Source: http://www.alabamaconsumerlawblog.com/cases_filed/
Timestamp: 2016-08-25 02:37:57
Document Index: 371958583

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1681', '§ 1681', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 1692', '§ 227', '§ 227']

Cases Filed :: Alabama Consumer Law Blog
Home > Cases Filed April 5, 2016
Case filed -- FCRA lawsuit against Hyundai/Kia Capital for false credit reporting
You can read the lawsuit below -- our basic position is that Hyundai negligently or intentionally reported a false balance owed when it knew that our client did not owe any money.
If you are dealing with similar issues, make sure you have done proper disputes under the FCRA and if that still won't fix it, then look at suing in federal court.
Let us know if you live in Alabama and have any questions....
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for Plaintiff's Complaint against the Defendant states as follows:
1.	This action arises out of Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. [hereinafter “FCRA”]), which have directly resulted in Plaintiff not being able to purchase her first home due to the false credit reporting by Defendant.
2.	Personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant as it has the necessary minimum contacts with the State of Alabama and this suit arises out of its specific conduct with Plaintiff in Alabama. All the actions described in this suit occurred in Alabama.
3.	Subject matter jurisdiction exists under federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Section 1331).
4.	Venue is proper as Plaintiff lives in Alabama and the Defendant does business in this judicial district. PARTIES
5.	Plaintiff is a natural person who is a resident of Alabama.
6.	Defendant Hyundai Capital America, Inc. d/b/a Kia Motors Finance (“Defendant” or “Kia”) is a foreign company that engages in the business of reporting consumer credit information to credit reporting agencies. It conducts business in this Judicial District. Its principal place of business is the State of California and it is incorporated in California.
Plaintiff purchases a 2012 Kia in 2012 with Gap insurance
7.	On or about August 1, 2012, Plaintiff purchased a 2012 Kia from Kia and it was financed through Kia.
8.	Plaintiff purchased, from Kia, Gap insurance that would pay the difference between the value of the car and the amount owed if the car was totaled.
Plaintiff’s 2012 Kia is wrecked and the loan is paid off
9.	Several weeks later Plaintiff was in a wreck and the car was totaled.
10.	Kia told Plaintiff it would handle the claim with the primary insurance company to recover the value of the 2012 Kia.
11.	And Kia told Plaintiff it would file the Gap insurance to cover the “gap” in the value and the amount owed.
12.	Kia took these actions and the loan was fully paid without any problem.
Plaintiff purchases a 2013 Kia with Gap insurance
13.	Needing a vehicle as Plaintiff’s was totaled, on or about September 26, 2012, Plaintiff again took out a loan with Defendant Kia – this time on a 2013 Kia Forte.
14.	Defendant Kia again sold to Plaintiff a "Gap" insurance, which would pay the difference or "gap" between the value of the Kia and the amount owed if the Kia was totaled.
Plaintiff’s 2013 Kia is totaled in a wreck in 2013
15.	On October 21, 2013 Plaintiff wrecked the vehicle (2013 Kia) and Plaintiff's 2013 Kia was totaled.
16.	Plaintiff promptly reported this to Kia and Kia said it would file the Gap insurance and it would get the primary insurance payment – exactly as had occurred one year before on the 2012 Kia.
17.	Plaintiff's insurance paid Kia and the Gap insurance would pay the rest of the amount owed.
18 months later Plaintiff discovers Kia is falsely reporting
the 2013 Kia on Plaintiff’s credit reports
18.	Plaintiff discovered the last week of May 2015, that Plaintiff's credit reports falsely showed balances of the whole amount owed when Plaintiff’s insurance had paid over $14,000 to Kia for the then value of the 2013 Kia at the time of the wreck.
19.	The credit reports also showed that Kia was reporting that Plaintiff was late in payments since the wreck.
Plaintiff’s first dispute to the credit reporting agencies under the FCRA
20.	Plaintiff disputed this to the credit reporting agencies and Defendant Kia corrected the credit reporting to show Plaintiff had not been late since the wreck and did not owe the full amount of the loan.
Plaintiff is looking to buy a home and discovers Kia is still reporting the “gap” amount as owed
21.	But Plaintiff noticed Kia was still reporting $5,401.00 owed, which was the amount the Gap insurance would pay.
22.	Plaintiff had recently married (2015) and was looking at purchasing a home.
23.	As a teacher, owning a home has been a life long dream of Plaintiff.
24.	Part of preparing to purchase a home is to make sure that your credit reports are accurate.
Plaintiff calls Kia repeatedly to get her credit reporting fixed
25.	Given the continued inaccuracy of Kia’s reporting (that a balance was owed), this led Plaintiff to not only do the Fair Credit Reporting Act disputes to the credit reporting agencies but also to talk to Kia directly.
26.	Plaintiff contacted Kia on several occasions about this and Kia told Plaintiff that Kia had not filed the Gap insurance claim.
27.	Defendant Kia promised to file the claim.
28.	In the late summer of 2015, Defendant Kia told Plaintiff that it had filed the claim on the wrong Kia loan so the claim was denied. 29.	Kia filed the Gap claim on the 2012 Kia, not the 2013 Kia.
30.	But the 2012 Kia had already had a Gap claim filed and paid – in 2012.
31.	Naturally, one cannot get double payment for the same vehicle.
32.	Plaintiff again requested that Kia fix the false credit reporting showing she owed a balance – she owed no balance as Kia had sold her the Gap insurance, Kia financed it, and Kia promised to file the claim.
33.	Kia then promised Plaintiff that Kia had corrected this to file it on the correct loan – the 2013 Kia loan.
34.	Plaintiff told Kia Plaintiff was buying a house and had to have this corrected.
Kia knows Plaintiff does not owe any money on the 2013 Kia so it only attempts to force Plaintiff to pay this unowed money by false credit reporting
35.	Despite Defendant Kia causing this issue with its refusal to file the Gap insurance claim on the right vehicle, even nearly two years after the wreck, Defendant Kia claims on Plaintiff's credit reports that she owes $5,401.00.
36.	It is important to note that nowhere else does Kia claim Plaintiff owes any money on the 2013 Kia loan.
37.	No bill has ever been sent to Plaintiff since the 2013 wreck.
38.	No phone call has been made to Plaintiff requesting payment since the 2013 wreck.
39.	When Plaintiff has had repeated (and frustrating) calls with Kia about this fiasco, no representative of Kia has ever said, stated, hinted, or even implied that Plaintiff owes any money on the 2013 Kia.
40.	This is because Plaintiff owes no money on the 2013 Kia.
41.	Plaintiff even purchased a new vehicle and, ironically, the dealership financed it through Defendant Kia.
42.	This would never have happened if Plaintiff actually owed money on the 2013 Kia.
43.	If Plaintiff really had an outstanding balance of over $5,000 that had been owed since October 2013, Kia would never have allowed Plaintiff to finance another Kia.
44.	Plaintiff owes no money on the 2013 Kia – this is why Kia has again financed a car for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff disputes, again, the false credit reporting by sending a detailed letter with attachments to Kia and the credit reporting agencies
45.	Plaintiff in November 2015 sent a very detailed dispute letter with many attachments to Kia, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, disputing the balance owed on the 2013 Kia and that it was an open account.
46.	Plaintiff explained in great detail how the amount of the debt (current balance) and the monthly payments pushed her “debt to income” ratio beyond the point where she could qualify for her home loan.
47.	Plaintiff informed Kia (and the credit reporting agencies) that she had a contract on the home she wanted to buy and the Kia reporting is the only reason she could not close on the home.
48.	And that this impacted the sellers who had a contract to buy a house but could not do so until they sold their house to Plaintiff.
49.	In short, Kia knew exactly what it was doing wrong and exactly the tremendous damage it was causing Plaintiff and others by its malicious decision to continue to falsely report the account on Plaintiff’s credit reports.
50.	Kia received this dispute letter directly and has failed to even show the slightest courtesy in responding to Plaintiff.
51.	No apology has come from anyone at Kia.
52.	Kia has no regret over what it has done and is continuing to do to both Plaintiff’s family and the seller of the house Plaintiff wants to buy.
53.	Nor to any realtor involved or mortgage company involved.
54.	Kia’s policy and procedure, which will be established through its repeated conduct here and with other victims across the country, is to show no concern or regard for any of its wrongful actions, as it believes it is above the law in dealing with American consumers as opposed to the US government.
55.	All involved (mortgage company, realtor for seller, Plaintiff) have tried to get Kia to fix the false credit reporting but have been stonewalled.
56.	In response to the dispute letter, the credit reporting agencies contacted (individually) Kia to ask Kia whether to keep the balance owed and the open account status.
57.	Kia, knowing full well the falseness of its reporting, instructed the credit reporting agencies to keep the false information on Plaintiff’s account.
58.	Kia did this knowing it had destroyed the opportunity for Plaintiff to purchase her home.
59.	Defendant Kia did not perform any type of reasonable investigation.
60.	The credit reporting agencies properly notified Defendant Kia in accordance with the FCRA of the dispute by Plaintiff.
61.	Defendant failed to properly investigate this dispute, as if Defendant Kia had properly investigated, the account would show that it is closed and nothing is owed.
62.	The Defendant Kia was provided with more than sufficient information in the dispute and in its own internal sources of information to conduct an investigation and to conclude that the account complained of was being reported incorrectly.
63.	Defendant Kia has promised through its subscriber agreements or contracts with the credit reporting agencies to accurately update accounts but Defendant Kia has willfully, maliciously, recklessly, wantonly, and/or negligently failed to follow this requirement as well as the requirements set forth under the FCRA, which has resulted in the intended consequences of this information remaining on Plaintiff's credit reports.
64.	Defendant Kia maliciously, willfully, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to review the information provided in the disputes and that was already in its files and to conduct a reasonable investigation on Plaintiff's disputes, which led as a direct result and consequence to all of the Defendant either failing to delete information found to be inaccurate, failing to replace the inaccurate information with accurate information, and/or reinserting the information without following the dictates of the FCRA. 65.	One single example: If Defendant Kia had reasonable procedures in place in its investigation and reporting, it would have noticed the oddity of an account showing Plaintiff as owing $5,401.00 but not making any payments while simultaneously not reporting Plaintiff as late since the wreck and extending a new loan to Plaintiff.
66.	If a human being with any concern over the solemn duty of credit reporting had looked at this, that human being would have known this was wrong and would have fixed the credit reporting.
67.	But Kia does not allow its employees the “discretion” to fix blatant and damaging errors – instead there exists at Kia a systemic problem of refusing to allow errors to be corrected, even when the consumer makes repeated requests.
Plaintiff has been horribly damaged by Kia and cannot purchase her home
68.	The conduct of the Defendant has proximately cause Plaintiff past and future monetary loss, past and future damage to Plaintiff’s credit worthiness, past and future mental distress and emotional anguish, and other damages that will be presented to the trier of fact.
69.	Plaintiff reapplied for her home loan after the malicious conduct of Kia in refusing to fix her credit reports in response to the now second valid FCRA dispute.
70.	Plaintiff was turned down for the sole reason of the Kia reporting.
71.	As Kia knew and intended, Plaintiff has lost the ability to purchase a home.
Kia knows exactly what it has done to Plaintiff – all has been done according to the plan of Kia
72.	It is a practice of Defendant Kia to maliciously, willfully, recklessly, wantonly and/or negligently ignore and refuse to follow the requirements of the FCRA.
73.	Defendant is a sophisticated business and it knows its conduct is wrong.
74.	All actions taken by the Defendant were done with malice, were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that its actions were taken in violation of the FCRA and/or that it knew or should have known that its actions were in reckless disregard of the FCRA.
75.	Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of wrongful and unlawful behavior with respect to accounts and consumer reports and as such Defendant is subject to punitive damages and statutory damages and all other appropriate measures to punish and deter similar future conduct by these Defendant and similar companies.
76.	Defendant is liable to Plaintiff through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the wrongful, intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of federal law by its employees and agents.
COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
77.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
78.	Defendant Kia is an entity that, regularly and in the course of business, furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about its transactions or experiences with any consumer and therefore constitutes a "furnisher," as codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2.
79.	Plaintiff notified the credit reporting agencies directly of a dispute on the Defendant Kia account's completeness and/or accuracy, as reported.
80.	The credit reporting agency properly notified Defendant Kia of Plaintiff's dispute in accordance with the FCRA requirements.
81.	Plaintiff also directly notified Kia of her dispute and provided all documents so Kia cannot argue it did not have its own internal documents – which it has had at all times – as Plaintiff sent them to Kia.
82.	Kia has its own file of the conversations, notes, memos, etc. showing that this account is paid in full.
83.	And the credit reporting agencies sent the appropriate documentation to Kia.
84.	Defendant failed to delete information found to be inaccurate, reinserted the information without following the FCRA, or failed to properly investigate Plaintiff's disputes.
85.	Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to conduct a proper and lawful reinvestigation. 86.	All actions taken by the Defendant were done with malice, were done willfully, and were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that its actions were taken in violation of the FCRA and/or that it knew or should have known that its actions were in reckless disregard of the FCRA. 87.	All of the violations of the FCRA proximately caused the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendant for all damages allowable (including statutory, actual, compensatory, nominal and punitive the total of which Plaintiff claims more than $75,000.00), costs, expenses, fees, injunctive relief to prevent further violations, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
John G. Watts (ASB-5819-t82j)	M. Stan Herring (ASB-1074-n72m)
d/b/a Kia Motors Finance
2 N. Jackson Street, Suite 605
Or she could have begged these debt collectors to follow the law -- but then again the judge had already ruled our client didn't owe the debt so I'm not sure what good telling LVNV and Northland Group would have done.
, Collectors/Debt Buyers
When a debt buyer loses a case against you in Alabama, it must cease all collection activities, but often these debt buyers will not cease collecting the debt -- instead they keep trying to illegally collect it.
You can find a listing of some lawsuits against LVNV for this type of mis-conduct.
If you live in Alabama and have had a similar experience with LVNV or any other debt collector or debt buyer, please feel free to contact us for a free analysis of your rights and options, including suing the debt buyer. You can call us at 205-879-2447 and we'll be glad to chat with you.
If you live in Alabama and want to discuss your particular situation, please let us know and we'll be happy to do so. You can call us at 205-879-2447 or contact us through this blog or our website contact form.
Remember Portfolio's slogan about giving debt collection a good name....
If you have any similar experiences, let us know as we are curious to see how widespread the problem is with Allied Interstate -- we know Allied Interstate has been fined in the past for student loan abuses and we doubt this is an isolated event.
She answered the lawsuit and then filed a counterclaim against Freddie Mac and CitiMortgage for fraud, wrongful foreclosure, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, negligence, etc.
If you have dealt with similar issues in Alabama, please contact us at 205-879-2447.
Take care and we look forward to hearing about your story.
Homeowners In Alabama Sue Wells Fargo For Wrongful Foreclosure
We recently sued Wells Fargo for wrongful foreclosure and fraud and since it is a common type of fraud, we thought it might be helpful to show you the complaint we filed in federal court.
If you live in Alabama and you are dealing with anything similar to this with any mortgage company (especially Wells Fargo), please let us know as we would like to hear about your experiences.
FDCPA Lawsuit Against NCA and Smith Haynes
We recently filed suit (19 pages for the Complaint) under the FDCPA and Alabama state law against the debt collectors out of Kansas -- National Credit Adjusters and Smith Haynes & Watson.
There is a great deal of scams going on in the collection world related to pay day loans.
This lawsuit exposes a different facet of pay day loan collection scams -- assuming that the allegations are correct, which we believe they are.
I'm sure the defendants, National Credit Adjusters (also known as NCA) and Smith Haynes will strongly disagree and that is why, as an old judge told me once, they build these big courthouses. To decide who is right and who is wrong.
If you feel a collector has lied to you and you live in Alabama, please give us a call at 205-879-2447 and we'll be glad to chat with you and discuss your options.
LVNV reported this debt on the consumer's credit reports, even though the court ruled the consumer did not owe the debt.
All Past Issues Of Consumer Power Newsletters Online!
For several years we have sent out every Thursday (except when I am running late!) a free email newsletter where we talk about suing collection agencies, defending against collection lawsuits, correcting errors on your credit reports, fighting wrongful foreclosures, protecting against identity theft, and other consumer issues.
We call it "Consumer Power" as our intention is to give you knowledge and to give you encouragement to take action. Knowledge plus action is truly power and we want to empower consumers.
We have now set up a website, ConsumerPowerNewsletter.com, where we have all of the back issues. Usually a day or so after we put out our weekly newsletter, we will have the new issue up.
Feel free to check it out and let us know your thoughts, comments, and suggestions.
, Cases Filed
, Consumer Attorneys
Alabama Case Filings -- United Recovery Systems, LP Sued For FDCPA Violations
Debt collectors must give the appropriate disclosures when leaving voicemails which means, among other things, that the collection agency must inform the consumer that the call is "from a debt collector" and that the call is "an attempt to collect a debt."
Debt collectors do not like giving full disclosures because it can expose them to suit for illegally disclosing to a third party that the collector is collecting a debt. So . . . they don't want that but they still want to leave a message.
The collector's argument is "We have to break one section of the law to avoid breaking another section" -- that is as stupid as it sounds. But that's what they do.
Here is a recent case we filed against United Recovery Systems, LP for allegedly failing to give proper disclosures (sometimes called the "Mini Miranda"):
9.	The volume and type of calls are harassing as the intent and motive behind them is to harass Plaintiff into paying United Recovery. SUMMARY
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 19.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
28.	All acts of United Recovery and its agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such United Recovery is subject to punitive damages.	COUNT III.
32.	United Recovery acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 33.	United Recovery violated all of the duties United Recovery had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
35.	United Recovery acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 36.	United Recovery invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
•	for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against United Recovery; and •	for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION •	for an award of actual damages from United Recovery for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent state law violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from United Recovery for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations, intentional, reckless, and/or negligent hiring and supervision of incompetent debt collectors intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from United Recovery for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damages; and
/s/ John G. Watts	John G. Watts (WAT056)
/s/ M. Stan Herring	M. Stan Herring (HER037)
c/o Douglas B. Schultz
Alabama Case Filings -- TCPA/FDCPA Allegations Against NCO And Chase
We have talked about the rampant violations of the federal law known as the TCPA -- Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- which prohibits automated calls to cell or mobile phones without permission.
1.	This action arises out of Defendants’ repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA ”) and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by the Defendant and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.
12.	Defendant Chase is liable for these calls under the TCPA as they were made by its debt collector, Defendant NCO, as Defendant NCO told Plaintiff they were collecting this account on behalf of Defendant Chase. 13.	The harassing and repeated phone calls have been made within the applicable statute of limitations period. SUMMARY
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 30.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
43.	Defendants acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 44.	Defendants violated all of the duties Defendants had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
46.	Defendants acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 47.	Defendants invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
•	for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant NCO. •	for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
•	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent TCPA violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	statutory damages of $500.00 or $1,500.00 per call; and
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION •	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent state law violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA/TCPA violations, intentional, reckless, and/or negligent hiring and supervision of incompetent debt collectors intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damages; and
/s/ John G. Watts	Attorney for Plaintiff
Chase Bankcard, LLC
2000 Interstate Park Dr. Ste 204
We have warned consumers to be very careful about settling debts as sometimes debt collectors will come after you even after you have settled your case. Here is an example of a lawsuit against the well known debt collector (debt buyer) LVNV and Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, related to allegations that the consumer settled the debt but yet LVNV then sued the consumer. LVNV refused to dismiss the case with prejudice but when the trial came, LVNV did not show up to court according to the judge's order.
1.	This action arises out of Defendant LVNV’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA ”), and out of state law violations and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by all of the Defendants and their agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff.
3.	Congress found it necessary to pass the FDCPA due to rampant abusive practices by dishonorable debt collectors. 15 USC § 1692 is entitled "Congressional findings and declaration of purpose" and it states as follows:
(a) There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. (b) Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. (c) Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts. (d) Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a sub¬stantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate com-merce. (e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt col¬lection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
5.	Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC, (“Defendant” or “LVNV ”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection. It conducts business in Alabama. Its principal place of business is in the State of Nevada and it is incorporated in Delaware.
35.	Some of these collection activities would include: •	Collection calls;
•	False credit reporting that a balance was still owed and that the account had not been settled in full; and
•	Filing of a lawsuit.
52.	A full compensatory damage award and a full punitive damage award will accomplish the goals of Congress in passing the FDCPA - stop abusive collection practices against consumers and prevent dishonorable debt collectors from having an unfair advantage over collectors that operate within the boundaries of the law.
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 57.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
61.	Defendants and/or their agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy. 62.	Defendants and their agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
72.	Defendants acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 73.	Defendants violated all of the duties Defendants had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
75.	Defendants acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in their dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 76.	Defendants invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
94.	Some of these collection activities would include: •	Collection calls;
•	for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) against Defendant LVNV. •	for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION •	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent FDCPA violations and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent invasions of privacy in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent hiring and supervision of incompetent debt collectors in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Defendant LVNV for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or wrongful violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damages; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Defendants for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or wrongful violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damages; and
Alabama Case Filings - Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Against LPP Mortgage
LPP is a mortgage company (perhaps only the servicing company) that has taken over a lot of defaulted loans of New South Federal. Many Alabama consumers were in the process of modifying their loans with New South when the FDIC took over the bank in December, 2009.
We have met with a lot of consumers who claim that LPP has not treated them right in the loan medication process and some claim that LPP lied to them about whether a foreclosure would occur.
You may know that in Alabama foreclosures are "non judicial" which means no judge gets to approve the foreclosure before it happens. But after foreclosure, the alleged new owner (almost always the mortgage company) must sue you to eject (evict) you from the home. This gives you an opportunity to have a judge review what has happened.
Here are some of the allegations of a recent counterclaim alleging fraud in the postponement of a foreclosure we filed after LPP foreclosed on our clients' property and then sued them to eject them from their home:
AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
COME NOW Defendants, by and through their attorneys of record and file their Amended Answer to the LPP’s Complaint, and their Counterclaim pursuant to Rule 13 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE CASES
1.	This state is facing a crisis of epic proportions.
2.	Foreclosures are sweeping through this state at an alarming rate, damaging communities in the process.
3.	More alarming, however, are the vast numbers of foreclosures that are illegal.
4.	All across this country, and in Alabama, companies are foreclosing when they have no legal right to foreclose.
5.	Companies that do not properly own the note and mortgage are foreclosing. When questioned, they belittle efforts by Judges to ensure that only companies with the right to foreclose actually foreclose.
6.	The typical response to questions by homeowners and Judges is “This is not a big deal. Don’t worry about technicalities on who owns the loan. You can trust us - we are the big banks after all.”
7.	Even more disturbing is that these banks and mortgage companies are engaged in wholesale fraud against homeowners in the area of modifying the loan agreement or postponing the foreclosure.
8.	This case is a perfect example of what is happening across the country and this state.
For answer to the LPP’s Complaint, Defendants respond as follows:
1.	All material allegations are denied.
1.	Defendants allege that there was no default at the time of the foreclosure.
2.	Defendants allege that the LPP did not have actual physical possession of the original note at the time the foreclosure.
3.	Defendants allege that acceleration was improper and in violation of the contract between the parties.
4.	Defendants allege that the parties entered into an agreement which cured any alleged default and is an absolute defense to foreclosure.
5.	Defendants allege that the LPP failed to comply with applicable mortgage servicing regulations, guidelines and agreements and as such a condition precedent to acceleration and foreclosure has been violated requiring dismissal of the underlying foreclosure action.
6.	Defendants allege that the LPP failed to offer pre-foreclosure loss mitigation as required. This failure requires that the underlying action seeking foreclosure be dismissed or abated until such time as this requirement is satisfied.
7.	Defendants allege that the LPP did not have standing to initiate a foreclosure or ejectment action against Defendants.
8.	Defendants allege that the assignments, endorsements, or allonges from, to, or involving LPP, or any other entity were void, voidable, illegal, without legal effect and are otherwise invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law.
9.	The foreclosing entity lacked standing to initiate a foreclosure, therefore the foreclosure is void or at least voidable and no title has passed to LPP as there was no legal title to pass to it from the foreclosing entity.
10.	The title taken to the property by the LPP is of no effect and is void because the underlying foreclosure was commenced in violation of law on one or more of the following grounds:
a.	The foreclosing entity lacked standing to foreclose.
b.	The foreclosure was taken in violation of law in that the foreclosing entity did not own the mortgage debt upon which it foreclosed and therefore could pass no legal title to the lands it claimed to foreclose nor could it acquire legal title to the lands that it foreclosed upon.
c.	The foreclosure was taken in violation of law in that the default was exaggerated, inflated and based upon improper and illegal mortgage servicing practices on the part of the foreclosing entity and its agents or employees.
d.	The foreclosure is voidable in that the foreclosure sale was completed by fraud, deceit or trickery on the part of the foreclosing entity and its agents, employees or servants in that the foreclosing parties represented that Defendants would not be foreclosed upon, but then the LPP failed to follow this promise.
e.	The LPP failed to strictly comply with the requirements set out in Alabama law and the contract between the parties, with respect to notice, time and place and other legal provisions thereby rendering the foreclosure void.
f.	The LPP failed to engage in loss mitigation required by its agreements and federal servicing guidelines which the entity is subject to, and because of the failure of the condition precedent to foreclosure the acceleration and default were invalid and illegal and renders the foreclosure void.
g.	There was no default upon which to accelerate based upon the agreement to modify or forbear the underlying debt.
h.	The LPP that allegedly foreclosed on Defendants had no authority to do so as they did not own the note and mortgage so as to give them the right to foreclose. COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants herewith their counterclaim as follows:
1.	This action arises out of LPP’s repeated violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), and out of state law violations and out of the invasions of Defendants’ personal and financial privacy by the LPP and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt from Defendants.
2.	LPP LPP Mortgage, Ltd. (“LPP”) in this action is a foreign corporation doing business in Marshall County, Alabama, and is considered a debt collector under the FDCPA as it was assigned the debt at issue when the debt was allegedly in default.
3.	Fictitious Defendants “A”, “B” and “C” thereby intending to refer to the legal entity, person, firm or corporation which was responsible for or conducted the wrongful acts alleged in the counterclaim; names of the Fictitious parties are unknown to the Defendants at this time but will be added by amendment when ascertained.
4.	Defendants are residents of Alabama, and are over the age of 19.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 5.	Congress found it necessary to pass the FDCPA due to rampant abusive practices by dishonorable debt collectors. 15 USC § 1692 is entitled "Congressional findings and declaration of purpose" and it states as follows:
(a) There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, decep¬tive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. (b) Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. (c) Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collec¬tion of debts. (d) Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a sub¬stantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate com-merce. (e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
6.	Defendants incurred a financial obligation that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes (Defendants’ home loan) and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
7.	LPP claims the debt was in default at the time the servicing rights were assigned or transferred to LPP on or about December 18, 2009.
8.	LPP is considered a “debt collector” and began engaging in debt collection activities against Defendants.
9.	LPP failed to make all required disclosures to Defendants in violation of the FDCPA.
10.	Misrepresentations were made regarding the character, amount, or legal status of the debt.
11.	The amount of the debt, the amount of fees and charges, were incorrect and not supported by the law and by the note and mortgage.
12.	The foreclosure was illegal and constituted a threat to take action which LPP was not legally entitled to take.
13.	As set forth below, LPP used false representations and/or deceptive means to collect on this debt.
14.	The collection methods employed by LPP were harassing and illegal. 15.	Defendants were in a loan modification process with LPP when LPP requested additional papers for the loan modification on May 11, 2010 and gave Defendants 15 days to send the papers to the LPP. 16.	Thus, Defendants had until May 26, 2010 to return the papers.
17.	Defendants called the week of May 11, 2010 to confirm that the sale was postponed and LPP assured Defendants it was. Defendants were told the same thing at least one other occasion.
18.	Defendants sent the papers to LPP and LPP received the papers on May 23, 2010, within the 15 day period.
19.	Amazingly, LPP foreclosed on May 25, 2010, within the 15 day window.
20.	The sale was without proper notice to Defendants and in direct derogation of Alabama common and statutory law.
21.	LPP sent Defendants a letter denying the loan modification.
22.	The only reason for the denial of the loan modification was that a foreclosure occurred on May 25, 2010.
23.	LPP alleges that it is the purchaser of the property made the subject of this suit. 24.	LPP has pursued an order ejecting Defendants from their home while representing to the Court that the foreclosure sale was lawful and that the LPP had the present right, ownership and authority to pursue the foreclosure and that LPP has the right to evict the Defendants.
25.	LPP has represented to this Court that it is the proper holder of said mortgage and therefore foreclosed in accordance with Alabama law and its rights under the security agreement. 26.	Defendants allege that the LPP lacked standing to foreclose in that it has no present legal right to enforce the security agreement that underlies the foreclosure action.
27.	Defendants allege that the alleged assignments between the original lender, and any other entity is defective, void, or otherwise unenforceable.
28.	Defendants contend that said sale was wrongful, illegal, in violation of law and the documents governing the relationship between Defendants and the owners of their mortgage.
29.	Defendants contend that the foreclosing entity lacked standing to initiate a foreclosure and that the foreclosure is void or at least voidable and that no title has passed to LPP as there was no legal title to pass to it from the foreclosing entity.
30.	Defendants allege that the actions of the LPP, and its agents, employees and servants were wrongful.
31.	Defendants allege that the actions of the LPP in bringing an action for ejectment from their home and the LPP wrongfully foreclosing is a violation of law, wrongful and tortuous and that LPP holds no title to the home or property, and that the actions of LPP constitutes negligence, wantonness, intentional misconduct, fraud, breach of contract, abuse of process and slander of title.
32.	As a direct result of the acts complained of, Defendants have been caused to suffer, and will continue to suffer great mental anguish, damage to their reputation, economic and emotional damages and claim from LPP all damages allowable under the law.
33.	All parties acted within the line and scope of any agency relationship and all of their employees and agents acted with the line and scope of their employment and/or agency relationship.
COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE
34.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
35.	The LPP negligently conducted a foreclosure sale on Defendants’ property and have negligently attempted to eject Defendants from the home they rightfully own since the foreclosure performed is void.
36.	The LPP negligently handled, serviced, and processed payments, charges, fees, expenses, and other aspects of Defendants’ loan and mortgage, including the loan modification process.
37.	As a direct result of the said negligence, Defendants were injured and damaged as alleged above and have suffered mental anguish, economic injury and all other damages allowed by law.
38.	As a result thereof, the LPP is liable for all natural, proximate and consequential damages due to their negligence.
COUNT TWO WANTONNESS 39.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
40.	The LPP acted with reckless indifference to the consequences, and consciously and intentionally conducted a wrongful foreclosure sale on Defendants’ property and the LPP has acted with reckless indifference to the consequences, and consciously and intentionally in instituting this action to eject Defendants from the home they rightfully owns since the foreclosure performed is void.
41.	The LPP wantonly applied, imposed, or created charges, fees, expenses, and payments, and other aspects of the Defendants’ loan and mortgage including the loan modification process.
42.	These actions were taken with reckless indifference to the consequences, consciously and intentionally in an effort to increase profits for the LPP.
43.	The LPP knew that these actions were likely to result in injury to Defendants including financial and emotional injuries and mental anguish.
44.	As a result thereof, the LPP is liable for all natural, proximate and consequential damages due to its wantonness as well as punitive damages.
COUNT THREE UNJUST ENRICHMENT 45.	Defendants adopt and reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
46.	The actions of the LPP in foreclosing on the home of Defendants in violation of law resulted in the LPP being unjustly enriched by the payment of fees, insurance proceeds and equity in the home.
47.	As a result of the LPP’s unjust enrichment, Defendants have been injured and damaged in that Defendants have been forced to pay charges that were illegal, wrong in character, wrong in amount, unauthorized, or otherwise improper under threat of and the actual illegal foreclosure by the LPP.
48.	Defendants claim all damages allowable under law as a result of the LPP’s wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment.
COUNT FOUR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE 49.	Defendants reallege all prior paragraphs as if set out here in full.
50.	The LPP has initiated a foreclosure proceeding against Defendants in violation of law and the LPP has wrongfully brought an action for ejectment.
51.	The foreclosure proceeding by the LPP and ejectment action by LPP was either negligent, wanton or intentional, depending on proof adduced at trial.
52.	As a result thereof, the LPP is liable for all natural, proximate and consequential damages due to its actions including an award of punitive damages. COUNT FIVE
ABUSE OF PROCESS 53.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
54.	The LPP maliciously obtained the issuance of the writ or process of ejectment, from this Court and had it served on Defendants.
55.	The LPP abused the said writ or process because the attempt to eject Defendants from their home with the knowledge that they are the rightful owner of their home and that the LPP had no right to act against them.
56.	As the proximate result of LPP abuse of the said writ or process, Defendants were caused damages and will continue to suffer injuries and damages.
57.	Defendants claim all damages allowable under law.
SLANDER OF TITLE 58.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
59.	The LPP, in filing a foreclosure deed (which is void) have caused a cloud to be placed on the title of the property of Defendants.
60.	As the proximate cause of LPP’s slandering of Defendants’ title, Defendants were caused to suffer injuries and damages and claims all damages allowable under law.
61.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
62.	The LPP breached the contract with Defendants and thereby caused Defendants incidental and consequential damages (including mental anguish).
63.	Defendants claim all damages allowable under law.
64.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
65.	Shortly before the foreclosure, LPP committed misrepresentations and suppressions against Defendants in that LPP told Defendants that the foreclosure would not occur as Defendants were in the process of a loan modification.
66.	At the time of the fraud LPP had no intention of honoring their representation.
67.	The LPP suppressed from Defendants the truth that it intended to foreclose on Defendants on May 25, 2010.
68.	All misrepresentations, and suppressions of these material facts were made intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently.
69.	Defendants properly relied upon the misrepresentations and suppressions of the LPP and were damaged thereby.
70.	Defendants could have taken steps to prevent the foreclosure (including filing bankruptcy or curing any alleged default) but Defendants were prevented from doing so by the misrepresentation and suppression of the LPP as it was not until after the foreclosure sale that Defendants knew they had been deceived.
71.	This was the purpose and design of this common type of fraud in the mortgage industry – lie about the fact that the foreclosure will not occur so the borrower and homeowners will rely upon the fraud.
72.	When there is reliance, then the homeowners will be lulled into a sense of safety by the abusive LPP and the homeowners will not take any further action as they believed that the LPP was reviewing the modification request and was not going to foreclose – precisely what the LPP intended the homeowners to believe.
73.	It is proper and appropriate for homeowners to believe LPP when these types of misrepresentations and suppressions of material fact are made – who would know better than the LPP whether or not the foreclosure was going to happen?
74.	No one else in the world would know better than the LPP the truth of whether or not they were going to foreclose.
75.	All misrepresentations, and suppressions of these material facts were made intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently.
76.	The purpose and intent was to cause Defendants to be in a position where they could not save their home which is exactly what happened.
77.	Defendants properly relied upon the misrepresentations and suppressions of the LPP and were damaged thereby.
78.	Defendants claim all damages allowable under law.
79.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
80.	The LPP hired, supervised, and/or trained incompetent agents or employees who committed some or all of the wrongful acts set forth in this Answer and Counterclaim.
81.	The LPP knew or should have known of the incompetence of these agents or employees.
82.	The LPP was negligent or reckless in their hiring, supervision, and/or training which led as a direct and proximate result to the damages suffered by Defendants.
83.	Defendants claim all damages allowable under law.
84.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
85.	All actions of the LPP were made intentionally and/or malicious and led to the damages of Defendants as a direct proximate result.
86.	Defendants claim all damages allowable under law.
87.	Defendants incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
88.	The acts and omissions of LPP and its agents constitute numerous and multiple violations of the FDCPA with respect to Defendants.
89.	As a result of the violations of the FDCPA, Defendants are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); (2) actual and compensatory damages; and, (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), from the LPP.
90.	Defendants reallege all paragraphs as if set out here in full.
91.	Alabama law recognizes Defendants’ right to be free from invasions of privacy and LPP violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
92.	Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings:
93.	Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors (albeit without a private right of action), when it stated as part of its purposes:
94.	LPP and/or its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Defendants, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Defendants’ privacy.
95.	LPP and its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Defendants by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Defendants’ right to privacy.
96.	Defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Defendants’ solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
97.	The conduct of LPP and its agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Defendants, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by the LPP which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
98.	As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Defendants are entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from LPP.
99.	All acts of LPP and its agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such LPP is subject to punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendants having set forth their claims for relief against the LPP, respectfully pray of the Court as follows:
a.	That Defendants have and recover against the LPP a sum to be determined by a jury of their peers in the form of actual damages;
b.	That Defendants have and recover against the LPP a sum to be determined by a jury of their peers in the form of punitive damages;
c.	That Defendants have and recover against the LPP a sum to be determined by a jury of their peers in the form of statutory damages;
d.	That Defendants have reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, expenses;
e.	That the foreclosure sale be set aside; and
f.	That Defendants have such other and further and proper relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEFENDANTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY
Alabama Case Filings - TCPA Violations Alleged Against Santander (Auto Finance Company)
We have talked extensively about the problem of companies, particularly car finance companies, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using autodialers or computer dialers and using pre-recorded messages against consumer's cell phones illegally.
If you never gave permission to the auto finance company (GMAC, Nuvell, GMAC, Capital One Auto, Santander (Drive Financial), etc) then there is no excuse for them calling your cell phone with a robo-dialer or autodialer or using a pre-recorded message. This normally violates the law including the TCPA.
If you gave permission, you can always revoke it. We suggest doing this by a written letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested. Calls after that may be illegal if they are from a computer dialer (auto dialer or predictive dialer) or contain pre-recorded messages.
Here are the allegations of an Alabama consumer related to a suit filed against Santander in which the consumer claims Santander violated laws including the TCPA:
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, in the above styled cause, and for Plaintiff’s Complaint against the Santanders states as follows:
1.	This action arises out of Santander’s repeated violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA ”), out of state law violations and out of the invasions of Plaintiff’s personal and financial privacy by the Santander and its agents in their illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt of Plaintiff’s wife, Vanessa Brooks, from Plaintiff who does not owe Santander.
3.	Santander Santander Consumer USA, Inc., (“Santander” or “Santander”) is a foreign debt collection firm that engages in the business of debt collection. It conducts business in Alabama. Its principal place of business is the State of Texas and it is incorporated in Illinois.
4.	Plaintiff’s wife allegedly incurred a financial obligation (car loan) that was primarily for personal, family or household purposes and is therefore a “debt” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5).
5.	Plaintiff does not owe this debt.
6.	Santander made a large number of harassing and repeated phone calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone.
7.	Santander refuses to stop calling and in particular using illegal pre-recorded messages.
8.	Santander refuses to stop calling and in particular to stop using auto dialers.
9.	Santander refuses to stop calling and in particular to stop using predictive dialers.
10.	Santander illegally used an autodialer to call Plaintiff’s cell phone without permission to do so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
11.	Santander illegally used a predictive dialer to call Plaintiff’s cell phone without permission to do so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
12.	Santander illegally used pre-recorded calls to call Plaintiff’s cell phone without permission to do so in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
13.	Plaintiff never gave Santander permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone with an autodialer.
14.	Plaintiff never gave Santander permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone with a predictive dialer.
15.	Plaintiff never gave Santander permission to call Plaintiff’s cell phone with pre-recorded calls.
16.	Plaintiff even told Santander not to call his cell phone but Santander continued to do so in violation of the law and told Plaintiff they were going to continue to call Plaintiff.
17.	The volume and type of calls are harassing as the intent and motive behind them is to harass Plaintiff into paying Santander a debt which Plaintiff does not owe.
18.	All of the above-described collection communications made to Plaintiff by Santander and collection agents of Santander was made in violation of the TCPA.
19.	The above-detailed conduct by this Santander of harassing Plaintiff in an effort to collect this debt was also an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy by an intrusion upon seclusion and resulted in actual damages to the Plaintiff.
20.	This series of abusive collection calls by Santander and its agents caused Plaintiff stress and anguish as a result of these abusive calls.
21.	Santander’s repeated attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff and refusal to stop violating the law was an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and Plaintiff’s right to be left alone.
22.	Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of these illegal collection communications by this Santander in the form of anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration, damage to reputation, upset, humiliation, embarrassment, amongst other negative emotions, as well as suffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal privacy, which was due to the illegal conduct of Santander.
23.	The acts and omissions of Santander’s agents who communicated with Plaintiff as more further described herein, were committed within the line and scope of their agency relationship with their principal the Santander.
24.	The acts and omissions by these other debt collectors were incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities these agents were authorized to perform by Santander in collecting consumer debts.
25.	By committing these acts and omissions against Plaintiff, these other debt collectors were motivated to benefit their principal the Santander.
26.	Santander is therefore liable to Plaintiff through the doctrine of Respondeat Superior for the wrongful, intentional, reckless, and negligent acts, errors, and omissions done in violation of state and federal law by its collection employees, including but not limited to violations of the TCPA and Alabama tort law, in their attempts to collect this debt from Plaintiff.
27.	Santander negligently and/or wantonly hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
28.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
29.	Santander has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff, specifically the numerous calls by illegal automatic dialers that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by Santander.
30.	Santander has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff, specifically the numerous calls by illegal predictive dialers that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by Santander.
31.	Santander has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff, specifically the numerous calls by illegal pre-recorded messages that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by Santander.
32.	There is no exception or justification for the numerous violations of the TCPA by Santander as Plaintiff has not consented to the Santander or to any original creditor to use these against Plaintiff’s cell phone and Plaintiff instructed Santander it had no permission to call his cell phone but the calls continued.
33.	Each call is a separate violation and entitles Plaintiff to statutory damages against Santander in the amount of at least $500.00 per call and Plaintiff requests that since the violations were made intentionally or recklessly that the violations be assessed a statutory damage of $1,500.00 per call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
34.	All actions taken by Santander were taken with malice, were done willfully, recklessly and/or were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that its actions were taken in violation of the TCPA and/or that knew or should have known that its actions were in reckless disregard of the TCPA.
35.	All of the violations of the TCPA proximately caused the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint.
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 36.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
37.	Alabama law recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and Santander violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
38.	Congress explicitly recognized a consumer’s inherent right to privacy in collection matters in passing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it stated as part of its findings:
39.	Congress further recognized a consumer’s right to privacy in financial data in passing the Gramm Leech Bliley Act, which regulates the privacy of consumer financial data for a broad range of “financial institutions” including debt collectors (albeit without a private right of action), when it stated as part of its purposes:
40.	Santander and/or its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.
41.	Santander and its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
42.	Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
43.	The conduct of this Santander and its agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by this Santander which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
44.	As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from Santander.
45.	All acts of Santander and its agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such Santander is subject to punitive damages.	COUNT III.
46.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
47.	Santander negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors, who were allowed or encouraged to violate the law as was done to Plaintiff, and are thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
48.	All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
49.	Santander acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 50.	Santander violated all of the duties Santander had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
51.	It was foreseeable, and Santander did in fact foresee it, the actions of the Santander would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
52.	Santander acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 53.	Santander invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
54.	Such negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, willfulness, and/or intentional conduct proximately caused the damages set forth in this complaint.
55.	As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of Santander, Plaintiff has suffered damage as set forth in this Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Santander:
•	for an award of actual damages from Santander for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent TCPA violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	statutory damages of $500.00 or $1,500.00 per call; and
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION •	for an award of actual damages from Santander for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent state law violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Santander for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from Santander for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damages; and
Serve Santander via certified mail at the following address:
Alabama Case Filings - Illegal Debt Collection By Bank Of America After Bankruptcy Discharge Of Home Loan
32.	BAC has repeatedly violated the TCPA by the calls made to Plaintiff’s cell phone, specifically the numerous calls by illegal automatic dialers, predictive dialers, and/or pre-recorded messages that have been unleashed against Plaintiff by BAC.
33.	There is no exception or justification for the numerous violations of the TCPA by BAC as Plaintiff has not consented to the BAC to use these against Plaintiff’s cell phone.
34.	Each call is a separate violation and entitles Plaintiff to statutory damages against BAC in the amount of at least $500.00 per call and Plaintiff requests that since the violations were made intentionally or recklessly that the violations be assessed a statutory damage of $1,500.00 per call. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).
35.	All actions taken by BAC were taken with malice, were done willfully, recklessly and/or were done with either the desire to harm Plaintiff and/or with the knowledge that its actions would very likely harm Plaintiff and/or that its actions were taken in violation of the TCPA and/or that knew or should have known that its actions were in reckless disregard of the TCPA.
36.	All of the violations of the TCPA proximately caused the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint.
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION 37.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
38.	Alabama law recognizes Plaintiff’s right to be free from invasions of privacy and BAC violated Alabama state law as described in this Complaint.
39.	BAC and/or its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude, seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff, namely, by repeatedly and unlawfully attempting to collect a debt and thereby invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.
40.	BAC and its agents intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused emotional harm to Plaintiff by engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt, thereby invading and intruding upon Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
41.	Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, private concerns or affairs, and private financial information.
42.	The conduct of this BAC and its agents, in engaging in the above-described illegal collection conduct against Plaintiff, resulted in multiple intrusions and invasions of privacy by this BAC which occurred in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in that position.
43.	As a result of such intrusions and invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial from BAC.
44.	All acts of BAC and its agents and/or employees were committed with malice, intent, wantonness, and/or recklessness and as such BAC is subject to punitive damages.	COUNT III.
45.	Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.
46.	BAC negligently, wantonly, and/or intentionally hired, retained, or supervised incompetent debt collectors, who were allowed or encouraged to violate the law as was done to Plaintiff, and is thereby responsible to the Plaintiff for the wrongs committed against Plaintiff and the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
47.	All paragraphs of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.
48.	BAC acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 49.	BAC violated all of the duties BAC had and such violations were made intentionally, willfully, recklessly, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently.
50.	It was foreseeable, and BAC did in fact foresee it, the actions of the BAC would lead and did lead to the exact type of harm suffered by Plaintiff.
51.	BAC acted with negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, and/or intentional conduct in its dealings with and about Plaintiff as set forth in this Complaint. 52.	BAC invaded the privacy of Plaintiff as set forth in Alabama law.
53.	Such negligence, malice, wantonness, recklessness, willfulness, and/or intentional conduct proximately caused the damages set forth in this complaint.
54.	As a result of this conduct, action, and inaction of BAC, Plaintiff has suffered damage as set forth in this Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against BAC:
•	for an award of actual damages from BAC for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent TCPA violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	statutory damages of $500.00 or $1,500.00 per call; and
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION •	for an award of actual damages from BACs for all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent TCPA violations and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent state law violations in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
NEGLIGENT, WANTON, AND/OR INTENTIONAL HIRING AND SUPERVISION OF INCOMPETENT COLLECTORS
•	for an award of actual damages from BACs for all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent TCPA violations, intentional, reckless, and/or negligent hiring and supervision of incompetent debt collectors intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damage; and
•	for an award of actual damages from BAC for the all damages including emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional, reckless, and/or negligent violations of state law in an amount to be determined at trial for Plaintiff; •	punitive damages; and
Serve BAC via certified mail at the following address: