Articles Posted in Debt Collection

Indiana Consumer Law Group announces the filing of a lawsuit against Financial Center First Credit Union, a credit union located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The lawsuit alleges that Financial Center First Credit Union repossessed our client’s car. It then sent her a letter titled “Notice of Our Plan to Sell Property” which advised her that her car would be sold at auction at Indianapolis Car Exchange, a dealer-only auction located in Whitestown, Indiana and gave her a specific date and time of the auction. The letter also stated:

The dealer auction is not generally open to the public, but you may attend the sale and bring bidders if you want, provided that you bring a copy of this letter with you and present it to gain entry to the auction. Any bidders that you bring will also need to have and present a copy of this letter to gain entry to the auction, or they will need to be with you when you enter the auction.

However, the complaint alleges that in fact the letter would not grant anyone access to the dealer-only auction. The lawsuit therefore contends that the letter is misleading and unfair because it falsely states that a consumer or someone associated with them could purchase the repossessed car at auction when that was not the case. The complaint also alleges that the notice letter does not comply with Indiana law in other respects. The case is being brought as a class action.

Have you been sued by Snow & Sauerteig LLP over a debt you allegedly owe?  We may be able to help you.  We defend consumers sued in Indiana state courts and alleged to owe a debt.  We will review your case at no cost to you for potential violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  If we find a violation, we may be able to help you without charging you attorney fees.  If we don’t find an FDCPA violation, we still may be able to help by defending you in the matter on a flat-fee basis.  Contact us at 800-817-0461 or here for your free case review.

The Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff announces the recent filing of a lawsuit against Ryan Dillon and Dillon Legal Group. The Complaint alleged that Ryan Dillon and Dillon Legal Group sent a collection letter to an Indiana consumer that failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it misrepresented the consumer’s rights under the Act. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Ryan Dillon and the Dillon Legal Group agreed to have a judgment entered against them in the case for more than the maximum statutory damages to which the plaintiff could have recovered in the lawsuit. The Court entered judgment against Ryan Dillon and Dillon Legal Group and is currently in the process of determining the attorney fees the plaintiff is entitled to as well.

To see the collection letter at issue, click here:  Dillon Collection Letter

If you received a collection letter from Ryan Dillon with similar language in bold at the bottom of the letter, you may also have a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If so, contact us here.


Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff announces the recent filing of a class action lawsuit against Condor Securitization Trust, Condor Holdco Securitization Trust, Condor Assetco Securitization Trust and Condor Recovery Securitization Trust arising out of the repossession of an Indiana couple’s vehicle. The complaint alleges that the Notice of Sale sent to the plaintiffs did not comply with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in a number of respects.  The complaint seeks damages and an injunction to prevent Condor from continuing to violate the law.

The plaintiffs’ finance agreement was immediately assigned to Condor Capital Corporation in April of 2014 when they bought a car from a dealership in Indiana.  Condor Capital Corporation, commonly known as a subprime auto lender, was at the time a major financier of subprime auto loan contracts and had acquired a portfolio of over $300 million in outstanding loans.  Sometime later in 2014, New York state authorities filed a lawsuit against Condor Capital Corporation alleging that Condor “has engaged in a longstanding scheme to steal millions of dollars from its customers — among other unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices.” Eventually, a receiver was appointed by the court to wind down Condor’s affairs.  During the winding down process, the plaintiffs allege that their finance agreement was transferred and assigned to one or more of the defendant trusts named in the lawsuit.


Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff announces the recent filing of a lawsuit against several defendants, including Santander Consumer USA Inc., over a repossession that allegedly did not comply with Indiana law.  Specifically, the repo agent is alleged to have breached the peace in repossessing the plaintiff’s vehicle.

Indiana law, like most states’, permits a lienholder to repossess a car when the owner defaults on the note. This is an extremely rare – virtually unseen in any other area of law – delegation of the state’s exclusive authority to resolve disputes.  As such, and because it is so likely to be abused and lead to confrontations, violence and injuries, there are strict requirements on when and how a self-help repossession can be conducted.  One of those requirements is that the repossession absolutely must be conducted without a “breach of the peace.”  “Breach of the peace” has been defined by the courts as continued repossession despite resistance by the owner (or the owner’s agent) of ANY KIND.  Simply telling the repo agent that they cannot take the vehicle is sufficient resistance to stop a repossession, provided that it occurs before the repo agent has taken possession of (i.e., hooked up to) the vehicle.  Yes, you read that right, all you have to do (legally at least) to stop the repossession of your car is tell the repo agent that he can’t have it.  In principal, it is as simple as that.  In practice, you can imagine that sometimes doesn’t work.  If it doesn’t, the repossession becomes a wrongful repossession.


Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff announces the recent filing of a lawsuit against Blatt, Hasenmiller, Liebsker & Moore, LLC, a debt collection law firm based in Chicago, Illinois. The lawsuit, which has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Blatt, Hasenmiller, Liebsker & Moore filed a debt collection lawsuit against the Indiana consumer in the wrong county and thereby violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  The FDCPA states that a debt collector can only sue a consumer in one of two places:  the county where the consumer presently lives or in which the contract being sued upon was signed.  Here, the Plaintiff was living in Illinois at the time the lawsuit was filed in Indiana and was living in Michigan at the time the credit card account at issue was opened.  The lawsuit therefore alleges that filing the lawsuit in Indiana violated the FDCPA.

15 U.S.C. 1692i specifically requires a debt collector to file a debt collection lawsuit “only in the judicial district or similar legal entity– (A) in which the consumer signed the contract sued upon; or (B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.”  Despite the plain, unambiguous language  of this section of the FDCPA, debt collectors violate this provision all the time.  There are two primary – related – reasons why.  First, collection lawsuits are being filed in such vast numbers that debt collectors don’t have the time to be careful or to undertake procedures designed to prevent the lawsuits from being filed in the wrong county.  Such procedures would slow the conveyor-belt debt collection process to an intolerable degree.  Suits are therefore filed and served at old addresses that haven’t been confirmed (or lived at) in years simply because that is the address on the debt paperwork.  Debt collectors of course know that lawsuits will regularly be filed against consumers in the wrong county, but to them an FDCPA lawsuit here and there is just the cost of doing business.   Debt collectors aren’t afraid of numerous FDCPA lawsuits because most of the collection lawsuits they file go unanswered.  That is primary reason number two:  most of the lawsuits result in default judgments because the consumer either never learns of the lawsuit or ignores it.  If the consumer doesn’t defend the lawsuit, a default judgment is granted and then the debt collector goes about collecting the judgment.


Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff announces the recent filing of a lawsuit against the Ohio law firm Sottile & Barile, LLC.  The lawsuit, which has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Sottile & Barile, LLC sent the plaintiff a collection letter on November 6, 2015 that inaccurately advised the consumer of his rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).

The FDCPA requires a debt collector to provide consumers notice of certain rights either in the initial communication with the consumer or within five days thereof.  One of those rights is the right to dispute the debt.  If a consumer disputes the debt in writing within thirty days of receiving notification of the right to do so,  the debt collector must cease collection of the debt until it provides validation of the debt.  If the debt is disputed orally, during a telephone call for instance, the debt collector is NOT required to cease collection until it provides validation.  This is where the Sottile & Barile collection letter is alleged to have gone wrong.  It failed to advise recipients that the dispute must be in writing for the law to require the debt collector to cease collection until it provides validation of the debt.  Here is the actual text of the notice:

In a recently released report, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) noted that Indiana consumers’ complaints about debt collectors increased more (on a percentage basis) for the period from December 2015 to February 2016 compared to the same period last year than in any other state – by a large margin.  Indiana experienced a 38% increase in debt collection complaints compared to a year ago while the next highest increase was Arizona with 27%.  Interestingly, however, Indiana’s per capita complaint rate remained one of the lowest in the nation.  The CFPB’s report does not provide an interpretation of the data, and I don’t have an interpretation or even a theory about the cause of this increase in complaints.  But it is certainly worth taking note when Indiana leads every other state in something.

The CFPB’s report also tells us who the American public is complaining about, and which debt collectors are doing better and which are doing worse.  Encore Capital Group (Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc.) led the list of the most complained-about debt collectors.  Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC and Transworld Systems, Inc. rounded out the top four most complained-about debt collectors.  Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Transworld Systems Inc. and Focus Holding Company led the list of debt collectors who generated more complaints (on a percentage basis) from October to December of 2015 compared to the same period a year earlier.  On the other hand, Allied Interstate LLC, CCS Financial Services, Inc. and Resurgent Capital Services L.P. saw the largest percentage decrease in complaints compared to the October to December period a year earlier.

The report notes, not surprisingly, that the CFPB receives more complaints about debt collectors that any other area, including mortgage lenders, credit reporting agencies and credit card companies.


Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff announces the filing of a lawsuit against Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC, a debt collector based in Gahanna, Ohio. The lawsuit, which has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Reliant Capital Solutions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in two ways.  First, the plaintiff alleges that Reliant Capital Solutions falsely stated the amount of the debt when, within a five day period, in both a letter to plaintiff and on the plaintiff’s credit report, Reliant Capital Solutions variously stated that the balance owed was $5,100, $8,999 and $9,079.  Obviously, all three figures cannot be correct.  Second, the plaintiff alleges that Reliant Capital Solutions included attorney fees in the amount of $1,790.54 in the balance of the debt allegedly owed by plaintiff, even though there was no way attorney fees of that amount had been incurred. No lawsuit had been filed at that time and at most the law firm had sent plaintiff a few collection letters.

The FDCPA holds debt collectors strictly liable for falsely stating the amount of the debt – even if the balance claimed to be owed is only slightly off.  By the same token, the FDCPA also prohibits debt collectors from attempting to collect collection fees, attorney fees or any other additional amount unless the fee is specifically permitted by the agreement creating the debt or otherwise allowed by law.


Out of state debt collectors LTD Financial Services, L.P. and Advantage Assets II, Inc. have been sued by an Indiana consumer, announces the Indiana Consumer Law Group/The Law Office of Robert E. Duff.  The lawsuit, which has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that LTD Financial Services, L.P. and Advantage Assets II, Inc. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  The plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the debt, which she learned about because it had been reported to one or more credit reporting agencies, arose out of identity theft and is not her debt.  She contacted LTD Financial Services and advised them of this fact, but, the complaint alleges, LTD Financial Services promptly sent her a collection letter attempting to collect the debt that was not hers.  Further, the consumer alleges that LTD Financial Services failed to advise her of certain rights under she has under the FDCPA either in the telephone call or by letter afterward.  The FDCPA provides that a debt collector must, within five days of its initial communication with a consumer, provide certain information to the consumer such as the amount of the debt, the current entity to which it is owed and certain rights to dispute the debt and request validation of it. It is also a violation of the FDCPA to attempt to collect a debt from someone that they don’t owe – and a victim of identity theft does NOT owe the debt even though it may be in their name.  The consumer/plaintiff is seeking an award of actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.

This lawsuit highlights another important provision of the FDCPA.  The FDCPA details exactly what information a debt collector must provide to a consumer when the debt collector begins to collect a debt.  You might be surprised to learn that debt collectors often mess this up.  We review a lot of collection letters for consumers and regularly find that certain collection letters do not comply with the law.  If you have received one or more collection letters from a debt collector, we would be happy to review the letters for a potential FDCPA violation at no charge to you.  Contact our office here and let us know you would like to have a collection letter reviewed.