Consumer complaint received 2022-06-07
Product: Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan — Installment loan
Issue: Charged fees or interest you didn't expect — 
Company: Lendmark Financial Services (VA)

I was sued by Lendmark Financial after defaulting on my loan. The loan originated on XX/XX/XXXX and the last payment I made was on XX/XX/XXXX. I fell on some cash flow issues the last quarter of XXXX. They were to help me exercise the unemployment insurance I paid for yet did nothing to help me through this. They continued to harass me daily about when I was going to pay off the loan. Then I found out that they were trying to sue me in court. 

Once I was sued, I began to look at the contract and discovered their interest rate for the APR was understated by nearly 2 %. According to TILA, that is a direct violation of that act. The judge that heard my case in XXXX XXXX XXXX VA on XX/XX/XXXX would not accept my evidence of the usury interest because the evidence was not certified. 

Also, they had me lie on the contract when it came to personal property they used as collateral for the loan. The witness I was going to bring to court would have cleared that all up quickly. 

The contract in itself contradicts its own language. The contract is not valid and it needs to be brought to everyone 's attention the predatory lending these people are involved in doing each and every day for profit. They have to be stopped.

****THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED TO COURT WHERE I GOT A JUDGEMENT PLACED AGAINST ME. I HAVE APPEALED. **** VIRGINIA : IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND, GROUNDS OF DEFENSE COMES NOW, the Defandant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Litigant, and for their Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and its Grounds of Defense. 

MOTION TO DISMISS 1. ) Trial for this matter is scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX XXXX in General District Court for the County of XXXX XXXX. 
2. ) Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant apperared in court on XX/XX/XXXX, and agreed to set the matter for a later date. 
3. ) The motion to dismiss without prejudice is a request of the Defendant as the Defendant filed for Arbitration on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX  appointed our Neutral Counsel as of XX/XX/XXXX. The Plantiff has paid the intial filing fee of {$1700.00} and still has yet to fund the remaing deposit of {$6700.00}. Arbitration was agreed by both parties and takes the place of a trial.

4. ) A Warrant in Debt was previously filed against the Defendant that was dismissed without prejudice due to the Motion to Compel Plantiff to Arbitration on XX/XX/XXXX. Prior to XX/XX/XXXX the initial date of case XXXX, the Plantiff did not serve the Defendant by service of process and posted a summons on the door of an old address when in fact the Plantiff had the correct mailing address on file. The Defendant found out there was a pending case against them by accessing the VA Courts Online Informaiton website. The Defandants rights were violated in this action by the Plantiff and publicly posted private finanical information. The Defandant prays that this Motion To Dimsiss is granted with a civil penatly levied against the Plantiff in an amount that you Honor decides is fair according to VA XXXX XXXX. 
5. ) The Defendant therefore asks the Court to dismiss with prejudice on the trial date.

GROUNDS OF DEFENSE 1. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, agrees with Plaintiff and hereby presents its Grounds of Defense, as requested by the Courts to be filed no later than XX/XX/XXXX. 

2. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, agrees with the plaintiff that Lendmark Financial Services, LLC is a finance company to be business if and only if they provide their License and who they assign as their access partners. 
2. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, agrees that the Defendant is currently residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX, Virginia, XXXX. 
3. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, asserts that the Plaintiff misrepresented secured property thus creating a fraud and deceit. and is in fact knowingly coerced Defendant in signing a property list to obtain the loan that said property did not belong to the defendant. ( See Exhibit A ) that they have breached their own contract and purposely omitted the secured property list that was not filled out by the Defendant. Under Virginias Consumer Protection Act 59.1-200. PROHIBITED PRACTICES A. The following fraudulent acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction are hereby declared unlawful:14. Using any other deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction 4. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, asserts the defense that the Plaintiff is in breach of contract by violating the Code of Virginia 6.2-1520.Rate of interest ; late charges ; processing fees B. A licensee may charge a loan processing fee not to exceed the greater of {$50.00} or six percent of the principal amount of the loan, provided that the loan processing fee shall in no event exceed {$150.00}. The loan processing fee shall be stated in the loan contract. 
The prepaid loan processing fee on my loan was {$330.00} and the statue clearly states 6 % of the principal balance but not to exceed {$150.00} in any event. Lendmark exceeded the allowable limit by {$180.00}, thus making this loan contract in breach of lending laws in the state of Virginia. 
5. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, asserts the defense of ambiguity and asks that the Plaintiff prove its interest rate that was quoted using the 1026.22 Determination of annual percentage rate under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ). Defendant asserts the motion to dismiss court case based on false information and improper disclosure of interest rate in the state of Virginia and violating Truth in Lending Act and exceeding the interest rate for Virginia.

6. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, asserts the defense of breach of contract under the Federal Law Section12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) and Virginia 6.2-1520.Rate of interest ; late charges ; processing fees A. The annual rate not to exceed 36 percent. The annual percentage rate is understated in the Truth in Lending Disclosure ( TILA ) and ends up being 37.8421 % which is significantly over the 36 % See Exhibit B. Furthermore, the Defendant motions to strike number six as the have violated TILA and Defendant seeks the maximum allowed civil penalty allowed by law. Therefore, if the rate of interest or effective interest rate is stated to be 33.30 % then the APR could not be 35.99 % that is listed in the disclosure. 
7. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, asserts the ambiguity defense as it is unclear to the Defendant what the Plaintiff is eluding. The statement in which the Plaintiff is referring to the Bill of Particulars Exhibit B does not belong to the Defendant. The Defendant ask that the courts to dismiss with prejudice based on incorrect account information. Furthermore, according to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The Final Rule XX/XX/XXXX states that once the consumer disputes and request validation of the debt, the debt collector has certain information that needs to be reported to the consumer. One of those items and it is an important one mind you are the account number on the debt. The letter of verification/validation that was sent to me with the proof of the debt that is currently in dispute is not my account number nor is it on my loan documents, or the mail that I used to receive in the mail with my monthly statement/payment voucher. 
This error is an error that can not be swept under the rug. This is a critical identification number for a consumer lending account with Lendmark, if the numbers do not match, therefore you must deem that debt in question is not valid and the loan is void and unenforceable. 
8. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, denies the validity of such information and there is not enough evidence to prove that XX/XX/XXXX, was the last payment date that the Defendant made on account. The Plaintiffs statement does not record such date or payment and goes back to Ground of Defense number XXXX. The Defendant motions to strike. 
9. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, asserts the affirmative defense of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff is asking 15 % of the amount due and payable on a contract and/or note that is void due to fraud and misrepresentation of information. The Defendant asks the court to dismiss this case and award damages that are equal to Plaintiffs fees and apply those damages to make the loan balance equal the amount financed. Furthermore, the Plaintiff should be held to a higher standard of due care and not be allowed to file any further lawsuits concerning the Defendant.

10. ) The Defendant, XXXX XXXX, agrees with the Plaintiffs assertion, not active XXXX. 
WHEREFORE the Defendant, respectfully request that this case be dismissed without prejudice as the Plaintiff does not have a valid contract with the Defendant. The Defendant requests that the court seek punitive damages at {$1000.00} per violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act, Consumer Protection Act, in the amount of {$5000.00}. The Defendant has asserted several affirmative defenses with information regarding the reason why the Defendant is not in agreeance with the Plaintiff backed by Federal laws and the Code of Virginia protecting Consumer Rights. The Defendant prays that you find the Plaintiff exempt from being awarded Attorneys fees, late fees, court fees, and any other fee due to the negligence and lack of due car that Lendmark has bestowed upon the Defendant in what is predatory lending. The Defendant seeks to impress up on the court that no where does this loan note and/or contract state the following clause : XXXX. Required and prohibited activities and conduct. XXXX Every loan contract shall be in writing, be signed by the borrower, provide for repayment of the amount loaned in substantially equal monthly installments of principal and interest, and include the following statement : " This loan is made pursuant to Chapter 15 of Title 6.2 of the Code of Virginia ''. Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent ( i ) a loan being considered a new loan because the proceeds of the loan are used to pay an existing loan contract or ( ii ) a licensee from entering into a loan contract providing for an odd first payment period of up to 45 days and an odd first payment greater than other monthly payments because of such odd first payment period. In all the loan documents for said contract, there is no statement for the required information on every loan contract. One can only infer that the Plaintiff has not followed the bylaws of the state of Virginia and should be penalized for this violation of consumer protection laws.