2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg5of13 PgID17

creditor,

27 The Counter/PlaintitY had » balance of arnind $5700 sometime wroand January of
2007 of which he was paving on time in accordance with the contract. When there was no
billing or phone calls the Counter/Platntif! was so busy in his business life tht he had tio
way of knowing that the Counter/Defendant was racking up fees on this consumer debt.

28. When the LHR ine. first contacted the Counter/Plaintiff he was shocked at the large
amount they claimed was due and wrote the dispute letter,

29. LHR continued to try to collect on this dett and hired the Jaw firm of Roosen,
Varvhetti, & Olivier to attempt to collect the debt. Counter/Defendant did not report to
their attomeys that the wccount was in dispute, Another violation of the FDCPA.

30, When the attorneys contacted the Counter/Plaintiff validation was requested and
statements Were provided. This was the first time the Counter’Plaintiff ever sw the
billing statements. These statements offer proof of consumer debt.

31. Now the Counter‘Defendant is alloging fraud against the Counter/Pluinsiff and this ix
a frivolous claim,

32. It is obvious that the Counter/Defendat with malice and intent to defraud violated the
Fair Credit Billing Practices act in an attempt to collect fees und interest.

33, The Counter! Maintiff is entitied to damages ncual, punitive, and attomey foes.

34. The Counter/Pluintiff has suffered emotional distress because of the unprofessional
manner and illegal collection process as described above.

WHEREFORE, the Counter/Plaintiff requests this Honorible Court to enter a judgment
aguinst the Counter/Defendant, original plaintiff;

+. Award Statutory datnages for each violition of Federal Law and State law.

2 Award actual dathages.

3, Award punitive damages the Counter! Plaintiffis entitled to under Federal Law.
4. Award compensutory damages for mental and emotional distress,

3. Award the Counter/Plaintiff actual wiiamey foes.

6, Grant other rehet thin Court finds fair and equitable.
Respectfully,



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg10o0f13 PgID 22

10. Denies, The damage amount ix far less then the complaint. The Defendant never
received statements und the Plaintiff unjustly allowed fees to accrue.

IL Denies.

12. Neither admits or denies.

13. Denies, Defendant was paying on time but duc to the failure timely provide billing
statement the Defendant fell into default und the Plainti(? fraudulently rcked up late fees
and interest with out uny billing statement ever sent to the Defendant.
14. Denies, The Maintiff is not withour unclean hands.

15. Neither admits or denies.

16. Neither admits or denies.

17. Denies. See counter claim.

18, Denies

19, Denies.

20. Neither admits or denies ax to the accuracy of the affidavit

21. Neither admits or denies.

22. Denies.

23, Denies. Plaintiff is unjustly secking thisamount.

24, Neither admits or denies.

25. Denies.

26. Denies.

27. Neither admits or denies.

28, Denies.

29, Denies: There is nothing to merit (his statement.

30, Denies, there is nothing to merit this statement. 'I’his is an unprofessional personal
attack ugainst the Defendant,



:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed
6341 INDUCON DRIVE EAST

SANBORN, NY 14192-8097

LOI Re: LHR ING,

7604
ogr26/2008 Scion: ro 093.10
2104995
“hO2TROMALEEN
i lle lit otra Auvellabvlldseabealatatecicllstellavsallastslttyateall
LAW OFFICE DOUG DEAN LHR ING.
{1638 HIGHLAND RO STE 107 56 MAIN STREET
HARTLAND Ml 48353-2726 7 HAMBURG, NY 14075-4905

DETACH AND RETURN TOP PORTION ITH PAYMENT
Re: First Equity Garg
Account #: 4988820004
Balance; $7,093.10
This notice és to Inform you that all callection procedurus in regards to your Firet Equity Gard account is being handiad by

LHA lnc.

We af LHH Inc, understand thet difficult times may haya caused this problem, Your situation may be correcting tse and
LHR Inc. would Uke to help resolve this matter,

In reviewing your account, LHR Inc. has concluded that the follawing two optiona can assist you In correcting this
situation,

1. Remil 4 seltiement in the amount of $4,609.40 to ba received on ar before 07/25/2008 closing your account 43 settled
(n full

This maney can be obtained thraugh several sources: Tax retum, credit card, check, equity tan, consolidation loan or a
personal source.

2 Amonthly repayment plan, determined by you, to be received on or before 07/25/2008, and to be received by the cate
every month thereafter until the original pata i are pald_

Our representatives ars tmined th offer assistance regarding your obligation, Mt js important for you fo contact {his alfice at
1-800-527-3202.

FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THAT WE NOTIFY YOU THAT THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A CONSUMER DEBT
AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

jco7eD4

Sinceraly,

J, P. Michaals
Department Manager

“Please note the above bar coded address (6341 gir Reprod NY eee aan hand upper
comer of this natioe, is not the address of LHR, Inc. This addross is for processing undetiverable mail only, Please do not
send correspondence of payment to that addrass, Pigase send payments or carrespondancs to LHA, inc,, 56 Main
Street, Hamburp, NY 14075-4905.

Please $26 reyerss side Jor important pnvacy information, Exa'T

A

MON-THU BAM - OPM, FRIDAY &AM - 4PM EST bon



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg6of13 PgID18

Dated: 11/07/2008
be

Doug Dem
Attomey for Defendant

11636 Hightand Ra #107
Hartland MI'48353


2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg9of13 PgID21

STATE OF MICHIGAN
$2-2 DISTRICT COURT-OAKLAND COUNTY

LHR inc
Plaintitt, Cine No, 08-COSATE-GC
Hon. Kostin

¥

DOUG TERN
DBA LAW OFFICE OF DOUG DERN
Detendant,

Rooyen, Verchictti, & Chiver, PLLC
Attoruey for Phainsift

PO Box 340170

Coton Township M1 48038
SU6-SOR-2797

/

Dong Bern (PO4S67)
Attomey for Defendaist
11636 Highland Rd. #107
Marland MI 48353
#10632-4160
é

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Defendant in this answer to the complaint filed by the Plaintiff. The

Delendunt states the following in support of:
1. Neither admits or denies, leaves the proof to the Plaintiff.

2. Admins

3, Denies, Proper venue for Hightand is Novi District Court.

4. Neither admits or denies.

5. Neither admits or denies Plaintiff is not the original creditor.
6, Neither admits or denies.

7, Admits in part and denies in part.

%. Admits, but xo docs the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff breaches tho Contract then there is no
meeting of minds und it is an invalid contract.

9. Denies, The Maintif? never ever sent the Defendant a monthly bill, The Defendant
mide several attempts to receive said monthly bills. Defendant talked at length with the
Plaintiff chat monthly statements were not being sent. This is a violation of the federal fair
billing act, See Counter complaint.



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pglof13 PgID13

Exhibit B



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg12o0f13 PgID24

STATE OF MICHIGAN
§2-2 DISTRICT COURT-OAKLAND COUNTY
LHR ine
Plaintift. Case No. 0% CO3473-GC
Hon. Kelley R. Kostin
v
DOUG DERN
DBA LAW OFFICE OF DOUG DERN
Defendant,
= —= /
Roosen, Varchotti, & Oliver, PLC
Attomey for Plain?

PO Box 380170
Clinton Township MI-48038
586-868-2737

Doug Dern (64567)
Attorney for Defendant
11636 Highland Rd. #107
Hartland MI 48353
810-632-9160
i

DEMAND FOR JURY

THE DEFENDANT in the above cage demands a jury tral.

Dated: 11/07/2008
DougDem —a
Attomey for Plaintiff


2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg1llof13 PgID 23

31. Neither admits or denies.

32. Denies This is » personal attack.

33. Denies. There is no merit in this statement. This is an unprofessional personal atinck.
WM. Denies.

35. Neither admits or denies,

36. Denies.

37. Denies, the Defendant was in the process of resolving this matter when the Plaintiff's
attorney jumped the gun and personally attack the Defendant with false allegation.

38. The amount souwht for is improper, The Plaintiff LAR, Ine whieh took the account
subject to First Equity Card allowed fees to acéruc unjustly by intentionally not sending
statements to the Defendant, whict is a violation of the Pair Billing Act.

39, The Plaintiff has also violated FDCPA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (See
Counter claim),

40. The credit card was used for personal afd consumer purchases wherefore the Plaintif!
is bound by consumer protection law regardless of the fact that the cand was under a
DBA.

41. The principle balance on the credit card was well less then half of the amount sought.
Since thé means t mack the balance yp are fraudulent and violates Fair Billing Practices
Act and the Truth in Lending Act any thing over the Principle is \injust enrichment

42, In order to have a valid conteget-there mont be a mecting of the mind. The Defendant
entered the contract assuming thal he would receive statements. Since no statement were
received the Plaintiff did not meet minds with the Defendant. The Contract js void,

43, The Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages Mitigating damages under Michigan law is
nol allowing fee to accrue and then not inform the Defendant,

WHEREFORE, the Defendunt request this-honorable Court to order this case dismissed
and grant 4 judgment in favor of the Defendant in accordance with the Counter claim.

Dated: 11/07/2008
ae oe

Doug Dem
Attomey for Defendant



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg 8of13 PgID 20

LAW OFFICE OF DOUG DERN & ASSOCIATES

11636 Highland Ra #107
Hortland MI 48353
1-$10-632-9160 Office
1-810-632-7287 Fax
6-308 so lanetionsory
otaenance sh
LHR

634) Inducon Drive East
Sanborn NY 14132-9097

RE: Dispute.und request for yalidation

4988820004007604
2104995

Dear Collection Dopartmant;
You must be mistaken. This is czy. | do not owe this debt, Please vorify and

a

Doug Dem, Bag,

£ He 6



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg4of13 PgID16

14 When Counter/Defendunt received the dispute letter their failure to report this as
disputed violated Federal credit reporting laws.

15. The Counter/PlaintifY ix entitled to damages tinder the ORA and is untitled to attomey
fees:

Count Il
Fair Credit Billing Act Violation
16. Counter/ Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges cach allegation in paragraphs 11-15
of this complaint

17. The Counter/Defendant failed to 2end the Counter/Plaintiff billing statements during
the course of their business relationship,

1A, The original ugreement signed by the Counter/Plaintiff gave the address as 11636
Highlund ed, Suite 106. The Counter/Plaintii? uses this suite and occupies it, but receives
most the niall at suite 107.

19, After several months of not receiving stitements the Counter/ Plaintiff told the
Counter! Defendant this but the Counter’ Defendant was non responsive,

20, Sometime in Noveniber of 2006 the Counter/Plaintift went on line and discovered
that the addresis Was for suite 106 und then Counter/Plaintiff chunged his address online t
Suite 107,

21. After this change the Counter/Plainti(f’still did not receive billing statement. Billing
Statements under Federal Law muy be received at least 14 days prior to due date

22 Counter/PlaintifY would yet calls stating that his bill was late. He would pay it over
the phone and inform the Counter/Defendant that he never received any bill, The
Counter/Defendant was non responsive.

23. After some time Counter/Defendant stopped calling to inform the Counter/Plaintiff
that his bill was late and the Counter’Plaintiff begin 1 fall behind without any knowledge
because he never received any 4tulements

24 This és illegal to not send billing statement for the matice purpase of collecting late

lees.

25, After the account went into default the Counter/Defendunt continued to accrue late
charges and other fees illegally aguinat the Counter/Plaintitf without sending any
stafements.

26, The Counter/Defendant a collection agency took the accgunt subject to from First
Equity Card and is responsible for the Fair Credit Billing Violation of the original



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg3o0f13 PgID15

debt.

5. The Counter/Defendant served a law suite on the Counter! Plaintiff ar his primary
residence and not af his business thereby acknowledging the nature of the debt was
consumer debt.

6. The relationship of this transaction is ¢ debt collector attempting (o collect debt from a
consumer thereby jt is covered under the Pale Debt Collection Practices Act 15 USC
1692.

7. On or about 06/26/2008 the Counter! Defendant LHI Inc. sent the Counter/ Plaintifha
collection notice (see Exhibit 4),

8, On or about 06/30/2008 Counter! Plaintiff sent, by firat class mail in the ordinary
business manner, the Counter’ Defendant a request for validation of the debt and also
disputed the debt. The dite on the exhibit uppeurs wo be changed by hand but that is u
copy of the original Jeter gent, Before it was changed it had the wrong date of April 8°.
fixhibit B is an-exact copy of the original letter ( see exhibit b).

9, Counter! Defendant, LHR failed to provide the validation of the debt as requested by
the Counter/Plaintiff, This isa violation of 14 USC 1692g (b) of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

1), The foregoing acts und omissions were undertaken by the Counter/Defiendant
willfully, persistently, intentionally, knowingly and discriminutely as part of their routine
detit collection business and with gross or reckless disregard of the rights of the
Counter!Plaintit?,

11. The Counter/Piaintift is entitled to starutory damages of $1000.00, punitive damages,
and actually attorney fees for the violation of this FOCTA violation.

Count I
Violation of the Pair Credit Reporting Act
LL Counter’ Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each allegation in paraymphs | <1! of
this complaint.

12. When the Counter’ Defendant received the dispute letier they filed to report that the
alleged debt was in dispute.

13. Failing to report debt as disputed to credit reporting apencies in a violation of Fair
Credit Reporting Act § 1681s-3. Which states : ~ Duty to provide notice of dispute

If tho completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any
consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not
furnish the informution to any Consumer ceporting wgency without notice that such
information is disputed by the consumer,”



2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg2of13 PgID14

STATE OF MICHIGAN
52-2 DISTRICT COURT-OAKLAND COUNTY

LHR ine.
Plaintiff, Cuse No. 08-COS473-GC

Hon. Kelley R. Kostin

v

DOUG DERN
DBA LAW OFTICE OF DOUG DERN
Defendam,

Roosen, Varchetti, & Oliver, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff

PO Box 380170

Clinton Township MI 48038
SRO-RO8-2737

f

Dehy Dem (P64567)
Attomey for Defendant
11636 Tlighland Rd. #107
Hartland Ml 48353
$10-632-9160

t
DEFENDANT'S COUNTER-COMPLAINT
NOW COMES the Counter/Plnintiff in pto pet in this Counter claim against the
Counter/Defendant. The Counter Malntff states the following:

Count |
Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 USC 1692

1 The MaintitY Counter/Defendant ts a collection agency located in Sanborn New York.
Their primary business ig debt vollection. They are “debt collectors” with in the meaning
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under 15 1-S.C. § 1692 ta) (6).

2 The Counter/Plaintiff is. consumer under 15 USC § 1692n (3) and MCI. § 445.902
(1d)

3, The Credit Cand that the Counter/Defendant claims is owed on was under the name of
Law Oifice Of Doug Dem however; this credit card was wied for consumer good and
consumer debt. When a business credit card is used for consumer debt the fhir debt
calfection act applies 1 collection agencies.

4, The Counter/Defendint Inet the ability to view the statements they claim they mailed to
the Counter! Plaintiffand should haye knoyen that the credit card was used for consumer


2:08-cv-14754-NGE-SDP Doc #1-3 Filed 11/11/08 Pg13o0f13 PgID25

STATE OF MICHIGAN
$2-2 DISTRICT COURT-OAKLAND COUNTY

LER ine

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-COS473-GC

Hon, Kelley R. Kostin

¥
DOUG DERN
DBA LAW OFFICE OF DOUG DERN

Defendant,

i

Roosen, Varchetti, & Oliver, PLLC
Atomey for Plaintift

PO Box 380170
Clinton Township MT 48038
586-868-2737

Doug Deen (P64567)
Attamey for Defendant
11636 Highland Rd, 4407
Hartlind MI 48359
810-632-9160

/
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Doug Dern will be representing himself as Attorney in the
above mentioned case.

Dated 11/07/2008

“sr an

Doug Dem
Atomey for Defendant
PROOF OF SERVICE
{DECALRE that I did send by first class mail a copy of the Defendant's answer and the
Defendant's counter claim to the attorney for the Plaintiff at the above address.
Dated: 11/07/2008

4

Doug Dem
Attorney for Defendant