A plaintiff in Florida has filed a class-action lawsuit against a law firm, alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not providing information related to the amount owed nor did it provide a notice advising the plaintiff that she had 30 days to dispute the debt in a letter she received in response to an inquiry made by her attorney.
A copy of the complaint in Sullivan v. Marinosci Law Group can be accessed by clicking here.
Back in 2014, Bank of America filed an amended mortgage foreclosure complaint against the plaintiff. Last July, an attorney representing the plaintiff sent a letter, requesting a payoff amount for the debt. Nine days later, the defendant sent a response — the first communication the plaintiff had received from the firm. The response included a breakdown of the amount owed, as of December 1, 2010, more than seven years before the letter was sent and four years after the amended foreclosure complaint was filed.
The letter also contained the following disclosures:
- THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT TO PAYOFF THE LOAN IS SET FORTH IN THIS LETTER AND IS OWED TO THE LENDER.
- THE DEBTOR MAY DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. IF THE DEBTOR FAILS TO DISPUTE THE DEBT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, THE DEBT WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE VALID BY MARINOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C. (THE “FIRM”);
- IF THE DEBTOR NOTIFIES THE FIRM WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER THAT THE DEBT, OR ANY PORTION OF THE DEBT, IS DISPUTED, THE FIRM WILL OBTAIN VERIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT WILL BE MAILED TO THE DEBTOR BY THE FIRM; AND
- UPON THE DEBTOR’S REQUEST WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, THE FIRM WILL PROVIDE THE DEBTOR WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR IF DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT LENDER;
- WRITTEN REQUESTS PURSUANT TO THIS NOTICE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION CLERK, MARINOSCI LAW GROUP, P.C. 100 W. CYPRESS CREEK ROAD, SUITE 1045 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33309
THIS FIRM IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS LETTER PERTAIN TO YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE FIRM AS A DEBT COLLECTOR. IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE COURT, AND IN PARTICULAR, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TIME AT WHICH YOU MUST ANSWER THE COMPLAINT. THE SUMMONS IS A COMMAND FROM THE COURT, NOT FROM THE FIRM, AND YOU MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE SUMMONS, EVEN IF YOU DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OR AMOUNT OF THE DEBT. THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS LETTER ALSO DO NOT AFFECT THE FIRM’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COURT AND THE FIRM MAY FILE PAPERS IN THE LAWSUIT ACCORDING TO THE COURT’S RULES AND THE JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS.
Because the letter allegedly did not include the actual amount owed, the plaintiff is accusing the defendant of violating Section 1692g(a)(1) of the FDCPA. As well, the defendant is accused of violating Section 1692g(a)(4) and Section 1692g(a)(5) because the disclosures failed to inform the plaintiff that the defendant need only mail verification of the debt to her, or a copy of any judgment, if she notified the defendant that she disputed the debt, or any portion thereof, in writing and because the letter did not indicate the defendant would have to provide her the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor, if she notified the defendant of her request for that information in writing.
In filing a class-action lawsuit, the plaintiff is seeking to certify two classes related to those who received similar letters from the defendant.
