Lionheart Group Scam Prevention Toolkit » credit-card

Park City Eatery Balks at Credit Card Fines in Rare Court Fight – BusinessWeek

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:01:39 +0000

Park City Eatery Balks at Credit Card Fines in Rare Court Fight BusinessWeek Visa decided the “actual fraud ” was $1.26 million and calculated Cisero's total liability for noncompliance at $1.33 million, according to court papers. The restaurant's “total pre- cap liability” was put at $511513, the couple said in court papers, … and more

Park City Pasta Restaurant Balks at Credit Card Fines in Rare Court Fight – Bloomberg

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:19:30 +0000

Park City Pasta Restaurant Balks at Credit Card Fines in Rare Court Fight Bloomberg Visa decided the “actual fraud ” was $1.26 million and calculated Cisero's total liability for noncompliance at $1.33 million, according to court papers. The restaurant's “total pre- cap liability” was put at $511513, the couple said in court papers, … and more

Is American Express Violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act Using A Debt Collection Letter?

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:18:00 +0000

Last month I received and unusual letter from American Express Centurion Bank offering me a chance to repair my credit, by them offering a credit card, if I pay an alleged debt. I do believe this “offer” is an unfair and deceptive act that may violate the Credit Repair Organizations Act by promising to improve my credit. The letter gets even funnier, further down in the letter they use a carefully worded phrase (after offering me a new credit card) that states, “After you pay your balance in full we will send you a pre-qualified application for a new Optima card”.

Classic Closeouts LLC Who Illegally Charged Consumers’ Accounts Settles Lawsuit

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 01:18:25 +0000

Defendants in an operation that the Federal Trade Commission alleged stole millions of dollars from consumers by making unauthorized charges and debits to their bank accounts have reached settlement agreements with the FTC. In Operation Short Change – a July 2009 crackdown on scammers taking advantage of the economic downturn to bilk vulnerable consumers through a variety of schemes – the FTC announced a complaint against Classic Closeouts LLC, its principal Daniel Greenberg, and several other defendants.

Debt Collectors Gone Wild – Dead Woman’s Affidavits Still Haunting Courts

Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:21:30 +0000

Marta Kunkle died in 1995, yet for years afterward her name appeared on affidavits used in debt collection lawsuits filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. Despite being sued for fraud in 2008, Portfolio Recovery supposedly stopped using any documents bearing Ms. Kunkle signature in lawsuits. However, in July 2010 her name once again popped up in an affidavit. Several states are in the process or are considering investigating whether Ms. Kunkle’s affidavits are still being used in consumer litigation. Consumers that have been sued by Portfolio Recovery Inc., and had monetary court judgments against them in the past should seek to re-open their cases and see if the judgment was granted based on an affidavit signed and attested to by Martha Kunkle. If Ms. Kunkle’s name does appear then they may can have a judgment overturned or rescinded based on these fraudulent documents. The daughter testified in a deposition that other Providian employees used the name Martha Kunkle when signing affidavits. Along with other employees, the daughter was responsible for signing affidavits. After countersuing Portfolio Recovery Associates for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Ms. Cole was the lead plaintiff in a 2008 federal-court suit in Montana alleging the company targeted 16,000 borrowers using “false and misleading” affidavits. “I’ve watched and wanted to tell defendants in these suits to demand proof of the underlying debt because that proof is so often flimsy,” one Iowa judge.. ~ Wall Street Journal Boilerplate, (aka

Consumers Must Fight Back – 94 Percent of Debt Lawsuits Become Default Judgments

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:59:00 +0000

For whatever reason, upwards of ninety-four percent (94%) credit card / debt lawsuits are not responded to by consumers. Most often the reasons are that consumers/debtors cannot afford an attorney, or are afraid of the legal system or possibly not aware that a suit was filed against them for a debt. Consumer need to understand that if a civil debt lawsuit is filed and they do not respond, the plaintiff may obtain a default judgment against them. Once a default judgment is obtained, the plaintiff may opt to garnished wages, bank accounts, or possibly file liens on property to satisfy the judgment. Default judgments are extremely difficult for a consumer to fight after the fact. In the case of being afraid of court, there is nothing to fear. Civil lawsuits are mostly paperwork filed by both sides and rarely does the matter end up with all parties being in front of a judge. Even then half the battle of beating debt lawsuits (default judgments) is showing up or responding to the lawsuit. Consumers that cannot afford an attorney can many times beat debt collection lawsuits, especially third party (junk debt or Debt Buyer) lawsuits. Debt collection companies and collection attorneys have been exploiting the legal system for years and the exploitation is becoming more and more common. They know that in nearly nine out of ten cases the consumer won’t respond. Default judgments are “easy” money for them. And in a large number (upwards of 96%) of junk debt lawsuits filed the collection company cannot even prove a debt is owed. Consumers must fight back or risk further financial hardships. Consumers should not be afraid of the legal system. Until such time that the majority of consumers to do fight debt lawsuits in some manner then the collection industry will continue to exploit the tax payer funded legal system. According to attorney Sergei Lemberg, and the Wall Street Journal: Encore Capital Group, parent of Midland Funding, filed 245,000 lawsuits last year, and that approximately 94% of lawsuits result in default judgments. Debt buyers purchased $100 billion worth of debt last year, and often turn to the courts first… ~ Sergei Lemberg Once Encore sues, it is virtually assured a win, says Mr. Black, the company’s CEO. Roughly 94% of collection cases filed against borrowers result in default judgments in favor of the debt buyer, according to industry estimates. The majority of borrowers don’t have a lawyer, some don’t know they are even being sued, and others don’t appear in court, say judges. A growing number of cases brought by debt buyers are plagued by sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation of debts, according to the 20 judges around the country interviewed by the Journal. ~ Wall Street Journal Consumers must be educated on how to deal with debt lawsuits. While many think that courtrooms and judges are scary, in truth it isn’t much worse than sitting down at the bank with a loan officer. Responding to debt lawsuits are mostly paperwork and the consumers personal time to respond. If you are having financial difficulties or are being sued by collection companies, it is time to take a stand and fight back. After all what do you have to lose but forcing collection companies to prove the debt and avoid a default judgment.

Financial Freedom of America, Debt Consultants of America, Debt Professionals of America Charged With Misleading Claims

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:05:16 +0000

According to the FTC’s two complaints, the defendants made deceptive claims that consumers who enrolled in their programs could eliminate 30 to 60 percent of their credit card debt and be out of debt in 18 to 36 months. The defendants marketed their services via websites and TV and radio ads that urged consumers to call toll-free numbers for a free consultation and to enroll in their debt relief programs. One operation claimed to use “secret programs most credit card companies won’t tell you about.” The other operation touted its “established relationships” with creditors and claimed that its program would “save you literally thousands of dollars.” The defendants charged consumers up-front administrative fees, monthly maintenance fees, negotiation fees, and in some instances, a cancellation fee. The FTC’s complaints charge that few consumers received the promised results. Many consumers canceled or dropped out of the programs before their debt was reduced because they couldn’t afford to pay the defendants’‘ sizable advance fees and accumulate money to pay off their debts. Consumers looking for help with credit card debt should be wary of anyone who tells them to stop paying their bills, to pay someone other than their creditors, or to stop talking to their creditors. Consumers should also be careful about paying for financial assistance before they receive it. The FTC recently announced changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that prohibit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone from charging fees before they settle or reduce a customers’ credit card or other unsecured debt. This ban on advance fees protects all consumers who enroll in a debt relief service after October 27, 2010, and specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until: the debt relief service successfully settles or changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts; there is a settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor that the consumers has agreed to; and the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider. The new provisions of the Rule also prevent debt relief providers from front-loading their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program. Click here for more information about the advance-fee ban. In addition, the Rule requires debt relief providers to make truthful and substantiated claims about their services. The FTC will actively enforce the Rule and these new provisions, as will the states, which also have enforcement authority under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants in one of the two cases announced today are Financial Freedom of America, Inc., now known as Financial Freedom Processing Inc., Corey Butcher, and Brent Butcher. The second case names Debt Consultants of America Inc., Debt Professionals of America Inc., Robert Creel, Corey Butcher, and Nikki Creel, also known as Nikki Vrla. The Commission vote to file the complaints was 5-0. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Source: FTC Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. Financial Freedom Processing, Inc., formerly known as Financial Freedom of America, Inc., a corporation; Corey Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation; and Brent Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation, Defendants. (United District Court for the Northern District of Texas) Case No. 3:10-cv-02446 FTC File No.

Google Money Tree Scammers Must Surrender Assets of More than $3.5 Million

Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:42:00 +0000

An online marketer that falsely claimed ties to Google Inc. has been forced to stop operations as part of a Federal Trade Commission action that charged the defendants with marketing an allegedly bogus work-at-home scheme and charging hidden monthly fees to consumers’ credit card and bank accounts.

Another Consumer Beats Debt Collector Hanna and Associates Using the Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 03:26:00 +0000

It warm’s my heart to know that consumers are using my book, Stick it to Sue Happy Debt Collectors Book to beat unscrupulous

Debt Collector Nationwide Credit Sued for Calling Consumers Parents

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:07:39 +0000

Nationwide Credit a debt collector out of Kennesaw Georgia has been sued in Federal court for allegedly violating the Fair Debt Practices Act (FDCPA). Due to harassing and abusive communications, calling the plaintiff parents and discussing the alleged debt,