EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A plaintiff has filed a class-action lawsuit, accusing a mortgage servicer of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because a letter that he received informing him that he was in default and the holder of the loan intended to foreclose did not include validation information, even though the complaint makes no mention of whether the letter was the initial communication between the two parties.
A copy of the complaint, initially filed in New Jersey state court, but subsequently removed to federal court by the defendant, can be accessed using case number 23-cv-03297 or by clicking here.
The letter informs the plaintiff that he is in default for failure to pay the amounts due on his mortgage, which was issued in 2015 for $208,000. The letter also informs the plaintiff that he must pay $92,341.86 to cure the default, while also disclosing that the principal balance due on the debt was $163,005.27. These three amounts that were included in the letter were misleading and confusing to the plaintiff and would confuse a least sophisticated consumer, according to the complaint, because he did not know which of those figures represented the amount of the debt. Had the defendant used a Model Validation Notice, which requires an itemization of the debt, it would have been clearer to the plaintiff and less misleading, according to the complaint.
“Other than attempting to provide the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed and attempting to provide the amount of the debt,” the letter fails to comply with Regulation F, according to the complaint.
The complaint accuses the collector of violating Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(10), 1692g(a)(1), 1692g(a)(3), and 1692g(b) of the FDCPA and seeks to include anyone who received a similar letter from the defendant that “included the alleged conduct and practices” detailed in the complaint.
