law firm

Can a debt collector call you during the holidays? It Depends

Can a debt collector call you during the holidays? It Depends

Getting a phone call from a debt collector during the holiday season can ruin your holiday spirit. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) restricts the actions of debt collectors, protects consumers, and punishes debt collectors with unruly, bad behavior. Troy Doucet, the firm principal here at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A., shares advice regarding the FDCPA and how to deal with unruly debt collectors during the holiday season in the article “Can a Debt Collector call you during the holidays?” in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The FDCPA punishes debt collectors who contact consumers with repetitive, harassing behavior and restricts them from calling consumers at inconvenient times. Calling in the middle of the night or calling a consumer at work are typical examples of an inconvenient time, but holidays may also be arguable inconvenient and a violation of the FDCPA.

Under the FDCPA, consumers are allowed to send a written letter asking a debt collector to stop calling. After, the debt collector may contact the consumer one more time to inform them they plan to take legal action. If the debt collector continues to contact the consumer after the letter, then a consumer litigation lawyer at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. can help determine if the FDCPA has been violated. Once a consumer has legal representation, the debt collector cannot contact the consumer directly without permission of the lawyer.

In Ohio, lawsuits dealing with the FDCPA allow fee shifting. This means if the lawyers at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. can help you win a lawsuit against a debt collector for bad and unruly behaviors, the debt collector will have to pay all of our attorney fees for you. Contact an experienced lawyer at (614)944-5219 for your consultation today.

 

Did you like our article? Please follow us on Facebook and Linkedin to catch our most recent articles!

Eileen Paley Sells Practice to Doucet

Eileen Paley Sells Practice to Doucet

Columbus City Councilmember Eileen Paley has sold her law practice to the Dublin based law firm of Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. The sale will enable Council member Paley to focus on serving the people of Franklin County through Columbus City Council, as well as focus more energy on her race for Franklin County Municipal Court.

As the sale is finalized, Councilmember Paley will join Doucet & Associates part time until her upcoming Municipal Court Judicial election. This will enable her to assist with the transition of the clients she has helped over her 28 year legal career to their new home at Doucet & Associates, while balancing her increasingly involved tenure in public service.

Eileen Paley began practicing law in 1988. Her top priority has always been providing outstanding legal services for her clients. She took a personal approach to legal representation, and focused her practice on real estate law, business law, consumer law, juvenile law, and construction law. She first began her tenure as a Councilmember in 2009. Prior to Columbus City Council, Eileen served as Commissioner for the Columbus Civil Service Commission.

Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. is a consumer based law firm in Dublin, Ohio that helps people with an array of legal issues from foreclosure defense to consumer litigation. The 12 lawyer firm also works with small businesses, with a focus on litigation and contract disputes. Its principal, Troy Doucet, was named a rising star by Super Lawyers magazine in 2014, 2015, and 2016, and he graduated magna cum laude from Capital University Law School.

“We are very excited for this opportunity,” said Mr. Doucet, “Eileen Paley is an outstanding public servant who has built a terrific practice throughout her career. We are honored to be trusted with her client matters moving forward, and we look forward to Eileen’s continued success in public service.”

 

Did you like our article? Please follow us on Facebook and Linkedin to catch our most recent articles!

Racketeering Lawsuit over Robo-Signing Can Proceed

Racketeering Lawsuit over Robo-Signing Can Proceed

Yesterday, a federal appeals court ruled that a RICO lawsuit against Bank of America, its law firm, a law firm employee, and MERS could proceed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) lawsuit could proceed against Bank of America, NA (“BANA”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), the law firm of Lerner Sampson and Rothfuss, and one of the law firm’s paralegals, for illegal robo-signing in an earlier state court foreclosure action.

The homeowner sued the four entities alleging that the law firm submitted a robo-signed mortgage assignment in an earlier foreclosure knowing that document was fraudulent. The lawsuit alleges that the law firm acted for BANA when it used that mortgage assignment to establish BANA’s ability to foreclose on the homeowner’s home, despite knowing the document was false. The lawsuit included multiple examples of this particular paralegal signing mortgage assignments on behalf of defunct companies, in what has become known as “robo-signing.”

During the foreclosure case, judgment had been taken against the homeowner without him realizing the problematic documents. Only after the homeowner retained Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A., who brought the robo-signing to the court’s attention, did BANA and LSR vacate the judgment and dismiss the foreclosure. Bank of America dismissed on the eve of the paralegal, Shellie Hill, having to appear and give testimony under oath about the mortgage assignment.

After the foreclosure lawsuit was dismissed, the homeowner filed a federal lawsuit alleging several causes of action against all four parties. The district court judge initially dismissed the lawsuit, but today’s landmark decision by the federal court of appeals reinstated the most serious of the allegations. The lawsuit against BANA, MERS, LSR, and Ms. Hill will now continue under the federal racketeering statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law initially designed to prosecute mob activity.

The case is Slorp v. Lerner, Sampson, and Rothfuss; Bank of America NA, Shellie Hill, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc, Case No. 13-3402, and is available here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0745n-06.pdf

Call Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. for more information or to help with your case at (614) 944-5219.

 

Did you like our article? Please follow us on Facebook and Linkedin to catch our most recent articles!

Firm Sues Law Firm Kaman & Cusimano

Firm Sues Law Firm Kaman & Cusimano

Doucet & Associates, a small firm dedicated to protecting the rights of the consumer, has filed a lawsuit against Kaman & Cusimano, LLC, for violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) by selling Doucet’s client’s home without giving her the opportunity to pay back the amounts owed.

Kaman & Cusimano, LLC, represent the Coventry Manor Condominium Association. According to the lawsuit, in April of 2010, Coventry Manor filed a complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to foreclosure condominium lien against Doucet’s client for past due condo fees. Coventry Manor was granted a default judgment and a decree of foreclosure.

Coventry Manor did little with the decree of foreclosure for two years until the fall of 2012, when Coventry Manor requested a legal document ordering the sale of the condo. According to the lawsuit, the condo was appraised and put in a sheriff’s auction, all without Doucet’s client’s knowledge. The condo did not sell until a year later, and for less than half of what the homeowner had originally paid for it.

A month later the homeowner learned about the sale. She retained foreclosure counsel and contacted Kaman & Cusimano to find out the payoff amount in order to redeem her home by paying the Association in full. Kama allegedly sent her a letter stating her right to redeem her home had expired three days after the sale was made — a claim the lawsuit alleges is untrue. They neglected to include a payoff quote, and the sale of the home was then confirmed by the court before the homeowner was given that final opportunity to pay off the Association dues.

Doucet’s client claims Kaman & Cusimano violated the FDCPA by falsely stating she had forfeited her right to redeem her home, as well as obstructing her rights by not including a payoff quote. She is suing for actual, emotional, statutory and other damages in addition to attorney fees and the cost of moving from her condo.

Doucet & Associates is dedicated to fighting for the rights of consumers, protecting their interests and offering legal assistance to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it. If you feel that a company is taking advantage of you, the law firm welcomes your call at (614) 944-5219.

 

Did you like our article? Please follow us on Facebook and Linkedin to catch our most recent articles!