Tag: FDCPA violation

  • Mortgage credit report: Nice FICO scores with chargeoffs and Asset Acceptance collection

    The most recent collection (Asset Acceptance) was assigned in 7/10 and it IS rated despite the dispute notation.  My client just received his new mortgage credit report:

    EQUIFAX/FACTA BEACON 5.0
    SCORE: 678

    00038 – SERIOUS DELINQUENCY, AND DEROGATORY PUBLIC RECORD OR COLLECTION FILED
    00018 – NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS WITH DELINQUENCY
    00014 – LENGTH OF TIME ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
    00010 – PROPORTION OF BALANCES TO CREDIT LIMITS IS TOO HIGH ON BANK REVOLVING OR OTHER REVOLVING
    ACCOUNTS
    FA – NUMBER OF INQUIRIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE SCORE, BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY

    (more…)

  • Arthur Miller v. Cohen & Slamowitz: attorney’s failure to conduct meaningful review violates FDCPA

    This case has been litigated since 2001.  Originally, notorious collection law firm Wolpoff & Abramson was one of the defendants as they had referred the account to Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz. Wolpoff then merged with Mann Bracken and they went bankrupt when Minnesota put an end to the National Arbitration Forum SCAM. Giant Debt Collector Law Firm Mann, Bracken Out of Business

    At some point Upton apparently left and now the only remaining defendant is Cohen & Slamowitz.

    On 9/30/09, after EIGHT years of litigation, judge Mauskopf ruled after the bench trial:

    MEMORANDUM, DECISION AND ORDER: This Court concludes that Defendant UCS failed to undertake a meaningful review of Plaintiff’s debt-collection matter and is therefore liable for misrepresentations in violation of FDCPA § 1692e.

    Cohen & Slamowitz’s defense was that they had relied on the review by the referring law firm Wolpoff & Abramson.

    Incredibly, I documented the Cohen and Slamowitz Unfair Collection Litigation Practices AFTER this ruling!

    Since my client was working and he did not want his co-workers and boss to know that he has financial problems and was sued, I requested an extension for him to answer the complaint on 11/5/09.

    I also requested that Cohen & Slamowitz inform the creditor Citibank that he was defrauded by the FDRS and Mark Cella Debt Elimination SCAM.   While my FDRS fraud documentary put them out of business, I hoped that Citi would pursue FDRS to recover at least some of the loot – allegedly $50 million.

    To date, Cohen & Slamowitz has NOT responded to me or to my client.  Its attorney Carol Van Houten submitted some bizarre filings to the court, but has yet to address the fraud issue.

    Unfortunately, I can’t write my client’s court filings because I’m NOT an attorney and I don’t know anything about NY court rules. If my client  COULD afford to pay an attorney, he would just pay his bills.

    Speaking of attorneys’ fees, the Miller case is currently arguing over about $200,000 for the consumer’s attorney fees.  While it may seem like a LOT of money, it is well deserved.  9 years of litigation, extensive discovery and numerous depositions.

    I suspect that Cohen & Slamowitz will either appeal or also file for bankruptcy.

    I don’t know how many OTHERS filed lawsuits against Cohen & Slamowitz, but one reason for this post is to let consumers and attorneys know about the Miller ruling and the Cohen & Slamowitz CONTINUING extremely unfair litigation practices against consumers who cannot afford to retain attorneys.

    Cohen & Slamowitz needs to be sued out of business.

    A few excerpts from the 9/30/09  Memorandum (DCS = Cohen & Slamowitz): (more…)