Source: https://livinglies.me/2016/09/01/florida-fccpa-has-teeth/
Timestamp: 2020-06-05 13:04:52
Document Index: 776252458

Matched Legal Cases: ['§559', '§559', '§559', '§559', '§559', '§559', '§559', '§ 1572', '§ 1024', '§ 1024', '§ 1024', '§ 1024', '§ 1024', '§ 1024']

Florida FCCPA Has Teeth | Livinglies's Weblog
Florida FCCPA Has Teeth
Posted on September 1, 2016 by Neil Garfield
The FCCPA is one of those statutes that are often missed opportunities to hold the banks and servicers accountable for illegal conduct. It is like “Mail Fraud” which only applies to US Postal Services (the reason why servicers prefer to communicate through Fedex or other private mail carriers.
REMEMBER THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE TIME RUNS FROM EACH NEW ACT PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTES.
Some of the prohibited practices are self explanatory. But others deserve comment and guidance:
§559.72(5): Disclosure of alleged debt. This could be one of the grounds for an FCCPA action. If you accept the premise that in most cases the disclosing party has neither ownership nor authorization over the alleged debt, then it would follow that reporting to third parties about the debt would illegal under this section. This is escalated in the event that the “debt” (i.e., a description of a liability owed by A to B) does not exist. B may not be the creditor. Neither B nor any successor or other third party would be acting appropriately if they communicated with each other if neither “successors” nor B had any ownership or authority over the liability of A.
§559.72(6): Failure to disclose to third party that debtor disputes the debt. The catch here is “reasonably disputed.” But as you look at an increasing number of case decisions Judges are finding an absence of evidence supporting the claims of banks and servicers. After a failed attempt t foreclosure, it might be reasonably presumed that the debtor/homeowner was reasonably disputing the debt. After all he/she won the case.
§559.72(9): Enforcing an illegitimate debt. This one is self evident and yet it forms the basic structure and strategy of the banks and servicers. Perhaps my labeling is too narrow. The facts are that (A) alleged REMIC Trusts are making completely false claims about the Mortgage Loan Schedule and (B) banks and servicers are directly making false claims without the charade of the alleged trusts. This one has traction.
§559.72(15): Improper identification of the debt collector. My reasoning is that when the debt collector calls and says they are the servicer for the creditor, this section is being violated and the breach interferes with the HAMP and other loan modification programs. It is a pretty serious breach designed to lure the homeowner into foreclosure. Continued correspondence with the false servicer and the false or undisclosed creditor probably doesn’t waive anything but it does given them an argument that you never objected. So my suggestion is that homeowners and their attorneys object to all such communications until they provide adequate evidence that they can identify the creditor (with evidence that can be confirmed) and adequate evidence that the creditor has indeed selected the debt collector as the servicer. My thinking is that as soon as they refuse to identify the creditor(s) they are in potential violation of this section.
§559.72(18): Communication with person represented by counsel. This is meant to prevent the debt collector from making an end run around the the lawyer. But it does get in the way of efficient communications. The alleged “servicer” starts sending correspondence tot he lawyer thus delaying the response. And the debt collector will call the lawyer to disclose the loan and ask for details about the loan, the property or the alleged debtor that are known only by the homeowner.
Florida Statutes §559.72 Prohibited practices generally.—In collecting consumer debts, no person shall:
(1) Simulate in any manner a law enforcement officer or a representative of any governmental agency.
(2) Use or threaten force or violence.
(3) Tell a debtor who disputes a consumer debt that she or he or any person employing her or him will disclose to another, orally or in writing, directly or indirectly, information affecting the debtor’s reputation for credit worthiness without also informing the debtor that the existence of the dispute will also be disclosed as required by subsection (6).
(4) Communicate or threaten to communicate with a debtor’s employer before obtaining final judgment against the debtor, unless the debtor gives her or his permission in writing to contact her or his employer or acknowledges in writing the existence of the debt after the debt has been placed for collection. However, this does not prohibit a person from telling the debtor that her or his employer will be contacted if a final judgment is obtained.
(5) Disclose to a person other than the debtor or her or his family information affecting the debtor’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information or that the information is false.
(6) Disclose information concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the debtor without disclosing that fact. If a disclosure is made before such dispute has been asserted and written notice is received from the debtor that any part of the debt is disputed, and if such dispute is reasonable, the person who made the original disclosure must reveal upon the request of the debtor within 30 days the details of the dispute to each person to whom disclosure of the debt without notice of the dispute was made within the preceding 90 days.
(7) Willfully communicate with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family.
(8) Use profane, obscene, vulgar, or willfully abusive language in communicating with the debtor or any member of her or his family.
(9) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person knows that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.
(10) Use a communication that simulates in any manner legal or judicial process or that gives the appearance of being authorized, issued, or approved by a government, governmental agency, or attorney at law, when it is not.
(11) Communicate with a debtor under the guise of an attorney by using the stationery of an attorney or forms or instruments that only attorneys are authorized to prepare.
(12) Orally communicate with a debtor in a manner that gives the false impression or appearance that such person is or is associated with an attorney.
(13) Advertise or threaten to advertise for sale any debt as a means to enforce payment except under court order or when acting as an assignee for the benefit of a creditor.
(14) Publish or post, threaten to publish or post, or cause to be published or posted before the general public individual names or any list of names of debtors, commonly known as a deadbeat list, for the purpose of enforcing or attempting to enforce collection of consumer debts.
(15) Refuse to provide adequate identification of herself or himself or her or his employer or other entity whom she or he represents if requested to do so by a debtor from whom she or he is collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt.
(16) Mail any communication to a debtor in an envelope or postcard with words typed, written, or printed on the outside of the envelope or postcard calculated to embarrass the debtor. An example of this would be an envelope addressed to “Deadbeat, Jane Doe” or “Deadbeat, John Doe.”
(17) Communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the debtor’s time zone without the prior consent of the debtor.
(a) The person may presume that the time a telephone call is received conforms to the local time zone assigned to the area code of the number called, unless the person reasonably believes that the debtor’s telephone is located in a different time zone.
(b) If, such as with toll-free numbers, an area code is not assigned to a specific geographic area, the person may presume that the time a telephone call is received conforms to the local time zone of the debtor’s last known place of residence, unless the person reasonably believes that the debtor’s telephone is located in a different time zone.
(18) Communicate with a debtor if the person knows that the debtor is represented by an attorney with respect to such debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney’s name and address, unless the debtor’s attorney fails to respond within 30 days to a communication from the person, unless the debtor’s attorney consents to a direct communication with the debtor, or unless the debtor initiates the communication.
(19) Cause a debtor to be charged for communications by concealing the true purpose of the communication, including collect telephone calls and telegram fees.
History.—s. 18, ch. 72-81; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 1, 6, ch. 81-314; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 1, 3, ch. 83-265; ss. 7, 13, ch. 93-275; s. 819, ch. 97-103; s. 1, ch. 2001-206; s. 4, ch. 2010
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: borrower, disclosure, FCCPA, Florida Statutes §559.72, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, securitization |
« David Dayen: The Only Person Jailed for the Foreclosure Crisis Will Soon Go Free Eerie Photos Explore Homes Abandoned in the Housing Crisis »
depatridge, on September 2, 2016 at 2:18 am said:
david belanger (@revolutionnow1), on September 1, 2016 at 4:14 pm said:
Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuits in California and Cutting Edge Foreclosure Defense Strategies
October 15, 2016 | San Francisco, CA
ONLY $295 REGISTRATION FEE
The Nation’s Leading Resource for
Mortgage Securitization Auditing,
Chain of Title Analysis, Quiet Title and Training
Recent L.A. Times Article on Wrongful Foreclosure Lawsuits in California
During the bust that followed last decade’s housing boom, hundreds of thousands of Californians lost their homes to foreclosure. It was a process later found to be rife with problems, such as overwhelmed bank employees who sometimes didn’t even read the foreclosure documents in front of them. But challenging foreclosures on the basis of paperwork problems proved to be mostly futile, given California courts had ruled that borrowers who weren’t paying their mortgages didn’t suffer financial harm.
P: 415-896-1600
Introduction – Outline of Todays Lecture & Lecture Topics
Analysis of California Homeowner Bill of Rights – SB 900 (1:30 – 2:15) (George)
Federal Court Analysis of Real Property Claims & Title Actions (2:30 – 3:30) (George)
The Process of Non-Judicial Foreclosure In California – George
What to Write? Upon belief – Plaintiffs allege
Case Management Conference – CMC – Case Management Conference Statement
Actual Fraud – California Civil Code § 1572(3)(5)
Contractual issue – bank has told HO to stop making payments to be considered for a modification; thus, the bank has waived any right to enforcement of the terms of the contract under the note; it gave that right up to enforce the contract by telling the home owner to stop making payments; homeowner relied on that waiver, stopped making payments for a modification, is denied modification, – bank cannot then come back and state it is entitled to enforce the payments
The Glaski Court specifically noted “We reject the view that a borrower’s challenge to an assignment must fail once it is determined that the borrower was not a party to, or third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement. Cases adopting that position “paint with too broad a brush.” Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290. Instead, courts should proceed to the question whether the assignment was void. Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, , supra.
Therefore, it is imperative that arguments be raised to distinguish your claims from the Jenkins case, specifically; that and wrongful actions, inter alia, the absence of proper assignments of the Note and Deed of Trust to the securitized Trust, preceded any alleged default on Plaintiff’s behalf whereby triggering the purported election to sell under the Deed of Trust. (Further analysis can be found be looking to Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 804.)
Lona v. Citibank: Tender exceptions – should be alleging that there is a tender exception in addition to the allegations that tender has already occurred
Unjust Enrichment – Payments made to entity who is NOT the lawful note-holder
Slander of Title – Publication of disparaging statement about title to real estate; statement is false; made with malice; pecuniary damages
Quiet Title – Seeking court order to establish ownership of property; plausible claim to title
Equitabel Estoppel – Post Foreclosure
Analysis of California Homeowner Bill of Rights – SB 900 – George
In general – In addition to other disclosures required by this subchapter, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including—
12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1) – If the servicer deems the loss mitigation application to be incomplete, the servicer must act affirmatively to complete the application. The servicer must exercise “reasonable diligence” to obtain any documents and information it claims to require to complete the application. “A complete loss mitigation application means an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options available to the borrower. A servicer shall exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1).
12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(A) – When initially made aware of a communication that can reasonably be deemed to be an application for loss mitigation, the servicer must promptly conduct a review to determine whether the communication represents a complete or an incomplete application. “If a servicer receives a loss mitigation application 45 days or more before a foreclosure sale, a servicer shall: (A) Promptly upon receipt of a loss mitigation application, review the loss mitigation application to determine if the loss mitigation application is complete” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(A)
12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(ii) – The “written notice” notice must include a “reasonable date” by which the borrower should submit the missing documents and information. “The notice required pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section must include a reasonable date by which the borrower should submit the documents and information necessary to make the loss mitigation application complete” Reg. X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(2)(ii)
Maher Soliman, on September 1, 2016 at 3:46 pm said:
If you reference a Trust as a beneficiary . . .the trustee is a fiduciary and not a third party incident to trust ! Therefore NO mortgage and for this reason NO servicing Material violation or willful misstatements made by registrants as the sole accredited parties in conflict with the auditors attestations engaged by registrants and accredited….in violation of 1122AB prohibition on servicing rights in vendor transfers sales and assignments registerclaims@live.com
Maher Soliman, on September 1, 2016 at 3:41 pm said:
The is NO servicing under 1122 AB .
George Gingo, on September 1, 2016 at 12:15 pm said:
The FCCPA has a two-year statute of limits. The FDCPA has a one-year statute of limits.