Product: Mortgage

While actively negotiating with XXXX XXXX XXXX in regards to a defaulted refinancing account # XXXX SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC created a presentment on XX/XX/XXXX. In this presentment they referenced the XXXX XXXX XXXX account number and claimed that they were debt collectors and that they represented XXXX XXXX XXXX. They stated in that presentment that no attorney at SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC had personally reviewed the particular circumstances of the loan account. In that XX/XX/XXXX presentment they also state that the amount required to completely satisfy the defaulted loan account ( {$310000.00} as of XX/XX/XXXX ) may change and that they will inform the debtor before the " check '' is deposited for collection. SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC makes reference to which negotiable instruments are acceptable towards the complete satisfaction of the debt obligation yet they admit in their own presentment that no attorney has viewed the particulars of the loan. How can they make statements as to what negotiable instruments are acceptable for the complete satisfaction of the debt obligation if they have not examined the " particular circumstances '' of the loan account? This presentment was received by me the authorized representative on Saturday XX/XX/XXXX. I accepted the presentment, endorsed it and returned it to SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC towards the full satisfaction of the accounting through Notary Public on XX/XX/XXXX. This is only 5 days after the presentment was created. By XX/XX/XXXX SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC had already signed a complaint to file with XXXX XXXX. SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC then filed that complaint on XX/XX/XXXX. The response to their presentment that contained a negotiable instrument was successfully received on XX/XX/XXXX. This is 9 days from the date that the original presentment was created. SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK failed to give adequate time to receive a response to their presentment before commencing litigation. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX had a signed complaint on XX/XX/XXXX and it was filed on XX/XX/XXXX even though as of XX/XX/XXXX no attorney had reviewed the " particular circumstances '' of the account. It is clear that SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC had no intention in reaching an amicable agreement in regards to this matter. A foreclosure action may be in the debt collector 's best interest as opposed to a resolution of the matter without litigation. Also, if a negotiable instrument is created in the name of the original creditor it is SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC 's duty and obligation to present that negotiable instrument to the original creditor that is XXXX XXXX XXXX since what is beneficial for XXXX XXXX XXXX may not be beneficial for SHAPIRO DICARO & BARAK LLC and vice versa. The law also states that if a negotiable instrument is provided toward the full satisfaction of a debt and is refused without Notice of Dishonor the debt obligation is discharged. After receiving the response to their presentment on XX/XX/XXXX SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC continued to pursue their foreclosure action though the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence did not dispute any of the facts in their presentment but yet sought to honor them. On XX/XX/XXXX a Notice of Non-response was sent to SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC along with a second negotiable instrument towards the complete satisfaction of the accounting outlined in their XX/XX/XXXX by the Notary Public as witness yet SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC failed to respond to the Notary Public 's second mailing. Since the Notary Public sent the second mailing by Priority mail without return receipt requested a second Notice of Non-Response was sent to SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC on XX/XX/XXXX to maintain good faith and to ensure that they received the second mailing with the negotiable instrument towards the complete satisfaction of the accounting outlined in their XX/XX/XXXX presentment. After receiving all three mailings witnessed by the United States Postal Service and/or their inability or unwillingness to respond in correspondence to the Notary Public, the Notary Public created a Certificate of Non-Response outlining SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC 's dishonor in not responding to any of the mailings. A Notice of Default was sent on XX/XX/XXXX and ten days after the receipt of that mailing a Confirmation letter was sent outlining that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX interest in the debtor in regards to the debt outlined had been terminated and recorded it with XXXX COUNTY. SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC is a debt collection agency. If a negotiable instrument is given to them toward the full satisfaction of a debt obligation in the name of the original creditor they have an obligation not only to the original creditor to present them with that negotiable instrument but also to the debtor in that a good faith attempt is being made to completely satisfy the debt obligation but also to the public trust and this is why the FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT governs the behavior of SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC. In the ordinary course of business, when good faith requires an answer, it is the duty of the party receiving a letter from another to answer within a reasonable time. Otherwise he is presumed to admit the propriety of the acts mentioned in the letter of his correspondent and to adopt them. This is public policy and is accepted by all when it comes to commercial matters. SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC 's failure to respond to the correspondences sent to them witnessed by Notary Public who is a public official, the United States Postal Service as well as a high ranking government official constitutes a judgment in estoppel by law and the matter between the creditor and debtor is closed and fully satisfied. Good faith demands good faith and the entire process is outlined in the attached correspondences that have been authenticated with nearby XXXX County. The attached documents contain the applicable New York Laws but these laws are held by all states in regards to commerce. If a negotiable instrument is presented towards the full satisfaction of a debt obligation and the recipient does not provide a notice of dishonor the debt obligation is discharged. SHAPIRO, DICARO & BARAK LLC never responded to the Notary Public with a Notice of Dishonor in regards to any of the negotiable instruments they received towards the full satisfaction of the debt obligation nor did they state that an adjustment is warranted in the accounting. This matter is considered settled and closed and the public registry reflects this. The respondents are attempting to collect on a debt that is already satisfied. This is a violation of the FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT.