has given the company permission to make such calls.
Fingerhut is widely known for its practice of allowing customers to purchase goods on credit and pay for the items on a monthly installment basis over a course of several months. The firm’s client purchases a grill from Fingerhut after seeing a television advertisement offering the grill for a modest monthly price. The client made payments on the grill until she lost her job. She was then inundated with calls from Fingerhut and often received three or four calls in a single day. Fingerhut’s calls became increasingly aggressive and the bill collectors urged the consumer to borrow money from friends, family, or other sources to make a payment on the grill. The consumer explained that she told Fingerhut to stop calling her but Fingerhut refused. This lawsuit seeks damages for $1,500.00 per call for at least 59 calls, which equates to $88,500.00.