Consumer complaint received 2025-04-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Mortgage debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: BDF Partners, PC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Complainant bring this complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a Class Action complaint that is a continuous violation by the Law XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP that is a debt collection agency, violation of Federal Law, State Law, statutes that were enacted by Congress and regulations. 

Requesting the CFPB to apply the Equitable tolling doctrine for the fraudulent concealment of material facts. 

Other Law Firms and the Solicitations by other companies via mail and phone calls made Complainant aware of the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure sale that is to be conducted on the Courthouse steps to the highest bidder. Complainant continue to get harassed by the Other Law Firms and the Solicitations by other companies and he suffered mental anguish and severe emotional distress. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a debt collection agency XX/XX/XXXXand Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP is a debt collection agency XX/XX/XXXX that both are aiding and abetting fraud, fraud concealment of material facts and committed fraudulent acts with their client, " XXXX '' that were willful. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP had a legal duty to investigate the alleged default for XX/XX/XXXX and breached their legal duty before acting that caused complainant harm and injuries that were foreseen, collusion, and committed civil conspiracy. 

XX/XX/XXXX Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP is a debt collection agency that threaten to take legal action that could not be legally taking in XXXX and proceed with foreclosure that was Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure. 

TheXX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP is a debt collection agency and stated, " The law does not require this firm to wait until the end of the thirty-day period before taking action to collect the Debt ''. See debt collection letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

XX/XX/XXXX Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP is a debt collection agency, did not serve Complainant with certified mail in accordance with Federal Law, State Law, statutes that were enacted by Congress, regulations and have a sale date for my property scheduled for, XX/XX/XXXX that is from the same unlawful misconduct of the XXXX attempted wrongful foreclosure. 

XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP client is XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX'' in the state of Georgia. 
XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP client, " XXXX '' declared default against Complainant in XX/XX/XXXX when he was not in default. " XXXX '' hired the XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP that is a debt collection agency. XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP that is a debt collection agency worked on the foreclosure and received competent evidence, substantial evidence, preponderance of evidence and reliable evidence that Complainant had not defaulted on the loan in XX/XX/XXXX as alleged by theXX/XX/XXXX Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP client " XXXX ''. 

XX/XX/XXXXBarrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP violated Complainant Bankruptcy Case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the XXXX XXXX XXXX Georgia, XXXX XXXX, Case XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) filed XX/XX/XXXX, pagXX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP Notice of Appearance by Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

XX/XX/XXXXBarrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP do not have any personal knowledge surrounding the Attempted Wrongful Foreclosure and proceeded with legal action that could not be legally taken. 

XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP was made aware that their client, " XXXX '' and Complainant was involved in loss mitigation and settlement negotiation that is on-going. XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP was made aware that their client, " XXXX '' discuss settlement with Complainant, had a meeting of the minds, agreed to settle, settlement negotiations occurred, and settlement negotiations are on-going to settle the actual dispute. 

At all-time relevant, XX/XX/XXXX Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP receiving proof of payment from Complainant, and " XXXX '' Business records filed in the Northern District of Georgia XXXX XXXX Division XXXX XXXX XXXX and willfully violated Federal Law, State Law, Statutes that were enacted by Congress and Regulations XXXX 

At all-time relevant, tXX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP XXXX XXXX regular mail collection letters dated XX/XX/XXXX attempting to collect an amount that was disputed within 30 days, an amount that is in dispute, an amount that is factual in correct, attorney fees, fees, escrow fees, accrued interest fees, advanced escrow funds fees, recording fees, corporate advances fees, Interest, fees, costs, and attorneys fees continue to accrue. 

At all-time relevant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP had personal knowledge that Complainant and their client, " XXXX " entered into an Oral Contract to settle the actual dispute. However, the co-conspiracies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Managing Partner, vigorously litigated the prior case was stubbornly litigious to put their consumer collection skills to the test as advertised on the company website. 

At all-time relevant, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP advertised the property for sale several times in the newspaper and made false statements, stating, " The debt secured by said Deed to secure debt has been and hereby declared due because of, among other possible events of default, failure to pay the indebtedness as and when due and in the manner provided in the note and deed to secure debt ''. 

At all-time relevant, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP did not serve Complainant actual notice of intent to collect attorney 's fees as advertised in the newspaper. 

The CFPB can apply the plain language in the statutes and binding case law that were willfully violated by XX/XX/XXXX, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Managing Partner. 

XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( b ) ; XXXX XXXX. GA XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) 3.The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from adopting abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices, 1692-1692p. 
XXXX. Complainant suffered harassment and abuse. 
XXXX. Was threaten with illegal actions, 6. falsely threaten with actions that was not indented to be taken 7. All debt collections were asked to cease and desist all communication with me about the debt that competent evidence revealed Complainant did not default as alleged in XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( " FDCPA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 9. Consumer Financial Protection Act ( " CFPA '' ), 12 U.S.C. 5536. 
XXXX. The FDCPA " applies to attorneys who " regularly " engage in consumer-debt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation. 
XXXX. CONSUMER FIN ' L PROTECTION XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Dist. CourtXX/XX/XXXX Georgia, XX/XX/XXXX The plain language in the regulations and statutes are clear and unambiguous and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the United States Supreme Court have addressed the plain meaning of a word in the regulatory language and statute language, stating it means what it means. 

If the CFPB review of the regulatory language and statute language unambiguously answers the question at issue, that is the end of the matter. In reading a regulation 's text, complainant is requesting the CFPB to look at the common usage or ordinary meaning '' of the actual language used when reaching a decision. 

Complainant is requesting the CFPB to interpret " regulations the same way it interprets statutes ; it starts with the textand, if CFPB finds the text clear, it ends there as well. ''

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation