Recent Blog Posts

Attorney Michael Forbes Attends U.S. Marine Corps Event

Law Office of Michael P. Forbes — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:08:00 GMT

On March 3, 2012, the Law Offices of Michael P. Forbes attended a Muster at the Sheraton Hotel in Bucks County for the Marines. Attorney Forbes was a "muster-partner", offering help with any consumer related matters that many of our homecoming marines are faced with. We were so proud to be there and to meet these young men and women who perform so valiantly for our country. At least 700 amazing marines attended the two-session event, which was designed to inform about services that are provided specifically for their needs.

We hope they understood that we know how hard they have fought for us and that they can rely on Michael Forbes to fight for them!

Below are a few pictures from this event.

"Junk" Debt Buyers

Michael Forbes — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:30:00 GMT

Once again, I made a trek to the Upper Darby district court, only to find that my opponent law firm, The Law Offices of Edward Abrahamsen and Associates, P.C. failed to appear to prosecute the case on behalf of their client, well known " junk" debt buyer, LVNV Funding, LLC. This was my fourth court appearance in six weeks, three in the Upper Darby court alone, where the Abrahamsen law firm failed to appear to prosecute cases on behalf of "junk" debt buyers. As a result, each of my clients was awarded judgment in their favor.

The Abrahamsen law firm is one of a handful of law firms who represent many of the "junk" debt buyers in our area. I have had very pleasant dealings with their attorneys, who have always been polite and respectful to me. Unfortunately, their clients, like many "junk" debt buyers, are flooding the courts with lawsuits in which they lack sufficient evidence to prove their cases.

Because of that, I don't think that the lawyers representing these type of clients can keep up with their own caseloads and, therefore, very often don't show up for court. For those of you who are not familiar with the term, "Junk" debt buyers refer to companies such, who purchase supposed "charged off" credit card accounts for pennies on the dollar. These folks then turn around and sue the alleged account holder for the face amount of the debt and, sometimes, ask for more money than what is allegedly owed. I say "allegedly" because, very often, the "junk" debt buyer, very often, does not have adequate documentation to prove that they own the account and to win the case in court. When challenged with a competent attorney, the "junk" debt buyers often lose in court.

Unfortunately, most people who are the target of the debt collection efforts of the junk debt buyers and their law firms don't realize that they can successfully defend the actions taken against them. In fact, there are many instances where the consumer does not even owe the alleged debt or the collection effort is being made beyond the Statute of Limitations, which is the time allowed under the law, to bring such actions. Despite these factors weighing in favor of the consumer, if the lawsuit is not defended, judgment will be entered by default, against the consumer.

What I find most interesting, is that, of all the many cases I've defended, I have yet to see one case where the debt buyer has submitted enough documents to win even one case. Despite that, a review of each of the court dockets of Delaware, Montgomery, Chester, Bucks and Philadelphia counties, reveals that most of these lawsuits end up in default judgments in favor of the debt buyers because nobody bothered to defend these winnable cases. If you are being victimized by one of these debt buyers or a debt collection law firm, please contact either myself or a competent, Philadelphia consumer attorney, in your area, immediately. You may not only be able to win the suit against you, but may find that you can turn the tables on the debt collectors and sue them.

Under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), these debt collectors have very, clear rules that they must follow when collecting debts, whether it be by phone call, letter or the filing of a lawsuit. If the debt collector, including the "junk" debt buyers and their attorneys, do not follow these rules, you may be entitled to sue them and win up to $1000 in Federally mandated damages plus the possibility of recovering for other damages against the debt collectors. In addition, if you have a claim against the debt collectors and you successfully sue them, you will be awarded attorney's fees to pay for my efforts. So, don't sit on your rights. Act now and defend yourself!

Funding Cut for The Homeowner's Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program

Philadelphia Debt Collector Abuse Lawyer — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:24:00 GMT

Now that Governor Rendell is gone and we have a so-called conservative Governor, the individual is in a lot of trouble in Pennsylvania. In addition to cutting funding for our children's education, Governor Tom Corbett has abruptly cut funding for the nationally recognized and admired program that has helped thousands of families save their homes. And he did so without so much of a peep. At least a "screw you consumers" would have been better than what we got.

The Homeowner's Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program ("HEMAP") was first created to help those who were in danger of losing their homes due to Pennsylvania's declining manufacturing industry. It has maintained its existence for nearly thirty years helping over 45,000 homeowners save their properties. It also operated on a fairly modest budget of approximately 8 to 10 million dollars a year, of which most of the loans were actually repaid. It worked like a bridge loan, helping to pay for the back payments or arrearages owed to mortgage companies in order to bring the mortgages current and take individuals and families out of foreclosure.

Now that HEMAP, the same program that the Feds modeled the less successful HAMP program after, has been unmercifully and ungracefully axed, the mortgage companies and banks should have a feeding frenzy at the expense of your neighbors, family and friends. Yes… the same banks who have been defrauding their customers and the courts for years with "Robo-signing and Securitized mortgages where, in many instances, your bank or mortgage company does not even own your mortgage, although they pretend to.

Yet, Governor Corbett is willing to forsake millions of dollars in revenues by turning the other cheek on taxing the Marcellus Shale drillers, who are beginning to wreak havoc with our environment. Chalk up another victory for big business and a loss for the consumer.

Fortunately, Governor Corbett and his cronies cannot stop you from defending yourself against the big business banks. You can still have your day in court by asserting your rightful defenses to a foreclosure lawsuit. This means that you can challenge the validity of the existence of the promissory note, the validity and credibility of other documents and the signers thereof. You can also challenge the ownership of the actual mortgage and if the entity bringing the suit actually owns the mortgage. There are only a handful of Philadelphia debt collector abuse attorneys who do this type of work, me included. Now, more than ever, its important to contact a lawyer in this area who will fight for you.

Are You Being Sued by A Credit Card Company? Don't Ignore it. You can win it. Even If You Owe The Debt!

Michael Forbes — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:31:00 GMT

Under no circumstances, ignore the lawsuit. The credit card companies and the debt buying companies count on you to do this so they can get a lien against your property. Most of these cases are winnable, even if you owe the debt, because the credit card companies and, especially, the debt buyers, seem to have a lot of problems proving their case due to a lack of the proper documentary evidence required under the law.

If you are being sued, you should do the following:

FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - READ THE LAWSUIT VERY CAREFULLY. If there are any untruths in that Complaint, you must file the appropriate response. Pay particular attention to the numbers to see if they are consistent and to the documents. You will rarely find that the original contract or assignment documents, if any, are attached to the Complaint.

Request a validation of the debt from the creditor who is suing you. They must provide you with a written, signed statement of the verification of the debt by mail.

Although you can contact the creditor who is bringing the lawsuit against you and try to negotiate a payment plan, very often the creditor will try and take advantage of you and bully you into a bad deal. Be Careful!

Always correspond by using certified return receipt U.S. Mail. Always get a name of who you were speaking with. Keep track of your discussions with them, such as dates and times.

If you are in the financial position to pay off the debt completely, you can do that but make sure that the creditor's numbers are correct and that they provide written proof that the debt is satisfied in full.

You could file bankruptcy which would halt the lawsuit, but might not be the best strategy for your overall financial well-being.

Check the statute of limitations to confirm that the time period of when the creditor can sue you hasn't passed. This is the time period allowed that a creditor can bring suit against you. The time begins after failure to make your last payment. The length of time depends upon what state you reside in. If the time period has lapsed you can request that the lawsuit be dismissed by the Court.

The above tips will guide you and are for educational purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon by you. The only way you can be sure to mount a great defense is through representation by a lawyer who defends these types of cases on a consistent basis. That is what I do. Call my office immediately: 610-293-9399 or view my website www.mforbeslaw.com

Michael@mforbeslaw.com

THIS COULD BE HAPPENING TO YOU

Michael Forbes — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:45:00 GMT

As a debt collector abuse attorney, I am happy to report that the director of a Buffalo debt collection agency who admitted selling personal information on thousands of debtors has been sentenced to two years' probation and fined $28,000 by Chief U. S. District Judge William J. Skretny, U. S. Attorney William J. Hochul Jr. reports.

Andrew Jon Pytlewski, 35, of Buffalo, admitted selling the information in 2009 for about $28,000 to fraudulent debt collectors Timothy E. Arent and Neil G. Wieczkowski, convicted of reaping millions of dollars by

using the information to scare victims into paying debts they didn't owe.This is why as a debt collection defense lawyer, I want to advise you that when a debt collector calls you, you need to call me!

Contact me:

Michael P. Forbes, Esquire

200 Eagle Road, Suite 220, Wayne, PA 19087(610) 293-9399 p(610) 293-9388 f

It's A New Low Even For Debt Collectors - From the Office of Michael P. Forbes PC

Law Office of Michael Forbes PCA — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:15:00 GMT

When debt collection defense Attorney Michael P. Forbes, came across "Getting Past Child Gatekeepers" written by Gary Jensen, who is a debt collector mentor, about how to use children to enable collection on a debt, he was at first dumbfounded and shocked. But, then he quickly remembered the industry who employed this tactic the shock and awe disappeared.

The illegal practices of debt collectors seem to know no bounds, even though it is precisely written for them under the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act). However, since the consumer still doesn't understand that there are "rules of the road", collectors are accustomed to getting away with anything and everything, as long as they attain their goal of collecting the debt…real or otherwise.

Gary Jensen, posted an article on Inside Arm, which is a site produced for the Accounts Receivable Industry, describing tips on how to get to the adult consumer via their "child gatekeepers". In other words, when a child answers the phone, he instructs his trainees on the best ways to take advantage of the youth and innocence of the child, so they can gain information about the adult consumer. He even suggests that the debt collector be sure to record the name of the child so that when they call again, they can use her name so the child will feel comfortable with the caller and give them information or get their parent on the phone. He advises the reader that debtors use their children as screeners, as justification for this technique.

He also emphasizes that they are to treat the child with as much respect as they do the consumer. This is chilling, when you consider how little respect they give an adult consumer! That "abuse" is the basis of almost every lawsuit we file on behalf of our clients and one of the reasons we win most of them. Because the fact is, that the debt collectors routinely violate one of the major tenets of the law, which is to treat the consumer with respect.

Please contact Attorney Michael P. Forbes at 610-293-9399

Are You Being Contacted By Debt Collectors

Debt Collection Attorney — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:29:00 GMT

If you are being sued by a credit card company DO NOT ignore it. With the help of Michael P. Forbes you can sue debt collectors at no cost to you. We will pay all cost for filing the suit, no money out of pocket. Are you being contacted by debt collectors on your cell phone withour permission? Turn the tables on abusive debt collectors. For more information read What to do if you are being sued by a credit card company or call us immediately at 888-632-7897.

Contact a Philadelphia Debt Collection Harassment Attorney for committed and aggressive legal representation.

Our Nationwide Radio Show

Debt Collection Attorney — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:21:00 GMT

Listen to our radio show Nationwide at www.wche1520.com Eveny Saturday from 10 -10:30 a.m. Call us on the air with any questions. We are always open for those of you who need an immediate answer. You can reach our show by dialing (610) 701-9243 every Saturday. You too can turn the tables on nasty, abusive debt collectors.

You can also listen to our past shows by clicking on Our Radio Show button toward the top of our websites.

Contact a Philadelphia Debt Collection Harassment Lawyer for committed and aggressive legal representation.

CREDIT CARD LAWSUIT – DIRTY TRICKS

Debt Collection Attorney — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:19:00 GMT

In the real world, when one party sues another for breach of contract, the party who initiates the lawsuit must state the following: names of the parties, their correct addresses, an allegation that the parties entered into an oral or written agreement on a particular date, attach a copy of the signed agreement showing the date it was signed, an assignment document if the suing party assigned its rights to another party, and allege a default of the contract and the date of default.

As with every other aspect of civility, in the bizarre world of credit cards, both the credit card companies, their illegitimate offspring, the debt buyer and their “hitmen”, the debt collection lawyers very rarely abide by the Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the law that must be complied with when bringing a lawsuit.

When the actual credit card company sues a consumer, such as yourself, they always have an attorney. However, they count on you to either not hire a lawyer or to represent yourself-both recipes for a win---FOR THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY! In how many situations in your life, would you willingly provide someone who’s trying to hurt you with the ammunition needed to bury you? Despite this illogic, most people do this and find that they end up with a frozen bank account or a lien against their home.

In most cases, the credit card attorneys do not have the proper documentation to prove their case. This is hard to believe, but considering the hundreds of millions of credit cards which have been given out like candy, credit card company record keeping is woefully understaffed and lacking in technology efficient enough to keep up with the volume of business they generate.

So, when the credit card company begins its lawsuit, they almost always fail to include any document even coming close to resembling a contract or any agreement between you and them. In fact, when pressed, the credit card company often generates a generic agreement which is dated years after your credit card was obtained with no signatures or other identifying information showing that this agreement has anything to do with you. This is akin to me lending a friend money, having him sign a note that he will pay me including the terms of payment, and then suing him, and telling the Judge that I can’t find the signed note, but that I made up a similar, unsigned note from memory. Sound unfair? Sound inaccurate? Sound consistent with other unfair credit card tactics?

The credit card company will then try to present invoices to show that you used their account. However, they rarely produce enough invoices to prove a contract. Their problem is that they get trapped into their own greed. Most credit card companies use variable interest rates, meaning different interest rates, for every billing cycle. This means that every bill you receive, mostly on a monthly basis, has a different interest rate. Because of this, when challenged, the credit card company can rarely prove that the amount they are now claiming is accurate, because they do not have enough documentation to prove this fact to the Judge. Imagine being sued for breach of contract by your local contractor. In order for the contractor to prevail, all invoices showing itemized services and credit for past payments must be shown, in order to prove the accuracy of the total amount claimed. This applies to the credit card companies, too. It is basic contract law.

The rules get bent even further, when the debt is sold to a debt buying company, also knows as a junk debt buyer. These “friendly” folks NEVER play by the rules. This is partly due to the fact that they rarely have enough documents to prove their case and their lawyers always rely on the fact that you will not hire a lawyer to defend the case. First, they often sue you after the statute of limitations has run. In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for contracts is four years from the default date. This means that they have four years to sue and if they don’t sue you in that time period, the case should be dismissed.
Secondly, they never have the original contract between the parties. Since they are usually buying your debt for 3 to 5 cents on the dollar, they are given limited documentation to prove their case. They simply rely on public ignorance and apathy to win their cases. Thirdly, and astoundingly, they can’t even produce the proper documents showing that they own your debt. Imagine in my first example where I sue my neighbor for lending him money. However, instead of me suing him, a friend of mine sues him for the debt he owes me. That friend goes to court and claims he owns loan and therefore has the right to sue my neighbor. However, my friend has no documentation showing that I gave him the right to sue my neighbor. This is what the junk debt buyers mostly do. The difference is that my neighbor would likely show up to defend the lawsuit against him. With the debt buyers, most of people do nothing and end up losing a lawsuit they should have won.
These are but a few examples of the untoward and, often unethical means of debt collection which I see in the many debt collection lawsuits which I have defended. Please don’t fall prey to these tactics. Fight back! Protect your property and your dignity and don’t let these predators get away with these tactics! If you are being sued or victimized by these debt collection bullies, call me for a free consultation.

Zombie Debt

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:42:00 GMT

PROTECTIONS NEEDED AGAINST ZOMBIE DEBTS

Under the backdrop of the passage of the new credit card legislation and President Obama’s desire to create a Federal Consumer Protection Agency, a small spotlight shown on one of the most profitable sub-industries within the credit card industry – that being what industry people call “Zombie” debt collectors. Just three weeks ago, New York State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s office shut down perhaps the most abusive debt collection operation in the country. “This case is one of the more egregious cases we have found,” said Cuomo. “ Debt-collection companies have to operate legally because consumers also have rights.” “Debt buyers or repurchasers” as they are known, buy old and uncollected debt, which has now become popularly referred to as “Zombie” debt. The Zombie moniker comes from the fact that most of this debt has either been uncollected beyond the state’s statute of limitations or has either previously been discharged in bankruptcy or actually paid off as part of a prior settlement by the so-called debtor.

The industry arose during the 1980’s as an unintended side effect from the Savings and Loan crisis when the government auctioned off the failed S&L’s receivables. Since its inception, there has been unprecedented growth.. The larger companies such as Sherman Financial Group, Unifund and Asset Acceptance Capital Group each have glossy websites marketed to businesses, often with promises that they can collect and deliver .And deliver they can. In 2006, these three companies reported revenues of almost two billions dollars. Like the “zombies” glorified in books and movies, the once-dead debt comes alive again upon purchase for pennies on the dollar, thus making this a very simple risk/benefit analysis for these industry executives. Not only do these companies often try and successfully collect on debt for which they couldn’t otherwise sue, but they are notorious for engaging in some of the most violative behavior against consumer rights. Unfortunately, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) provides only a minimal deterrent to these abhorrent actions. As to be expected, the lack of specific regulation of the Zombie debt collectors’ practices has spawned several scam companies who operate in much the same manner as the big Zombie companies but have taken their practices to an even lower level.

Attorney General Cuomo’s recent actions in obtaining a court order to shut down the operation of Tobias Boyland was just one small step in stopping abuses which have brought already distraught consumers to their knees. According to a lawsuit filed by Mr.Cuomo’s office, Boyland, operated out of Buffalo, New York, which is widely recognized as the collection capital of the United States, due to its concentration of collection agencies and attendant employment opportunities. Thanks mainly to the increased internet accessibility to information, Boyland’s company would use lists of people whose debts were successfully discharged in bankruptcy, many of which were at least ten years old or more, and attempt to collect these no longer valid debts. According to Mr. Cuomo, among the collection methods used by Boyland’s gang was to read from a script and call their unsuspecting target, demand payment for nonexistent debt, for expired debts, or substantially inflated amounts on actual debt. Boyland’s people would further inform their intended victim that the local police were holding a warrant for their arrest. Many of these people, who either had no debt or had long ago repaired their credit, would panic at the thought of being arrested, and would often send the money they demanded. I had one such client, who, although in a state of panic, had the sense to call me. I made several attempts to trace the origin of the phone number they had given my client. My efforts led me to one of Boyland’s people in Baltimore, who ultimately gave me a contact address in Atlanta in which to send my client’s money. As it turned out, this company, was using a type of software, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) that routes their phone number through the internet, in order to hide the origin of the true phone number and the whereabouts of the company. As I began comparing notes with fellow members of the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA), it became clear that the source of this activity was located in Buffalo and was run by Boyland, who, proudly advertises his nickname, “Bags O Money” on a billboard in Buffalo. Mr.Boyland, who, formerly served time for an armed robbery conviction, has been notorious in the debt collection industry for a long time both for his practices and his criminal past.

Much to Attorney General Cuomo’s credit, followed up the Boyland case by suing thirty five law firms and two debt collectors in New York State in an attempt to have the Court throw out an estimated 100,000 default judgments against New York consumers. According to the suit, the law firms and debt collectors used false affidavits to obtain these judgments over a nineteen month period. Many of the defendants did not know anything about the judgments until they learned that their wages were garnished or their bank accounts frozen.

Although, these are extreme examples of how debt collection practices can go awry, they do serve to illustrate how easy it is to engage in the type of abusive practices which the FDCPA was designed to prevent. The problem with the FDCPA is that the penalties were legislated in 1978 and have not changed since. Although, the attorney’s fees are a mandatory award and the aggrieved party can sue for actual damages, meaning out of pocket losses and emotional distress, the statutory penalty is still as it was then a mere $1,000.00.

Considering how much less the dollar is now worth compared to 1978 when the statute was written and the advent of the profitable, Zombie debt collection industry this statutory penalty is hardly a deterrent. Moreover, the penalties are not imposed per violation, but per each consumer case. Therefore, in many cases, where the collector has violated the FDCPA by making phone calls to one’s neighbors and employers or umpteen harassing and abusive calls to you and your family, the statutory penalty is still only $1,000.00.

Equally egregious are some of the practices engaged in by both the Zombie debt collectors and their designated law firms. Many of the same firms pop up for each debt collection case. For instance, a cursory search of either the name of the one of debt collection companies or zombie debt buyers on your county court docket will generally show that only a handful of law firms are representing these entities. Interestingly, the dockets almost always also reveal another disturbing fact - that most of these lawsuits go unanswered and default judgments against the debtors are usually taken. Moreover, a good amount of these lawsuits are filed beyond the statute of limitations. However, with nobody defending them or unable to afford to defend these suits, judgments are taken without a second thought to the rights of the consumer.

In the rare instance where a debtor actually opts to defend the suit, the debt collection law firms, especially, those representing zombie debt collectors, almost always fail to provide the written contract between original creditor and debtor as well as the assignment agreement giving the debt collector standing to sue. This exposes both the attorney and the debt collector to litigation under the FDCPA Section 1692a(6) which defines both as debt collectors. Further, pursuant to the decision in Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995) , the lawsuit is considered a communication under the FDCPA and, unlike most other forms of litigation, the debt collection attorney is not immune from being sued for deceptive practices found in the lawsuit. Adding unauthorized amounts onto the debt such as attorney’s fees without legal entitlement (e.g. not being able to prove that the original contract authorized attorney’s fees) is a violation of FDCPA Section Sections 1692f and 1692e which profibits using "false representation or deceptive means to collect any debt".

Although some states, such as Pennsylvania, have criminal statutes forbidding debt collectors from collecting debts absent providing the original agreement and any assignment thereof, these statutes are rarely enforced so the abuses continue with little incentive to do otherwise.

According to the Federal Trade Commission’s 2009 Annual Report, FTC reported that, in 2008, it received 78,838 FDCPA complaints directly from consumers. This represented 18.9% of all complaints received. In 2008, the 32.5% of complaints to the FTC about debt collectors, which represented the most amount of these type of complaints, concerned attempts to collect debts which were not owed or an amount larger than actual debts, both hallmarks of Zombie debts.

The FTC has concluded that "the debt collection legal system needs to be reformed and modernized to reflect changes in consumer debt, the debt collection industry, and technology."

In light of its conclusions, The FTA has made several recommendations ranging from mandating debt collectors to transmit better information to consumers about their rights to modernizing debt collection laws minimizing the consumer costs when being contacted via cell phones. The FTC also recommends that it be given the authority to create regulations to employ the FDCPA prior to congressional action.

The FTC recognizes that collection agencies, collection lawyers, and debt buyers need better information in order to prevent collections of the wrong people or for the wrong amounts.

More to the point, the FTC report raises concerns over “ certain debt collection litigation and arbitration practices” an area that has been particularly ripe for consumer rights violations. Although the FTC expressly recognized that aggressive law enforcement is needed to deter collection abuses and that the FTC will step up its efforts in doing so, it also emphasized that the consumer, through their filing of lawsuits should be the “main means of promoting industry compliance.”

But these, too, do not go far enough. In order to effectively stop these abuses and balance the rights of the collectors and consumers, legislation and enforcement is needed as follows:

Penalties should be imposed per each violation and not per case;

Penalties should be increased to $25,000.00 per violation.
The original, executed contract as well as the assignment documents should be produced as part of the initial communication between the collector and consumer.
Call for stronger state legislation such as mandatory attorney’s fees’

Passing of federal statutes criminalizing practices prohibited by the FDCPA

Stronger enforcement by the state of both civil and criminal statutes.
Expand the Statute of Limitations for lawsuits against debt collectors under the FDCPA from one year to four years.

By legislating the aforesaid recommended changes to the current FDCPA statute, not only will consumers be protected, but legitimate collection claims can still be pursued and the zombie debts will remain dead and gone which is where they belong.