Consumer complaint received 2020-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Private student loan debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Patenaude & Felix A Professional Corporation
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
On or near XX/XX/XXXX National Collegiate Student Loan Trust ( NCSLT ) filed a civil action law suit with their chosen debt collectors of Patenaude & Felix against my mother and me for the amount of {$41000.00} alleging XXXX XXXX issued a student loan to us and later assigned it to NCSLT. My mother and I were served with a summons sometime near the end of XXXX begging of XXXX of XXXX. We then proceeded to file in Forma Pauperis along with our answer to the complaint filed by Patenaude & Felix for NCSLT. 

My mother and I then filed an amended answer on or near XX/XX/XXXX. Shortly thereafter, on or near XX/XX/XXXX Patenaude & Felix filed a Motion for Summary Judgement for NCSLT. The motion was heard on XX/XX/XXXX and denied by the court due to the collection law suit being moved sometime in XX/XX/XXXX to the State of Nevadas court annexed program which is a non-binding arbitration governed by statues and court rules for the State of Nevada for any civil law suit that is less than {$50000.00}. 

Arbitration took place on XX/XX/XXXX. On or near XX/XX/XXXX the Arbitrator filed his Decision and Award with the court. The Arbitrators Decision attached to this complaint concluded that there was no evidence that a contract was made or funded by XXXX XXXX to my mother and I. Even if a loan was made, there is absolutely no evidence that NCSLT was assigned the loan or has the right to collect it. The Arbitration Award was rightfully in favor of me and my mother. Shortly after, on XX/XX/XXXX Patenaude & Felix filed a Request for Trial De Novo on behalf of NCSLT. During our research on how to file a Motion to Strike Request for Trial De Novo my mother and I discovered that Patenaude & Felix, NCSLT, and  XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX ) willfully violated several laws and court orders to pursue debt collection litigation against us! 

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed by Patenaude & Felix on behalf/for NCSLT on or near  XX/XX/XXXX contained an affidavit from XXXX XXXX, an employee of XXXX, an application from XXXX XXXX XXXX alleging it to be a contract, an alleged Chain of Assignment, Pool Supplement/Bill of Sale, and various accounting documents. On XX/XX/XXXX in the United States District Court for the District Delaware, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) entered into a consent order with NCSLT and XXXX specifically prohibiting NCSLT and XXXX from pursuing debt collection and providing specific statements or documents in attempt to collect alleged debts. The judgement order in which NCSLT and XXXX are listed as Defendants in the following case : Case XXXX and can be viewed directly online at the CFPBs website at : https : XXXX. 

Further and more specifically the consent judgement order entered into with CFPB, NCSLT and XXXX have conduct requirements. Starting from paragraph numbered 8 of the consent judgement order, and quoting the case which is Case XXXX Document 3-1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 10 of 40 PageID # : 30-33 below, states that : ( Note that Defendants are NCSLT and XXXX ) 8.Defendants must provide all Defendants Servicers that are engaged in the servicing or collection of Debts with actual notice of this Order within thirty ( 30 ) days of the Effective Date.

9.Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys who have actual notice of this Order, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not violate sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536, and must take the following affirmative actions : a.Defendants shall take all actions necessary to comply with the terms of the Order, including but not limited to ensuring that all of Defendants Servicers acting as Defendants agents comply with the terms of the Order.

b.Defendants must require that any of Defendants Servicers or other agents retained by Defendants in connection with servicing or collection of student loans ( 1 ) agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the Order and ( 2 ) require any agents that Defendants Servicers hire in connection with servicing or collection of student loans to abide by the terms and conditions of the Order. 

c.Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys who have actual notice of this Order, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not initiate a Collections Lawsuit to collect Debt unless they possess : i.the documentation necessary to prove that a Trust owns the loan, including but not limited to, documentation reflecting the complete chain of assignment from the Debts originator to the specific Trust claiming ownership ; and ii.a document signed by the Consumer, such as a promissory note, evidencing the agreement to pay the loan forming the basis of the Debt. 

d.Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys who have actual notice of this Order, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not initiate a Collections Lawsuit to collect on a loan for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired.

e.Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys who have actual notice of this Order, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, whether acting directly or indirectly, may not collect any Debt through Collections Lawsuits that Defendants or their agents have any reason to believe may be unenforceable. 

f.Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, whether acting directly or indirectly, are permanently restrained and prohibited, in connection with the collection of a Debt, from submitting any Affidavit : i.containing an inaccurate statement ; ii.in which the Affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that the Affiant is familiar with or has personal knowledge of the Consumers education loan records or the maintenance of those records when that is not the case ; iii.in which the Affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that the Affiant has personal knowledge of the Consumers Debt when that is not the case ; iv.in which the Affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that the Affiant has personal knowledge of the loans chain of assignment or ownership when that is not the case ; v.in which the Affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that the Affiant has personal knowledge of the documents relating to the loans chain of assignment or ownership when that is not the case ; vi.representing, expressly or by implication, that the Affidavit has been properly notarized if the Affidavit was not executed in the presence of a notary or if the notarization was otherwise not compliant with applicable notary laws ; or vii.in which the Affiant represents, expressly or by implication, that any documents or records concerning the Debt that forms the basis of the Collections Lawsuit have been reviewed by the Affiant when that is not the case. 

Patenaude & Felix, NCSLT, along with XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX submitted affidavits after the CFPBs judgement order that were not only identical, but also violated all seven stipulations on or near XX/XX/XXXX in their Motion of Summary Judgement, in Arbitration held on XX/XX/XXXX, and again on or near dated XX/XX/XXXX in their trial brief attempting to collect a debt through a lawsuit willfully violating the court order issued XX/XX/XXXX in the United States District Court for the District Delaware Case XXXX blatantly committing contempt of court, fraud, and perjury. 

Continuing by quoting paragraph number 10 of the CFPBs judgement order for Case XXXX Document 3-1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 11 of 40 PageID # : 33 states : 10.Defendants are permanently restrained and prohibited from reselling Debt that is time-barred or for which Defendants lack the necessary documentation required by Paragraph 9 ( c ) without obtaining the written agreement of the purchaser to comply with this Order.

11.Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, whether acting directly or indirectly, are permanently restrained and prohibited from, in connection with the collection of a Debt, providing any testimony in a Collections Lawsuit that contains any misrepresentations, including false statements that the witness : a.is familiar with or has personal knowledge of the Consumers education loan records or the maintenance of those records ; b.has personal knowledge of the Consumers Debt ; c.has personal knowledge of the loans chain of assignment or ownership ; or d.has personal knowledge of the documents relating to the loans chain of assignment or ownership.

12.If Defendants determine that any of their agents, including but not limited to all of Defendants Servicers, are on behalf of Defendants engaging in any conduct prohibited by this Order, including but not limited to Paragraphs 9 and 11 of this Order, Defendants promptly will take the necessary steps to ensure that their agents cease any and all practices that violate this Order. 

The documentation is abundantly clear of the numerous and deliberate violations that Patenaude & Felix, NCSLT, and XXXX have committed against my mother and I including section 9 ( c ) ( i ) and ( ii ), all section 11 of the judgement order, FDCPA 15 USC 1692e, 15 USC 1692e ( 3 ), 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ), 15 USC 1692f, 15 USC 1692g, and sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. 

Rather than withdrawing their affidavit and or collection law suit, Patenaude & Felix, NCSLT, and XXXX refuse to remove their affidavit from any pleadings or cease collection efforts in accordance with paragraph XXXX of the judgement order for Case XXXX Document 3-1 Filed XX/XX/XXXX Page 12 of 40 PageID # : 34 - 35 14. With regard to pending Collections Lawsuits in which Defendants, through actions taken by Defendants Servicers acting on behalf of Defendants, have filed an Affidavit that contains any misrepresentationsincluding but not limited to false statements that the Affiant ( 1 ) is familiar with or has personal knowledge of the Consumers education loan records or the maintenance of those records, ( 2 ) has personal knowledge of the Consumers indebtedness, ( 3 ) has personal knowledge of the loans chain of assignment or ownership, ( 4 ) has personal knowledge about the maintenance of documents relating to the loans chain of assignment or ownership, or ( 5 ) has attached as an exhibit a true and correct copy of a documentDefendants must either withdraw the pending Collections Lawsuit or ensure that the Affidavit is withdrawn. Defendants must instruct their attorneys, Defendants Servicers, and their agents to either withdraw the pending Collections Lawsuit or notify the court of the following in writing while simultaneously providing the court with a copy of the Order entered into between the Bureau and Defendants : Plaintiff withdraws the affidavit of [ insert name of affiant ] pursuant to an Order entered into by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts. 

My mother and I included a copy of the CFPBs judgement order in its entirety as an exhibit and requested the court to take judicial notice of the judgement order in our Motion to Strike Request for Trial De Novo filed on or near XX/XX/XXXX. The matter was argued in court on XX/XX/XXXX and the court denied our motion to strike. The presiding judge commented in regards to the CFPBs judgement order we attached to our motion was along the lines of that the findings where highly disturbing and was positive they would be argued and presented to the short trial judge. 

Lastly, the collection law suit was moved to the State of Nevadas Short Trial Program set to take place on XX/XX/XXXX. Pre-Trial conference was held on or near XX/XX/XXXX. We confirmed our addresses with the court on or near XX/XX/XXXX and again during the pre-trial conference that was held on or near XX/XX/XXXX verbally confirming where to send documents however, Patenaude & Felix deliberately sent pre-trail discovery, interrogatories, and admission documents to our previous address in hopes they would not be caught abusing the discovery process and cause delay successfully stonewalling us from properly defending ourselves and submitting documentation in a timely manner to the court against the fraudulent collection law suit they continue to pursue. Further, this deliberate and scrupulous action of sending pre-trial discovery, interrogatories, and admissions to our previous address caused us to receive the documentation on or near XX/XX/XXXX when the court required all the paper work due on XX/XX/XXXX as ordered by the Pro-Tempore Judge in his notice we received on or near XX/XX/XXXX. The pre-trail documents contained the same false statements, documents, and affidavits that are the source of this complaint. 

On XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Patenaude & Felix yet again continues with unfair and deceptive collection efforts by avoiding or failing to contact my mother and I for pre-trial conferences that was to be initiated by them. In all due fairness and to no fault of my own, my cell phone does not receive the best reception at times and is damaged causing it to not always work or run properly. However, this does not excuse the fact my mother who is the co-defendant in this fraudulent debt collection law suit was never contacted. Had a conference line been provided or issued to call by the Pro-Tempore Judge, an issue of not being contacted or potentially missing a phone call due to technical errors to attend pre-trial conferences would have never been an issue and easily prevent underhanded or abusive legal tactics. Regardless, Patenaude & Felix has all the contact information required to contact me and my mother including phone numbers and deliberately abused initiating the pre-trial conference calls by only contacting my telephone leaving a message and not contacting my mother by phone whom is a co-defendant and I was with during both scheduled times for conferences in this fraudulent debt collection law suit making it appear as if we were ignoring and willfully un-attending pre-trial conferences. We were informed via letter received by the Pro-Tempore Judge on XX/XX/XXXX that we may now face court sanctions due to the abuse and blatant deception of Patenaude & Felix not contacting my mother/co-defendant on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Patenaude & Felix, NCSLT, and XXXX continue to submitting affidavits with false and misleading statements and pursue debt collection lawsuits without having the full chain of assignment! They have been informed of the CFPBs judgement order and have all the documentation we have filed with the courts including all the information regarding this matter. Unless the CFPB immediately enforces court orders and the laws against these companies, they will continue this disgusting predatory behavior by filing false statements, misrepresentations, filing debt collection law suits when they do not have the right to collect, and committing fraud against consumers like my mother and I.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation