BWW Law Group, LLC

2017-04-19

Belle Haven, VA

Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed

Debt collection: I do not know

Debt is not mine
Complaint: Dear BWW LAW GROUP , L LC ( " BWW '' ) : On XXXX / XXXX / XXXX I received a communication from you dated XXXX / XXXX / XXXX . Your letter states : Our firm has been informed by the Servicer that as of XXXX XXXX , XXXX , the amount of the debt is {$260000.00}. Your letter further states " This is not a demand for payment '', yet includes in bold print an " IMPORTANT NOTICE '' stating, " This communication is from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt... Unless you dispute the validity of the debt, or a portion thereof... this firm will assume the debt is valid. '' [ Emphasis added ] I found your communication to be confusing, misleading and deceptive. I am aware that BWW is in the regular business of collecting debt in the state of Virginia, and that because BWW " regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another '', using the mails and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce, pursuan t 15 USC 1692a ( 6 ) BWW is a " debt collector ''. It is also notable that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 's ( " FDCPA '' or " Act '' ) definition of debt collector does not include any requirement that a debt collector be engaged in an activity by which it makes a " demand for payment '', in order for its misrepresentations or other prohibited conduct to be actionable. In other words, because BWW regularly collects or attempts to collect debts allegedly owed another ( i.e., is a " debt collector '' ), the fact that you allege your communication " is not a demand for payment '' in no way immunizes BWW from liability for misrepresentations you made or other behavior prohibited by the FDCPA when collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt directly or indirectly. To the contrary to violate the FDCPA, a debt collector needs only to have used a prohibited practice " in connection with the collection of any debt '' or in an " attempt to collect any debt. '' Your communication is confusing, misleading, and deceptive, because the statement " This is not a demand for payment '' creates confusion and uncertainty about the need to respond and about the true nature of the risk associated with not responding. Your letter creates the false impression that because it purportedly is not a demand for payment failing to respond is inconsequential. Yet, on the other hand your communication admits that failing to " dispute the validity of the debt '' would result in BWW assuming the alleged debt is valid -- an assumption that could impact the Consumer negatively. For example, an incorrect assumption about the validity of the alleged debt if unrebutted would leave the Consumer vulnerable to fraudulent activity, like the furnishing of forged financial instruments and other documents for the purpose of fabricating the appearance of a secured interest in the Consumer 's personal dwelling and homestead ( an interest that otherwise can not exist absent a valid debt ). Next, the attempt to collect the alleged debt could potentially escalate into so call foreclosure proceedings and the possible illegitimate dispossession of the Consumer 's personal dwelling and homestead via illegal asset forfeiture, which may have been avoided if not for deceptive and confusing debt collection communication. This is precisely why the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using " misleading representations ''. It is a fact that BWW is a " debt collector '' and was directly or indirectly attempting to collect an alleged debt in behalf of its principal ( s ) XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX " XXXX '' ) the alleged Servicer, and/or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , AS TRUSTEE OF XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ), the alleged creditor, when mailing its communication to the Consumer. XXXX and/or XXXX , who are also both debt collectors as defined under the FDCPA, have contracted
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2017-02-17

Baltimore, MD

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2017-01-23

Cheverly, MD

Taking/threatening an illegal action

Debt collection: Mortgage

Seized/Attempted to seize property
Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX and BWW Law Group are debt collectors who has for the last three years lodged threats to physically arrest, cause harm, seize, dispossess, disable assets and other personal property of the Consumer, his estate and family. XXXX and BWW has manufactured, fabricated, counterfeited monetary instruments bearing the consumers Identity without authorization and consent. Identity Theft is a crime and thus has been reported to the FTC and Home Land Security by complaint. XXXX and BWW was ordered by the Consumer to Cease and Desist all physical, terroristic threats against the consumer, but has only increased its criminal harassment and has filed multiple non-judicial actions in incompetent court who lacks jurisdiction over federal question. BWW has misrepresented the face value of certain foreign instruments bearing the consumers name by more than $ XXXX. BWW attempts to benefit illegally from the consumers identity on forged instruments they are not entitled too. BWW and XXXX poses a serious physical harm to the consumer and the consumer feels threatened that it will continued to be imprisoned and arrested by its illegal, unlawful acts. BWW is sole driving force behind the assault of the consumer and fails to respect the sovereignty of the consumer defined in XXXX XXXX XXXX. The federal and constitutional laws BWW and XXXX continues to violate is of significance. BWW appears to disregard the preemption, Supremacy a consumer has over any state laws. Yet, BWW acts as if it above federal law while engaging in interstate commerce for illegal purposes. BWW and XXXX was Ordered to pay actual damages in the amount of {$4.00} XXXX Dollars pursuant to XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ). This Administrative Action is to document and record with the consumers federal Agency, the Decree issued in compliance with the sovereign power inherent in the consumer to govern its debtors. BWW and XXXX must file a timely response which must be in accordance with the FDCPA, 1692 ( c ) ( c ) ( 1 ). This Foreign Judgment of the consumer will be enforced by Judicial Review in a duly constituted court, if the consumers demands are not met. BWW and XXXX must immediately cease misrepresenting a Trust, Deed or other arrangement with the consumer, as such relationship does not legally and lawfully exist. Even if it did, it is, now, and previously terminated with prejudice.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2016-11-21

Glenarden, MD

Disclosure verification of debt

Debt collection: Mortgage

Not given enough info to verify debt
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-10-27

Vab, VA

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional fixed mortgage

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-10-25

Finksburg, MD

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Complaint: XXXX XXXX, 2016 To : BWW Law Group CC : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST Third Illegal Attempt to Schedule Sale of Property of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, MD XXXX Case # XXXX To Whom it May Concern : I just had a letter forwarded to me dated XXXX XXXX, 2016, notifying me that BWW Law Group has scheduled a sale of my family 's home on XXXX XXXX, 2016. This action is in direct defiance of judge XXXX disposition of this matter at the hearing held on XXXX XXXX, 2016. At that time judge XXXX clearly stated that the matter would be held sub curia. The hearing on XXXX XXXX constitutes judge XXXX last decision on this matter. Until the judge makes a decision, neither party may take any action governed by the sub curia status -- which means that the issue is clearly not decided. BWW Law Group must immediately cancel this sale scheduled on XXXX XXXX, 2016, as it is clearly prohibited by law. This is the third illegal act of this nature perpetrated by this entity. This is not behavior acceptable for officers of the court, and it is grounds for an official grievance process to be propounded upon all parties who have participated in this process. I have made a formal complaint with the CFPB and will continue to explore all avenues at my disposal to ensure that this sale is stopped. Not only does this sale flout the authority of the Circuit Court, it also violates dual tracking as my application for a loan modification has not yet been decisioned by XXXX. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2016-10-19

Finksburg, MD

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)

Complaint: This is a complaint against BWW Law Group which is a debt collector and as such is liable under the CFPB for it 's actions. I received from BWW Law Group letters dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, denying my application for a loan modification. I timely appealed the denial, but, to date, BWW Law Group has not responded to my appeal of the denial. Nonetheless, mere days after the XX/XX/XXXX appealed denial, BWW Law Group via its letter to me dated XX/XX/XXXX, solicited me to submit another application for a loan modification. BWW Law Group advised, on page XXXX, that " We will review your completed application for assistance, which must include all required forms and financial documents, even if a foreclosure sale date is scheduled within 30 days. '' Mindful of BWW Law Group 's language, I submitted XX/XX/XXXX, a loan modification application via USPS certified mail/return receipt # XXXX , of which BWW Law Group confirmed its receipt XX/XX/XXXX. I have not since XX/XX/XXXX received any communication from BWW Law Group advising that additional documents to the application are required in accordance with the Consumer Protection Bureau, ( " CFPB '' ), despite the fact that BWW Law Group had 5 business days from the date of receipt to notify me of any additional required documents. As BWW Law Group has not timely requested additional documents, I reasonably assume that BWW Law Group continues to review my application as a " full package ''. BWW Law Group has not denied my XX/XX/XXXX, application nor has it requested additional information, but BWW Law Group did schedule my home to be sold at foreclosure auction on XX/XX/XXXX. This act demonstrates dual-tracking by BWW Law Group, which BWW Law Group attempted to undertake also on both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. These attempts to conduct a foreclosure sale of my property while my loan modification application undergoes review is in direct violation of Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) and ( j ). It is also a covered error under Regulation X 1024.35 ( b ) ( 10 ), as is a servicer 's failure to provide accurate loss mitigation and foreclosure information. Also, although BWW Law Group claims that the Pooling and Servicing Agreement ( PSA ) dictates the terms of the modification insofar as how many loans in the subject pool may be modified, BWW Law Group also disregards the CFPB in failing to provide proof of this purported reason for a denial of any of my loan modification applications. BWW Law Group provided only a singular letter relating to the investor guidelines, and it predates my submission of a complete application for a loan modification. In it, BWW Law Group suggests that the claimed investor issued a " denial '' of my incomplete application package for a loan modification. Despite BWW Law Group 's claim that pursuant to the PSA the investor will not modify any additional loans in the alleged subject pool, BWW Law Group 's numerous letters soliciting me to submit an application for a loan modification obviate BWW Law Group 's claim that no more loans from the subject pool can be modified. As a result, the existing basis for my being denied a loan modification derives not from an alleged lack of income or any other qualifying criteria, but rather from BWW Law Group 's meaningless claim alleging that the investor limit for modifications has been reached pursuant to the PSA. In any event, I did not sign or agree to the PSA and I am therefore not a party to the PSA, which also governs the requirements for the very " conveyance of the mortgage loans '' into the " pool '' or trust. Yet, BWW Law Group has denied me a loan modification based on a document to which I am not a party. Perhaps it is this contradistinctive situation which owes to BWW Law Group 's perennial issuance of loan modification invitations to me. The XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2016-09-16

Finksburg, MD

Improper contact or sharing of info

Debt collection: Mortgage

Talked to a third party about my debt
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-09-14

Warrenton, VA

Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed

Debt collection: Mortgage

Debt was discharged in bankruptcy
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-08-09

Washington, DC

Taking/threatening an illegal action

Debt collection: Mortgage

Attempted to/Collected exempt funds
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-08-04

Warrenton, VA

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-08-02

Capitol Heights, MD

Taking/threatening an illegal action

Debt collection: Mortgage

Seized/Attempted to seize property
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-08-02

Capitol Heights, MD

Taking/threatening an illegal action

Debt collection: Mortgage

Seized/Attempted to seize property
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-07-21

Gainesville, VA

Other

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Untimely Response

2016-07-16

MD

False statements or representation

Debt collection: Mortgage

Attempted to collect wrong amount
Complaint: false information and mis presentation ; If you know about foreclosure fraud, the mass fabrication of mortgage documents in state courts by banks attempting to foreclose on homeowners, you may have one nagging question : Why did banks have to resort to this illegal scheme? Was it just cheaper to mock up the documents than to provide the real ones? Did banks figure they simply had enough power over regulators, politicians and the courts to get away with it? ( They were probably right about that one. ) A newly unsealed lawsuit, which banks settled in XX/XX/XXXX for XXXX, actually offers a different reason, providing a key answer to one of the persistent riddles of the financial crisis and its aftermath. The lawsuit states that banks resorted to fake documents because they could not legally establish true ownership of the loans when trying to foreclose. This reality, which banks did not contest but instead settled out of court, means that tens of millions of mortgages in America still lack a legitimate chain of ownership, with implications far into the future. And if XXXX, supported by the Obama administration, goes back to the same housing finance system, with the same corrupt private entities who broke the nation 's private property system back in business packaging mortgages, then shame on all of us.The XX/XX/XXXX lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in both XXXX and XXXX, by a white-collar fraud specialist named XXXX XXXX, on behalf of the federal government, XXXX states and XXXX cities. XXXX banks, mortgage servicers and document processing companies are named in the lawsuit, including mega-banks like XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, who fell into foreclosure herself in XX/XX/XXXX, researched her own mortgage documents and found massive fraud ( for example, one document claimed that XXXX XXXX, listed as the owner of her mortgage, acquired ownership in XXXX XXXX, four months after they first filed for foreclosure ). She eventually examined XXXX documents, enough to piece together the entire scheme. A mortgage has XXXX parts : the promissory note ( the IOU from the borrower to the lender ) and the mortgage, which creates the lien on the home in case of default. During the housing bubble, banks bought loans from originators, and then ( in a process known as securitization ) enacted a series of transactions that would eventually pool thousands of mortgages into bonds, sold all over the world to public pension funds, state and municipal governments and other investors. A trustee would pool the loans and sell the securities to investors, and the investors would get an annual percentage yield on their money. In order for the securitization to work, banks purchasing the mortgages had to physically convey the promissory note and the mortgage into the trust. The note had to be endorsed ( the way an individual would endorse a check ), and handed over to a document custodian for the trust, with a " mortgage assignment '' confirming the transfer of ownership. And this had to be done before a 90-day cutoff date, with no grace period beyond that. XXXX XXXX professor XXXX XXXX spelled this out in testimony before Congress in XX/XX/XXXX : " If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever. '' The lawsuit alleges that these notes, as well as the mortgage assignments, were " never delivered to the mortgage-backed securities trusts, '' and that the trustees lied to the SEC and investors about this. As a result, the trusts could not establish ownership of the loan when hey went to foreclose, forcing the production of a stream of false documents, signed by " robo-signers, '' employees using a bevy of corporate titles for companies that never employed them, ... ..
Company Response: Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Untimely Response

2016-06-30

MD

False statements or representation

Debt collection: Mortgage

Attempted to collect wrong amount
Complaint: Law Firm Must Pay $ XXXX For Operating Automated Debt-Collection ... XXXX ... Consumerist XXXX XXXX, XXXX - In XXXX XXXX, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -- a law firm that specializes exclusively in debt ... emailed to cfpb ombudsman team XXXX / XXXX fraud mortgage assignment robo signer around the county filing of shady assignments. . Representation was made of a material fact. 2. Representation was untrue. 3. Party making the representation knew it was untrue. 4. Representation was made with the intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the recipient to act upon it.5. Recipient justifiably relied on the representation. 6. By relying on the untrue statement, the recipient suffered damages.1 1. A false representation was made, usually one of fact. 2. Party making the representation had knowledge or belief that the representation was false, or made the representation with the requisite indifference to the truth. 3. Representation was made with the intent to induce the recipient to act, or refrain from acting. 4. Recipient acted or did not act in justifiable reliance on the representation.5. Recipient suffered damages XXXX a result. D. Misconduct in Other States 1. Maryland and Virginia While Florida and New York provided much of the news for reports on attorney misconduct, other states ' attorneys managed to earn negative attention as well.Foreclosure law firms in Maryland and Virginia admitted to committing serious misconduct. Attorneys at XXXX and at XXXX admitted that other attorneys had signed their signatures in documents submitted to court.XXXX Several notaries had their licenses revoked and the Maryland Court XXXX XXXX adopted a rule allowing courts to appoint independent attorneys to review foreclosure documents for irregularities.XXXX Meanwhile, at the Virginia firm of XXXX , attorneys admitted to the same practices, supposedly to avoid the " sloppy '' practice of crossing out another attorney 's name below a signature line.XXXX Show cause hearings were held in several Maryland counties regarding the issu t another headline-making Florida firm being investigated by the Florida Attorney General , an attorney at the Law Offices of XXXX XXXX XXXX said she handled between XXXX and XXXX XXXX files at any given time.XXXX Further, the attorney testified that it was common practice to sign documents without notaries present, and then to allow notaries to stamp those documents later as if they had been signed in front of a notary.XXXX As with XXXX, rumors circulated that XXXX XXXX signed documents without reviewing them.XXXX After XXXX XXXX stopped referring cases to the firm,XXXX the firm paid {$2.00} XXXX to settle the attorney general 's investigation, making it the only high volume foreclosure firm in Florida to settle.XXXX The foreclosure mill, XXXX, has been shut down after the owner, XXXX XXXX, pled guilty to unlawful and unethical practices at his firm. D. Misconduct in Other States 1. Maryland and Virginia While Florida and New York provided much of the news for reports on attorney misconduct, other states ' attorneys managed to earn negative attention as well. Foreclosure law firms in Maryland and Virginia admitted to committing serious misconduct. Attorneys at XXXX and at XXXX, XXXX admitted that other attorneys had signed their signatures in documents submitted to court.XXXX Several notaries had their licenses revoked and the Maryland Court of XXXX adopted a rule allowing courts to appoint independent attorneys to review foreclosure documents for irregularities.XXXX Meanwhile, at the Virginia firm of XXXX
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-06-29

MD

Disclosure verification of debt

Debt collection: Mortgage

Not given enough info to verify debt
Complaint: email information to cfpb ombudsman team The office of XXXX ombudsman team party XXXX XXXX making the representation had knowledge or belief that the representation was false, or made the representation with the requisite indifference to the truth. acts contrary to honesty and justice why these document was fabricated and doctored documents.Representation was made with the intent to induce the recipient to act, or refrain from acting. Recipient acted or did not act in justifiable reliance on the representation. Recipient suffered damages as a result.XXXX OF THE OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN TEAM WITH XXXX XXXX XXXX 1. Representation was made of a material fact. 2. Representation was untrue. 3. Party making the representation knew it was untrue. 4. Representation was made with the intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the recipient to act upon it. 5. Recipient justifiably relied on the representation. 6. By relying on the untrue statement, the recipient suffered damages. XXXX Misconduct in Other States XXXX. XXXX and XXXX While XXXX and XXXX provided much of the news for reports on attorney misconduct, other states ' attorneys managed to earn negative attention as well. Foreclosure law firms in XXXX and XXXX admitted to committing serious misconduct. Attorneys at XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and at XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted that other attorneys had signed their signatures in documents submitted to court.XXXX Several notaries had their licenses revoked and the XXXX Court of Appeals adopted a rule allowing courts to appoint independent attorneys to review foreclosure documents for irregularities. The firm took signature pages of bank or servicer employees from affidavits and attached them to other affidavits as needed.XXXX Attorneys signed affidavits that contained blank spaces for amounts to be charged.XXXX A former process server who worked for a company XXXX XXXX hired also cast " " light on sketchy practices. When questioned about records that showed XXXX to XXXX effectuations of service of process over a three day period XX/XX/XXXX ( for a total of {$30000.00} a day ) on XXXX files, the process server quipped, " 'There 's no way they could have that many legitimate papers [... ] There were only XXXX of us who worked the county. ' '' XXXX Later, in XXXX XXXX, XXXX announced the closure of his law firm.XXXX XXXX '' voluntarily de-listed its shares '' from XXXX after the stock dropped to " pennies '' from a year-high of XXXX And thus ended the dazzling rise of XXXX XXXX which had made him wealthy beyond most Americans ' wildest dreams. While dealing with multiple lawsuits, XXXX faced further consternation when the XXXX Bar filed a complaint against him alleging that XXXX violated a court order requiring a response to a lawsuit. Like XXXX, XXXX attracted litigation and controversy over his methods. XXXX 's firm was prone to the same kinds of errors XXXX was, including failing to divulge mortgage payments and filing of shady assignments. including failing to divulge mortgage payments and filing of shady XXXX The XXXX XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX 's office revealed it " had its [... ] office monitoring cases involving the XXXX firm, '' and various judges threw out cases in which XXXX filed questionable XXXX Attorneys who took over representation of XXXX XXXX that XXXX XXXX filed inaccurate documentation to try to fix missing chain of title XXXX BWW LAW FIRM ARE DOING THIS Judge XXXX XXXX , who has become a kind of folk hero to homeowners ' advocates for his sharply worded anti-bank opinions, discovered XXXX XXXX representing both sides of a lawsuit.XXXX XXXX reportedly came under " repeated criticism by state judges for his practices. '' The firm was a li
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-05-26

Mount Airy, MD

Disclosure verification of debt

Debt collection: Mortgage

Not given enough info to verify debt
Company Response: Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Untimely Response

2016-05-24

MD

False statements or representation

Debt collection: Mortgage

Impersonated an attorney or official
Complaint: XXXX same as XXXX XXXX XXXX fraud documentation robo signing reied on by co conspirator, indecome globalserices, XXXX, BWW XXXX Collector forecloure mill .for deception and faulty evidence.debts that often could not be verified or may not be owed. Debt collectors BWW and conspirators named XXXX, BWW, XXXX, BANK XXXX use the court system for purposes of intimidation ( ASSIGNMENT FRAUD, FRAUD AND MULTIPLE VERSION COPY OF NOTES, FRAUD allonge, create mortgage notes using modern technology, fraud lost note affidavits none these document were ever certify as true and original copy by a practicing attorney in the foreclosure mill even with almost XXXX foreclosure mill attorney attached to this case. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX knew these documents were fraud but continue o file even fraud note manufactured using the miracle modem technology, undated allonge signed by XXXX XXXX, of XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX fraud stamp that on the note even ( several years she may longer work with residential funding, XXXX, home comming, that no longer cease to exist ), Introducing faulty or unsubstantiated evidence, Intimidating consumers with deceptive court filings THEY used sworn statements OF fraud affidavit, declarations of debts, assignments fraud prepared by XXXX prepared and robo signed from contract robo signer that claimed to be officers of multiple banking institutions attesting to details about consumer debts to support its lawsuits with no personal knowledge of defunct entities.when challenged their defense are baseless without merits.see similar actions of foreclosure XXXX law XXXX Firm Reaches Settlement with CFPB over Debt Collection Lawsuit XXXX XXXX, 2015 Under a settlement with the CFPB, the Georgia-based debt collection law firm will pay a {$3.00} XXXX fine and nsure the existence of a variety of non-monetary compliance policies and procedures. On XXXX XXXX, 2015, Judge XXXX XXXX denied the XXXX Firm 's Motion to Dismiss in the case Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX, 2015 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2015 ). In doing so, the district court concluded that the practice-of-law exclusion does not bar the CFPB 's CFPA claims. IN A SIMILAR CASE the CFPB has ordered XXXX of the XXXX law firm 's clients, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, to overhaul their debt collection practices and to refund millions to harmed consumers. The Bureau will continue working to ensure all players in the collections market treat consumers fairly.
Company Response: Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Untimely Response

2016-05-22

MD

Taking/threatening an illegal action

Debt collection: Other (i.e. phone, health club, etc.)

Seized/Attempted to seize property
Complaint: 1. 15 USC 1692c ( b ) - without my expressed prior consent ran an ad in the XXXX XXXX XXXX for 3 weeks 2. 15 USC 1692d ( 4 ) - harassed consumer ran ad in the XXXX XXXX XXXX for 3 weeks 3. 15 USC 1692c ( b ) without my expressed prior consent published information on the XXXX website for 21 days 4. 15 USC 1692d ( 4 ) harassed consumer by publishing information on the XXXX website for 21 days 5. 15 USC 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) conducted illegal sale of consumer goods with false representation of the character, and legal status of the alleged debt 6. 15 USC 1692f ( 6 ) ( A ) conducted illegal sale of consumer goods with no enforceable security interest after receiving notice of rescission 7. 15 USC 1692g ( b ) failed or refused to provide validation and did not cease collection action 8. 15 USC 1692i ( a ) ( 1 ) failed to bring action in the judicial district 9. 15 USC 1692j ( a ) creditor not participating in action of debt-collector 10. 15 USC 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) actual damages sustained by consumer for debt collector violating FDCPA
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2016-05-17

MD

False statements or representation

Debt collection: Mortgage

Impersonated an attorney or official
Complaint: when orignal noteare challenge to provide original black ink sign at the time closing, the co-conspirator XXXX, XXXX XXXX bank XXXX debt collector XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX fraud note just like a criminal would forge a check fabricate checks through the use of modern technology. fabricated allonge signer indecomme XXXX fabricated signature fabricated the assignments are these above the law to forge notes through the use of modern technology
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-05-17

MD

Disclosure verification of debt

Debt collection: Mortgage

Not given enough info to verify debt
Complaint: when original note are challenge to provide original black ink sign at the time closing, the co-conspirator XXXX, XXXX XXXX bank XXXX debt collector XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX forge the note just like a criminal will forge a check the co-conspirator XXXX, XXXX XXXX bank of new York debt collector XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX fraud note just like a criminal would forge a check fabricate checks through the use of modern technology. fabricated allonge signer indecomme XXXX fabricated signature fabricated the assignments are these above the law to forge notes through the use of modern technology
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-05-10

Marlboro, MD

Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Mortgage: Other mortgage

Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: Yes Timely Response

2016-05-10

MD

False statements or representation

Debt collection: Mortgage

Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response

2016-05-09

MD

Disclosure verification of debt

Debt collection: Mortgage

Right to dispute notice not received
Complaint: Called after sent written cease of communication notice Did not receive notice of right to dispute Foreclosure Firm XXXX XXXX XXXX to Close Down By XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2011 XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2011 XXXX In a photo from a former employee of the law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX employees mocked homeowners whose homes had been foreclosed.In a photo from a former employee of the law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX employees mocked homeowners whose homes had been foreclosed. A law firm that had become a lightning rod in the controversy over mortgage-foreclosure practices has shut down, costing XXXX employees their jobs. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. law firm, which has offices in XXXX, N.Y., and XXXX, N.Y., has filed papers with government agencies notifying them that it plans to close. It made the filings under a federal law requiring employers to provide notice before mass layoffs. " Disrupting the livelihoods of so many dedicated and hardworking people is extremely painful, but the loss of so much business left us no choice but to file these notices, '' said XXXX XXXX in a statement issued on Monday. A firm spokesman said it would have no further comment beyond the release. XXXX XXXX and his colleagues have come under fire for their foreclosure-related legal work. They are one of numerous firms across the country that represent banks and services in trying to foreclose on the millions of homeowners who have defaulted on their loans. Some of these firms ' aggressive, and, in some cases, duplicitous practices, have earned them the moniker " foreclosure mills. '' The XXXX firm 's tactics, which included the " robo-signing '' of documents, has been among the most criticized. Last year, a state court judge in XXXX called XXXX foreclosure filing from the XXXX firm " incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous. '' Last month, the firm struck a settlement with the United States attorney 's office in XXXX, which had been investigating the XXXX firm and whether, on behalf of its lender clients, it filed misleading legal papers to expedite foreclosures. The firm agreed to pay a XXXX penalty and vowed change its practices to resolve the case. " In mortgage foreclosure proceedings, there are no excuses for sloppy practices that could lead to someone mistakenly losing their home, '' XXXX XXXX XXXX, the United States attorney in XXXX, said in a statement at the time of the settlement. " Homeowners facing foreclosure can not afford to have faulty paperwork or inadequate evidence submitted, and today 's agreement will help minimize that risk. '' But despite its settlement with the federal government, the firm 's fortunes worsened this month after XXXX published photos of a XXXX party at the XXXX firm showing employees wearing costumes mocking people who had lost their homes. After those photos surfaced, the mortgage giants XXXX XXXX and XXXX cut off the XXXX firm, forbidding servicers of their mortgages from using XXXX XXXX and his colleagues. That effectively served as the firm 's death knell. On Saturday, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX columnist who originally wrote about the firm 's XXXX party, published another column about the controversy. In it, he quoted an e-mail that XXXX XXXX had sent him last week. " XXXX XXXX -- You have destroyed everything and everyone related to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' said the letter. " It took 40 years to build this firm and three weeks to tear down. '' " I think that 's what they call shooting the messenger, '' XXXX XXXX wrote.
Company Response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law Closed with explanation

Disputed: No Timely Response