Frank v Autovest et al.
This consumer class action alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This law protects consumers from abusive debt collectors.
Autovest and their debt collectors, Michael Andrews and Associates (not a law firm), are accused of engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading debt collection methods to collect a defaulted automobile loan.
Autovest is a debt buyer based in Michigan that supposedly purchases thousands of unpaid auto loan accounts at a discounted rate, then attempts to collect the full amount by filing lawsuits against consumers all over the United States. The accounts are usually sold or transferred between other debt buyers before landing at Autovest. Most consumers do not know who Autovest is or why they would owe them a debt when served with a lawsuit.
Frank didn't know who Autovest was either and thought she was being scammed. After retaining this office, Autovest permanently dismissed their case the morning of Frank's trial.
If you have been sued by, or are suffering a judgment from, Autovest please contact this office for a free case evaluation.
Quick et al. v EduCap, HSBC Bank and Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A.
Consumer class action for lawsuits filed by EduCap to collect defaulted private student loans under its Loan to Learn (“L2L”) program. Plaintiffs assert class claims under RICO, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, District of Columbia Debt Collection Law, and abuse of process.
Plaintiffs allege that EduCap filed thousands of unlawful debt collection lawsuits--claiming to the loans were owned to them--when EduCap never had any right, title or interest to those loans. Plaintiffs allege that L2L loans were originated by HSBC, but sold or securitized under the terms of the Student Loan Participation & Sale Agreement between EduCap and HSBC.
Plaintiffs also allege EduCap manufactured thousands of false affidavits to support their lawsuits by claiming that the promissory notes were between EduCap and the borrower when the notes were between HSBC and the borrowers. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that EduCap’s nationwide network of debt collection attorneys obtained unlawful judgments or settlements from unwitting consumers that included unauthorized contingency-based attorney’s fees when the promissory notes only authorized recovery of the actual costs of collection.
If you believe you are a victim of the Defendants' debt collection practices, please contact this office immediately.
Griffith v EduCap, HSBC Bank and Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A.
Affirmative claims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, District of Columbia Debt Collection law, malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Weinstock filed a debt collection suit on behalf of EduCap to recover a defaulted private student loan originated by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. The caption of Weinstock's complaint falsely states "EduCap, Inc. on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, National Association" when EduCap was never suing on behalf of HSBC. Attached to Weinstock's complaint is an affidavit from a debt collector at EduCap who falsely stated under oath that Griffith "entered into a promissory note with EduCap" when the promissory note was expressly between Griffith and HSBC, not EduCap. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of EduCap, that holding was reversed by the D.C. Court of Appeals which held that EduCap never had standing "to sue to enforce the note" and that "EduCap has never contended that HSBC was a party to the suit." After more than two years of pretending to be the real party in interest, Weinstock substituted HSBC for EduCap as the purported plaintiff. But after three years of litigation, and facing proof that HSBC and EduCap securitize all Loan to Learn loans through the L2L Education Trust, HSBC dismissed the underlying debt collection case with prejudice resulting in more than $25,000 in student loan debt being extinguished. Griffith's affirmative claims are pending in federal court.
Crescent Bank & Trust v Jones-Bey
Counterclaims under Maryland and District of Columbia law for refusing to honor the terms of a gap insurance policy purchased at a car dealership. Jones-Bey purchased a used vehicle from a dealership in Maryland—financing the purchase with a form Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RIC”). The total price included a $595 charge for a 60-month “Optional Gap Contract” promising that Jones-Bey's loan balance would be cancelled if it was totaled in an accident.
The vehicle was later totaled in an accident while being driven by Jones-Bey’s husband, an excluded driver. Crescent refused to waive the loan balance. Crescent then filed a lawsuit to collect the loan balance. Jones-Bey alleged violations of the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. Result: Jury verdict in favor of Jones-Bey for violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.
EduCap, Inc. v Dove
This office successfully defended a debt collection lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court that was dismissed with prejudice by Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman. As a result, more than $40,000 in private student loan debt was extinguished.
Evans v Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, P.A.
Affirmative claims for violations of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act, District of Columbia's debt collection law, and abuse of process. Weinstock filed suit on behalf of EduCap attempting to collect a defaulted private student loan. Weinstock's complaint included two affidavits falsely claiming under oath that Evans was not an active-duty service member when, in fact, she was. By EduCap's own admission, it has never conducted a military status search prior to signing affidavit's of non-military service. EduCap simply assumed Weinstock conducted a military status search, when the law requires personal knowledge of non-military status, and facts supporting the investigation.
Hargett et al. v NCO Financial Services et al.
Affirmative claims filed on behalf of three private student loan borrowers alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, District of Columbia debt collection law, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C. and NCO are accused of engaging in false, deceptive and misleading debt collection conduct by filing multiple student loan lawsuits after the three-year statute of limitations. This office successfully defended the borrowers in the underlying debt collection actions which the court ruled were barred by the statute of limitations. As a result, more than $80,000 in private student loan debts were extinguished.
Parks v Plainview Financial Services (D.C. Super. Ct.)
Class action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Defendant, a third-party debt buyer, was accused of filing credit card debt collection lawsuits using false, deceptive and misleading affidavits as the primary evidentiary basis to support their claims against unwitting consumers.
*Please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case.