Free Credit Reports for a Year

You can now look at your credit report for free every week by going to www.AnnualCreditReport.com. The three national credit reporting agencies – Experian, Trans Union and Equifax – have announced that you can now have access to your credit report from each of the three bureaus for free every week until April 2021.

What Am I Looking for In my Free Credit Report?

•Always look to see if there is anything that does not belong to you on your reports. This includes signs of identity theft – names which you have never used; variations in your social security number (for example XXX-XX-1234, when your number is XXX-XX2143); addresses at which you have never resided; credit card or other accounts you never opened; and credit inquiries from banks you don’t have accounts with.

•Look to make sure that your creditors are reporting your accounts correctly. If you have received an extension to make your payment from your mortgage company or other lender due to a COVID-19 hardship, make sure your lenders are not reporting your account delinquent. This needs to be monitored on at least a monthly basis.

•Look for any other information which you know or believe is not correct. Go through your report line by line to make sure that none of your creditors are reporting negative information which is incorrect or inaccurate.

Buffalo NY Collector Shut Down

Over the past several years, many Arizona consumers have called with stories of harassment and threats by collection agencies or debt buyers from Buffalo New York. The threats include arrest, criminal action, legal action, loss of one's home and car, contacting employer, etc. Though these threats seem obviously illegal, many debtors get scared and pay these criminals money.

The Syracuse.com website recently posted a news article on Maurice Sessum, a Buffalo debt collector and owner of the collection agency 4 Star Resolution, was sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison for fraud. Sessum was operating a collection which scammed thousands of consumers to overpay their debts by $31 million. 

The article outlines many of the false statements used by 4 Star and Sessum to defraud consumers, including:

• that 4 Star was affiliated with local government and law enforcement agencies

• that debtor had committed crimes, and if debt was not paid immediately, they would be arrested

• that driver's license would be suspended if debt not immediately

• false threats of legal action

Anytime you receive a call from a collector, make sure you know who they are, including the name and address of the agency, and that they have a legitimate claim that you owe them money. You can check to see if they are licensed by the Arizona Department of Financial Affairs here. (A company collecting its own debt does not have to be licensed.) Most importantly, if there is any doubt that the company is legitimate, contact a consumer protection lawyer. 

You can always call the Bybee Law Center, PLC at (480) 756-8822 to discuss a collection call. 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Issues New Rule Banning Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, recently issued a new rule banning banks, credit card companies, and other financial firms from including mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. These clauses have been used by the banks to prevent consumers from going to court to redress any abuses or illegal action taken by the financial institutions. Wells Fargo used its forced arbitration clauses to attempt to thwart consumers' efforts to seek damages in court for Wells Fargo's opening of unauthorized accounts. 

In my practice as a consumer protection lawyer, I regularly see potential cases which I might otherwise take, but decline because of a mandatory arbitration clause. With this ban issued by the CFPB, more Arizona consumers will be in a position to assert their rights under the law in a court of law, rather than be forced to take their case to the less favorable venue of arbitration. 

Sued by National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts?

If yes, then you may be in a position to get the case dismissed, according to a recent news article in the New York Times. The article states that National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, or NCSLT, can’t find the paperwork for tens of thousands of debts which show that the account had been assigned to NCSLT. The missing documents prevent NCSLT from proving to the court that it is the current holder of the account and that loan is owed to it. 

According to the news article, “National Collegiate’s lawyers warned in a recent legal filing, ‘As news of the servicing issues and the trusts’ inability to produce the documents needed to foreclose on loans spreads, the likelihood of more defaults rises.’ ” What that means to you the debtor is that you may want to take a stand against NCSLT’s lawsuit to make them either prove the debt is owed to it, or get the case dismissed.

NCSLT sues in the name of its trusts with names like National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, or National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1. NCSLT has filed hundreds of cases in Arizona over the past six years. 

You may also have other defenses to the lawsuit, including statute of limitations, school fraud, wrong venue, etc. 

For a consultation about your NCSLT case, give BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC a call at (480) 756-8822 to set up an appointment to review your individual situation.

DEBT COLLECTOR REFUSES TO PAY JUDGMENT

Hutchinson Kansas debt collector National Credit Adjusters, LLC, which has offices in Arizona, refuses to pay a valid federal court judgment entered against it and in favor of an Arizona consumer.

National Credit was sued for violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA, when it attempted to collect on an internet payday loan which was void under Arizona law. The payday lender, Plain Green, LLC, offered internet payday loans to Arizona residents. However, the Arizona law which permitted payday loans expired on June 30, 2010, making all payday loans made after that date to Arizona consumers void and uncollectible. 

National Credit Adjusters failed to defend the lawsuit and the judge entered a default judgment against the collection agency. Even though several demands have been made to National Credit to pay the judgment, it has refused.

Once again, the collector now becomes the collected!

If you are receiving collection calls from National Credit Adjusters, LLC concerning a payday loan, you should seek the advise of a consumer lawyer who has extensive experience in these types of cases.

For a free phone consultation, please contact Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 .

Debt Collectors Are Prohibited From Contacting Debtors Who Are Represented By An Attorney

FDCPA Prohibits Contacting Represented Debtors

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA prohibits a debt collector, which includes collection agencies, debt buyers, and collection lawyers, from contacting a debtor who they know or should know is represented by a lawyer. This knowledge may come from the debtor telling the collector he has a lawyer, or may come from prior efforts to collect the debt. In any event, a debt collector who contacts a represented debtor is subject to claims under the FDCPA, including statutory damages of up to $1,000, and any actual damages. 

Portfolio Recovery Associates Sued For Collecting on a Settled Debt

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, or PRA is a huge debt buyer that files thousands of law suits every year to collect debts it has purchased for pennies on the dollar. PRA files hundreds of collection suits here in Arizona.

My office recently filed a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA against PRA for attempting to collect an alleged balance on a judgment which had been settled in full, and which had been set aside by the justice court so there was no longer a judgment.

Collection Abuse Continues Against Arizona Consumers

As this case illustrates, collection abuse by collection agencies, zombie debt buyers, and their collection lawyers continues in spite of federal law prohibiting their actions. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector --- including collection agencies, zombie debt buyers, and collection attorneys --- from misrepresenting that a debt is owed when it is not. The FDCPA also prohibits a debt collector from attempting to collect amounts not owe, including aksing for payment of a debt which has already been settled. 

What You Need to Know About Wrongful Repossessions

No Notice Required

In a typical scenario, a finance company or bank can order the repossession of your car or truck if you fall behind on your monthly payments. The bank is not required to give you any prior notice before repossessing the vehicle. Under Arizona law, the company employed to pick up your car --- the repossession or repo company --- can take your car out of the driveway, from a parking lot at work or at the store, or from any other place you may park the car which does not have any access restrictions. They cannot go through a garage, a locked gate or fence, or anything else which blocks access to the car.

Breach of Peace

In taking possession of a vehicle, the repo company cannot take any action which would be considered a "breach of the peace." Breach of the peace includes use of bodily force, threats, trespass, deception or trickery. A repo company also cannot enter your residence without your consent, and cannot seize property over your objections. 

I have seen cases where the repossession company will stake out a home waiting for the debtor to leave with the vehicle and then follow after it. This is legal so long as It does not follow too closely, drive recklessly or otherwise try to intimidate the debtor.  Forcing the debtor off the road, or pinning them into a place where they cannot leave is also a breach of the peace.

Remedies

Victims of a wrongful repossession or breach of the peace by a repossession company in Arizona can pursue damages against the repossession company and the bank for damages. The bank is liable to the damages caused by the repossession company. 

Maricopa County Superior Court Confirms Four Year Statute of Limitations in Auto Sales Contract

Maricopa County Superior Court reaffirms Four Year Statute of Limitations in Deficiency Claim

In the Case of Autovest, LLC v. Randall, CV2014-013134, Maricopa County Judge Karen A. Mullins reaffirmed that the statute of limitations to collect on a deficiency balance for an auto loan after repossession is only four years. If the car was purchased using a Retail Installment Sales Contract, and the dealer arranged the financing, then the statute of limitations runs four years after the car is repossessed.

Complete Defense to Colleciton Action

In Arizona, if you are sued by a lender for a deficiency balance after repossession, and the lender has waited four years or more to file suit, they you should have a complete defense to the collection action. Meaning, you should be able to get the case dismissed and not owe anything.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust Loses Arbitration on Statute of Limitations

In a case where National Collegiate Student Loan Trust sued my client in Maricopa County Superior Court to collect on a private student loan, the arbitrator found in favor of the Arizona consumer and dismissed the claim.

Arizona Six-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Private Student Loans. 

The statute of limitations on a private student loan is the same as any other credit or contract obligation. Thus, if it is a written contract,  signed in Arizona, the statute of limitations is usually six (6) years.

Arizona Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Private Student Loans Incurred Outside of Arizona.

The exception to the six-year statute of limitations is a loan which was entered into in another state other than Arizona. For example, if you signed for the student loan while living in Oregon, then the Arizona four-year statute of limitations should apply.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust sues Arizona consumers under under several different names, such as NCSLT 2006-1, 2006-3, 2007-2 or NCSLT 2007-4, etc.  

Collection Agency Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act

National Credit Adjusters, LLC Sued in Arizona for Violating Telephone Consumer Protection Act

My office recently filed suit against the Kansas collection agency National Credit Adjusters, LLC for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The suit alleges that National Credit Adjusters repeatedly telephoned the consumer's cellular phone in an attempt to collect a debt allegedly owed by the prior owner of the phone number. An agency, like National Credit Adjusters, often will use an auto dialer to telephone a debt who has now changed phone numbers. The calls then go to the new owner of the number who does not owe the debt. In addition, the new owner of the number never gave National Credit Adjusters permission to call. So the calls all violate the TCPA

TCPA Provides Recovery of Damages fro Arizona Consumers

The TCPA provides the recovery of damages of either $500 for each negligent call or $1,500 for each willful call. So an Arizona Consumer who has been called 20 times on their cell phone for a debt which does not belong to them, may be able to assert a claim for damages between $10,000 and $30,000.

 

FDCPA Requires Notice Prior to Bank Withdrawal

FDCPA Requires Collection Agencies to Give Consumer Notice Prior to Taking Monthly Withdrawals From Bank Account

Many consumers enter into payment agreements with collection agencies where the agency will take month payments from the consumer's bank account to pay off the debt. However, in order to take these automated and post dated payments, the collection agency must first sent written notice not more than 10 nor less than 3 business days before the withdrawal. So if a payment is scheduled to come out on the 15th of the month, the agency should be sending a letter sometime between the 1st and the 10th of the month. Most important, is that the debtor be given sufficient notice to make sure funds will be available in the bank account, and if they are not, sufficient time to notify the agency to not take the withdrawal.

Failure to Give Proper Notice of an Automatic Withdrawal Violates the FDCPA

A collection agency or law firm which fails to provide a debtor with adequate notice of an upcoming withdrawal from a bank account violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA. The FDCPA provides consumers with claims for damages for these types of violations.

Arizona Consumer Sues National Credit Systems, Inc. for Failure to Give Written Notice Prior to Taking Automatic Bank Withdrawals

My office recently filed suit in Federal Court alleging National Credit Systems, Inc. failed to provide notice adequate notice to the debtor prior to taking out pre-authorized monthly debits from her bank account. Such failure to give proper notice violates the FDCPA. 

Client Services, Inc. Sued for Debt Collection Abuse

Arizona Consumer Sues Client Services, Inc. for Debt Collection Abuse

My office recently filed suit against the Missouri collection agency Client Services, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA. The suit alleges that Client Services sent a letter demanding payment of over $147,000 for a Citibank credit card account which had a ending balance of less than $17,000 ten years earlier. When the debtor disputed the debt and demanded verification, Client Services sent copies of several old Citibank billing statements which showed less than $17,000 was owed.

Right To Dispute Debt

Under the FDCPA, a consumer has the right to challenge the debt by sending the collection agency a dispute letter and requesting verification the debt. If this is done within 30 days of the receipt of the initial letter from the collection agency, the agency is required to stop all collection activity until it provides validation and verification of the debt. That is what the debtor did in this case. He demanded that Client Services provide proof that he owed $147,000 as claimed in Client Services' initial letter. However, Client Services only provided statements showing $17,000 was owed, not $147,000. 

FDCPA Prohibits Collection Agencies from Collecting Amounts Not Owed

A collection agency cannot collect or attempt to collect any amount which is not owed under the contract, or which is not provided for by law. Sometimes, agencies add extra fees, or interest which is not allowed by the underlying contract, and or not allowed by law. If an collection agency attempts to collect these "forbidden fees," they are in violation of the FDCPA and the consumer has a right to collect damages for the agency's illegal actions. The suit alleges Client Services, Inc. attempted to collect amounts which were not owed, thus violating the FDCPA.

Defending a Lawsuit filed by Autovest, LLC

Have you been sued by Autovest, LLC?

Autovest has filed hundreds of lawsuits against Arizona debtors to collect deficiency balances on vehicles which were repossessed years ago. In many of the cases I have seen, the statute of limitations has passed. Meaning, you would have a complete defense to Autovest’s claim. Under Arizona law, an automobile lender generally has only four years after the repossession to file suit to collect any remaining balance. If it waits four years and 1 day, it is too late and you can get the case dismissed. 

Why then would Autovest sue on accounts which are Past the Statute of Limitations?

One might wonder why Autovest would sue someone on a debt if it knew the statute of limitations had run. Well, under the rules in Arizona courts, if you – the debtor – do not answer the lawsuit and raise the defense of statute of limitation, the defense is waived, meaning Autovest can get a judgment which it can then collect on. 

What should I do?

First off, do no wait to get help. If you wait too long, then Autovest can get its judgment and you will have to pay the old debt. 

Second, make sure you contact an experienced consumer lawyer in your state to assist you. If the statute of limitations has run, some consumer lawyers will agree to defend these Autovest cases with little or no cost to you.

Third, make sure you are not one of Autovest’s victims. Get help now!

Asset Acceptance LLC Sued Arizona Consumer for Navy Federal Credit Union Account which is Past the Statute of Limitations

Recent client inquiries reflect that Asset Acceptance LLC, a large national debt buyer who claims to have purchased a large portfolio of debts originating with the Navy Federal Credit Union, is suing Arizona debtors on these debts. In a recent case I investigated, it appears that the Navy debt is well beyond the applicable statute of limitations in Arizona for credit card debt which is now 6 years. Calls from other Arizona consumers confirms this may be happening on a regular basis.

Despite the underlying debt being stale (past the statute of limitations), Asset has filed suit using one of its Arizona law firms Fulton, Friedman & Gullace. It is common knowledge that many debt buyers file suit hoping that Arizona debtors will ignore the law suit and the debt buyer will obtain a default (meaning uncontested) judgment. Once the judgment is entered, the claim becomes valid and the debt buyer can garnish wages or bank accounts to collect the debt.

Not only are these stale debts completely defensible, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits such actions. Under the FDCPA, an Arizona consumer wrongfully sued by Asset can seek recovery of damages from the illegal lawsuit.

Protect Your Rights. If you are an Arizona consumer who has been sued by Asset Acceptance LLC on a Navy Federal Credit Union account, please contact Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation.

Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. Sued for Harassing Arizona Consumer

My office recently filed suit under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act or FDCPA against Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. (“CRS”) for calling and harassing an Arizona consumer over a debt which was beyond the statute of limitations. The complaint alleges that the debt is stale and beyond the Arizona statute of limitation to collect by legal action, yet CRS telephoned and threatened this Arizona debtor with legal action, including threats of wage garnishment, freezing of her bank account, taking her income tax refund, and placing a lien on her current vehicle if she did not pay.

The FDCPA protects Arizona consumers from these types of threatening calls from collection agencies. In this case CRS’s alleged actions are even more egregious since the collector’s manager got on the phone and confirmed that these actions would in fact be taken unless the account was paid.

If you are an Arizona consumer who is receiving harassing or threatening collection calls from Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. or other collection agency, please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation to see what your rights are.

CONSUMER Defeats Motion to Dismiss in FDCPA Case

The United States District Court for Arizona recently denied a motion to dismiss filed by Potts & Waldron, PC and Mark W. Waldron concerning claims that their collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA.

Potts & Waldron sent an initial letter to the Arizona consumer threatening legal action if the debt was not paid within 30 days from the date of the letter. The Court concluded that the consumer's claim should not be dismissed as this threat effectively overshadowing the rights provided by the FDCPA which allows a consumer 30 days after her receipt of the letter to send a letter disputing the debt and requesting verification. The court agreed in its Order denying the motion to dismiss that Waldron’s letter likely overshadowed and otherwise did not comport with the FDCPA.

The FDCPA protects Arizona consumers from collection harassment and abuse– even abuse received at the hands of collection lawyers attempting to collect on Home Owner Association (HOA) dues and fines.

If you are an Arizona consumer who is being harassed by a collection agency or collection attorney, please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation.

Northland Group Incorporated Sued for Collecting on Settled Debt

In December 2012, my office filed suit on behalf of an Arizona consumer who had previously settled her debt through Northland Group, and who was then subsequently contacted by Northland to collect on the same settled debt.

The Fair Debt Collection Practice Act or FDCPA protects Arizona consumers from receiving collection activity on an account which is not owed. In this case Northland’s actions are extra egregious since the account was settled through it and it knew that nothing more was owed on the account.

If you are an Arizona consumer who is receiving collection calls or letters on an account that you do not owe, or one that was previously settled, please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation to see if I can help you.

ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC Loses Lawsuit and Refuses to Pay Arizona Consumer’s Judgment

Asset Acceptance LLC filed suit against an Arizona consumer and lost, but now is refusing to pay the judgment entered by the court for the consumer’s court costs and attorney’s fees.

Asset Acceptance sued in early 2012 claiming it was the assigned owner of the consumer’s Capital One Bank account. At trial, Asset attempted to get documents entered into evidence, but the Globe Justice Court correctly ruled that Asset’s witness did not have the personal knowledge to authenticate the documents or to testify concerning Asset’s claimed ownership of the account. The court entered Judgment in the defendant’s favor and awarded attorney’s fees and court costs.

Collecting from the Collector.

Several demands have been made to Asset Acceptance’s lawyers, Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, but no payment has been forthcoming. A garnishment was served on the attorneys Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP to force Asset to pay, but still no response from Asset or its lawyers.
 
If you have been recently sued by Asset Acceptance LLC or Fulton Friedman & Gullace, LLP, I may be able to help you. Please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation.

Greater Glendale Finance, LLC Files Stale Suits Against Arizona Consumers

Greater Glendale Finance, LLC, previously known as Walker Motors Financing, LLC, continues to file lawsuits against Arizona consumers well after the statute of limitations has run. Greater Glendale Financing is the finance arm of the J.D. Byrider dealership located in Glendale, Arizona. Over the years, J.D. Byrider has sold thousands of vehicles to Arizona consumers and financed those purchases through its financing arm which has gone by the names of CNAC, Walker Motors Financing, LLC and now Greater Glendale Finance, LLC.

Like its franchise twin Bartolini Finance in Mesa, Arizona, and Bartolini’s sister company Grace Finance in Chandler, Arizona, Greater Glendale Finance is the financial arm for the JD Byrider franchise in Glendale. When a car is sold by JD Byrider, the sales/finance contract is assigned to Greater Glendale Finance. If payments are missed, and the car gets repossessed, Greater Glendale has four years under Arizona law to bring a lawsuit to collect any deficiency it claims to be owed.

What Greater Glendale is doing, like Bartolini Finance has been known to do, is waiting until nearly six years after the repossession before bringing suit. Greater Glendale then tries to argue that the contract is covered by the six year statute of limitations for a written contract, when the law in Arizona is clear that the statute of limitations on a vehicle finance contract is four years.

If you have been recently sued by Greater Glendale Finance, LLC, I may be able to help you. Please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation.