Coming Soon to the Clouded Titles Website …

BREAKING NEWS — 

In keeping with the tradition of educational information, the Clouded Titles website will soon feature a monthly newsletter called, “THE RICH REPORT”, a monthly in-depth analysis designed and delivered by retired attorney Richard L. DiMaggio, J.D., who will cover pertinent, on-going cases involving FDCPA, debt collection issues, FCRA, credit report issues, TILA, RESPA, identity theft, mortgage fraud and other important financial news affecting homeowners, borrowers and debtors alike.

The monthly service will be subscription-based and will bring you the hottest news, information and legal analysis of consumer-oriented issues by one of the top FDCPA attorneys in the country.  Richard L. DiMaggio, J.D. wrote the book, “Collection Agency Harassment: What the Debt Collector Doesn’t Want You to Know”.  THE RICH REPORT will be delivered right to your email inbox every month in pdf format for easy reading.  THE RICH REPORT is a great supplement for anyone reading FORECLOSURE, DEBT COLLECTION AND FORECLOSURES, by Dave Krieger, available on the Clouded Titles Website NOW (and also through The Power Mall on The Power Hour!)

Mr. DiMaggio will be joining me on The Power Hour, with Joyce Riley, at 9:00 a.m. Central Standard Time on Monday, February 27, 2017 to discuss FDCPA and debt collection issues.  Needless to say, this will be a powerful broadcast!  Put it on your calendar and plan on tuning in live.  Joyce Riley will also be taking telephone calls related to the subject matter, so if you’ve got anything to add, please feel free to chime in.  She’ll give the number out on the show!

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Breaking News, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FCRA Education, FDCPA, FDCPA Education, Financial Education

THE NEW FDCPA BOOK IS HOT OFF THE PRESS!

BREAKING NEWS — UPDATE

The author of this post has just gotten word that his new book, FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures has just come off the presses and is ready for shipment!

UPDATE: THERE IS NO LONGER A “BACKORDERED” NOTICE APPEARING ON THE WEBSITE! THE WEB ADMINISTRATOR HAS CORRECTED THAT ERROR.  WE STILL HAVE PLENTY OF COPIES OF THE FIRST RUN AVAILABLE!  

If you’ve been waiting to see whether I was seriously going to release this book before ordering a copy, you can still get yours now and it will be shipped to you, USPS Priority Mail in a bubble envelope within 24 hours of your order on the Clouded Titles website (we use encrypted secure servers and we do not store credit card information).

 

1 Comment

Filed under Breaking News, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, FDCPA Education

FLORIDA HOMEOWNERS SHOULD STAY OUT OF BK 7 COURTS IF THEY WANT TO FIGHT FORECLOSURES!

The author of this post is not giving legal advice, just reporting what’s out there.  You should consult a competent foreclosure defense attorney regarding such matters, as the contents in this post appear to reflect the court’s intolerance for homeowners who file bankruptcy to stop a foreclosure. 

OP-ED — 

Folks who are in trouble with their mortgages in Florida really need to strategize before taking the plunge into the abyss known as the Florida legal system, where state judges clearly have “agendas”, the Florida Legislature has “agendas” and the federal courts have “agendas” … all aimed at taking of property when you can’t make the payments on it.  It’s not often that the author of this post steers away from chain of title issues, but there appears to be widespread ignorance (or in the alternative, intolerance) on the part of the Sunshine State’s legal system, which makes things “not so shiny” anymore, given the recent spate of legislation and court actions.

STATE JUDGES

All one needs to do is examine court dockets to see how fast, over time, that Florida circuit judges have blindly assumed that the financial institutions coming before them actually own the promissory note they’re trying to enforce.  It would seem that judges simply rely on the blatant attack on the property owner as just because otherwise, why would this particular bank show up in court?   Because they can!  And they do!  And judges give them so much leeway that Florida homeowners are stymied for options.  This is why the State of Florida has so many zombie homes (despite what the politicians, economists and the media would have you believe) and shadow inventory that sits empty because of title issues.  In very few cases I’ve examined have I seen evidence within a transcript that allowed for a forensic examination of the note, to make sure it’s “original”, like the bank’s attorney says it is.  To show you that the inequity between state court systems is similar in nature, I’m consulting a case in New Jersey where the bank’s law firm sent a “cover lawyer” into court with what appeared to be a “faxed copy” of the note, claiming it to be the “original”.  I think most judges, even in light of the foreclosure defense attorney’s objections, could tell the difference, but nope … this judge said that the word of the law firm and the faxed copy of what it self-authenticated is good enough!  Can you believe that shit?

Another part of the equation is the existence of foreclosure defense lawyers who have seen fit to turn the foreclosure debacle into a cash cow by using delay tactics to keep property owners in their homes, despite the probable outcome that only about 1 in 25 cases brought into court makes it past the 810-day mark in a Florida foreclosure cycle.  Knowing that the odds are never “in their favor” (attributing the quotation to The Hunger Games), frustrated mortgagors then contemplate using bankruptcy court to dodge the “sale bullet”. However, things in Florida are about to change.

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE

Effective July 1, 2017, Florida homeowners who run to the bankruptcy court and get their promissory note discharged are going to find themselves without other options to fight the foreclosure.  See House Bill 471 here if you don’t believe me: fl-hb-471  It’s only two pages long and I’m sure you can read (if you’re reading this)!

Simply put, any documentation that is filed in Bankruptcy Court which would indicate surrender of the property (commonly seen in Chapter 7 cases) makes it legally okay for the bank’s attorney to submit that document that was filed in the Bankruptcy Court under penalty of perjury to a Florida circuit judge to get a Final Judgment of Foreclosure.  I see this as a definite negative if you’re trying to fight a foreclosure.  But then again, most homeowners are like electricity.  They want to take the path of least resistance; and declaring bankruptcy is certainly a hell of a lot cheaper than fighting a foreclosure through Florida’s appellate system.

It appears that folks don’t understand the difference between an in rem and an in personam action.  Enforcement of a security instrument, which in Florida’s case is a mortgage, can only happen when the party claiming to have an interest in the property can prove ownership.  An attack on the property through the recorded security instrument is an in rem action (like quiet title actions).  This is why I wrote the book The Quiet Title War Manual (with the professional help of California attorney Al West).  The book explains the difference between the note and the mortgage.  Folks who don’t get it should get this book and read it, because when Al West and I taught quiet title workshops, we hammered these basic principles into the heads of the attendees.  In personam actions are actions involving debt, which in this case is the promissory note, NOT the mortgage!   How convenient it is that the Florida legislature has come up with this House Bill in the wake of the recent court conflicts within the federal system!

THE FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Let’s look at the case of In re Hookerin-re-hooker   Once you get past the first three paragraphs, you’ll understand why the Florida legislature did what it did to help the banks fight continuous counterattacks in state court.  Again, how convenient, to avoid further confusion in the courts.  Let’s just legislate this away, shall we?

Now we come to the slam dunk that affects the way the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida), has ruled that Chapter 7 debtors who file a bankruptcy action and put forth a statement of intention to surrender the real property cannot later contest a foreclosure in the state court. in-re-failla   If you read the first paragraph of this PUBLISHED OPINION, and then read the background on the case, it appears that the homeowners wanted to “have their cake and eat it too”.  The Failla case simply states: “Debtors who surrender property must get out of the creditor’s way.”   The Florida Legislature (I believe) made sure that a bill was passed that shut off the trough at the source of the feed (so to speak).

No more hogs at the trough.  There have been so many different points of view, it’s understandable that the Florida legislature would pass a bill that state courts could point a finger at and say, “SEE?”   So for those of you thinking that running into bankruptcy court (in any state for that matter) and declaring your intent to surrender the property (God forbid, why would you do that?) under penalty of perjury is so confusing to some when their state court cases get shut down.

ANOTHER WHAMMY! 

It has also become relatively apparent that any homeowner that has placed themselves in the foregoing position and continue to litigate their foreclosure in the state courts of Florida are likely to get sanctioned!   Vexatious litigants are likely to wind up in jail on contempt charges!  I say this because of what happened to foreclosure defense attorney Stuart Golant, 70,  in the Palm Beach County courtroom of Senior Judge Howard Harrison for simply making a motion!

Florida homeowners have had the deck stacked against them by the courts and the legislature in favor of the banks when it comes to promissory note enforcement.  Once a mortgage has been recorded in the land records where the subject property is situated, all it takes is a missed payment and the door to “foreclosure hell” opens to swallow the homeowners whole.   I can’t help but wonder what kind of counseling homeowners have received, given the phone calls and emails I get regarding strategizing an in personam case against them.

ONE MORE TIME …

In a judicial foreclosure state like Florida, a lender comes to court and waves the promissory note around and claims it has the right to enforce the terms of the note!  It should be required to prove that the note is genuine, forensically.  Have the actual paper tested.  Have the ink tested.  Check for pixelation by blowing the note up on a computer screen to examine evidence the note was photoshopped.  Object to the note being entered as the original.  I believe a majority of securitized notes are copies of what was downloaded into the MERS® System and later shredded, as I’ve covered in previous posts.

Once the lender gets the note in front of the court and gets it admitted into evidence and gets the court to agree that U.C.C. Article 3 (Negotiable Instruments) exists and that the alleged lender has the right to enforce the note, THEN the Lender gets to enforce the Security Instrument, the in rem part of the equation.  The security instrument (Mortgage) is then “ripe for the picking”.  Believe it or not, most homeowners think that the lender is foreclosing on the mortgage.  That couldn’t be further from the truth!  The Lender is foreclosing on the Note.  Proving it has the right to enforce the Note means the Lender gets the right to enforce the Security Instrument, not until!

Bankruptcy Courts are designed to handle in personam scenarios.  In personam relates to debt.  Promissory notes are evidence of debt!   Recorded mortgages are evidence of security interests, not debt!   If you’re going to use the bankruptcy court to alleviate your personal obligation to the note, and liquidate it in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, be prepared to move out of your home!

Thinking twice about running into Chapter 7 bankruptcy court to stop the sale?   The “system” is ready for you!   (Hint: This is why we have Chapters 11 and 13!)  No matter, if you live in any state where you think the “deck is stacked” against you, plan your “end game” BEFORE you go into default, not after!

And this is why I don’t talk about in personam issues much.  Homeowners really should get a financial education before they sit down at the closing table.

Tune into kdwradio.com every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. EST for my radio show, City Spotlight: Special Edition!   Order any of the author’s books by visiting Clouded Titles!

For those of you waiting for the new FDCPA book, it’s almost ready!   Pre-order your copy today!  (FDCPA actions are for dealing with debt collectors!)

3 Comments

Filed under Financial Education, Op-Ed Piece

SCOTUS DECIDES TO ENTERTAIN CIRCUIT SPLIT ON FDCPA CREDITOR-DEBT COLLECTOR ISSUE!

BREAKING NEWS — (DC) 

The U.S. Supreme Court appears to have granted a Writ of Certiorari to petitioner Ricky Henson, et al in his case versus Santander Consumer USA, Inc. coming out of the nation’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  There have been numerous disagreements among the circuits as to what constitutes a “creditor” by definition versus what constitutes a “debt collector” by definition, within the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq).   More about these definitions are specifically noted through the new book FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures (by the author of this post), anticipated to be released in its first 256-page first edition, sometime around the end of this month (January, 2017).

There is evidence of deeply-entrenched conflict among the circuits, which involves the definition of a “creditor”, which is succinctly defined within the FDCPA as: (a.) any person who offers or extends credit (thereby creating a debt to the borrower); and (b.) any person to whom a debt is owed … and that of a “debt collector”, also succinctly defined as: (a.) any person whose principal purpose is to collect debts; (b.) any person who regularly collects debts owed to another; and (c.) any person who collects its own debts, using a name other than its own.  You can see where these so-called variance opinions have formed as cases involving FDCPA complaints have worked their way through each of the federal circuits.

The hinge pin here however, is that the FDCPA also states that a person is NOT a “creditor” if that person “receives an assignment or transfer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collect of such debt for another.”  That, by definition, would make most mortgage servicers “debt collectors”, which consumers, as mortgagors, now find useful to wage war in federal court by using FDCPA actions!   This is one of the reasons this author did the research of over 400 FDCPA actions, some successful and others not successful, for the purposes of illustrating not only the circuit split in definitions, but also because the only way circuit splits can be resolved in finality is by a Supreme Court decision on the valid merits of the case.

OP-ED

The key word here is “default”.  The Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau both concur that the default status of a debt at the time it was acquired determines the status as to whether the entity is a “creditor” or “debt collector”.  The CFPB used this model in an action against a large bank, finding the bank violated the FDCPA by failing to send validation notices on student loan accounts there were in default at the time they were acquired from another bank.  This puts student loan borrowers in a very interesting litigation posture when debts get “assigned” to entities like Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Van Ru Credit Corporation, The CBE Group and Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (to name a few) to collect, which comprise the larger number of entities assigned to collect student loan debt on behalf of the U. S. Department of Education, which is the alleged “guarantor” (which cannot be sued, so don’t even try it).  Every case the the author has reviewed involving a state-based corporation designed to monitor the accounts of student loan borrowers and the Department of Education, wherein the Plaintiff borrower sued them for alleged FDCPA violations, got tossed out.  The smarter consumers appear to be going after the actual debt collection agencies that have been assigned to collect the debt.

When a debt is in default and has been assigned or transferred to another entity who then attempts to collect the debt, here’s where the splits stack up:

The 4th, 9th and 11th Circuits have held that a person is not a “debt collector” unless its principal purpose is to collect a debt, regularly in the business of collecting debts owed to another, or collecting a debt using a name other than its own.  The 11th Circuit has come out with some very pro-consumer decisions (like Reese v. Ellis) that have helped homeowners fighting foreclosures in going after the law firms trying to collect a debt (NOT enforcing a security instrument … there is a difference) using a different name than the one it operates under as a creditor.  These three “tests” must be met, in addition to the court’s determination that the debt was indeed in default at the time it was acquired by the person claiming the right to collect it.  These three Circuits also rejected the argument that any person taking assignment of defaulted debts is regularly collecting debts owed to another because the debts were owed to a different creditor at the time of default.  You can plainly see where the banks and their servicers (as creditors and quasi-debt collectors) want to confuse the issue, which, it appears they have done, over time.  Now the Supreme Court gets to interpret what the FDCPA means and what it doesn’t mean when it comes to these definitions.

The 3rd, 6th and 7th Circuit decisions in conflict with the foregoing Circuits have focused predominantly on the exclusions from the definitions of “creditor” and “debt collector”, declaring that any person who takes an assignment of a debt in default is a debt collector, while a person who takes assignment of a debt that is NOT in default is a “creditor”, because they actually BOUGHT the debt.  The 7th Circuit went further in explaining that any person acquiring a debt stands in the shoes of that creditor and acts similarly, as opposed to simply acquiring the debt for collection, wherein it acts more like a debt collector, by the strictest defined sense of the FDCPA.

Additionally, Also, both the CFPB and the FTC have adopted the view that the default status of the debt at the time of acquisition determines whether the entity is a “creditor” or a “debt collector.” The CFPB took this approach in a recent consent order with a large bank, finding that the bank violated the FDCPA by failing to send validation notices on student loan accounts that were in default at the time they were acquired from another bank.

VALIDATION OF STUDENT LOAN DEBTS

The CFPB just recently reported that a larger number of student loan debts have afflicted those aged 62 and older to the tune of $66.7-billion!  That’s pretty scary, considering many of these debtors are co-signers for their children’s (and grandchildren’s) education.

It is seriously implied here that in addition to mortgage loans, student loans (car loans and credit cards), have also be securitized on Wall Street into “common law trusts”.  Mortgage loans get securitized into REMICs (which stands for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits), while other securitized trusts are listed as to their designed use.

To make things a little more “interesting” … here is one sample debt validation response sent to a debt collector, who sent an “initial communication” to a student loan borrower in an attempt to collect a debt (the names of the borrower and debt collector have been purposefully changed to protect their identities):

Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Number:

 

Date of Debt Validation Correspondence
Name and address of Debt Collector

 

Re: Your Unsigned Debt Collection Letter, dated ______, 2017.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am in receipt of a PAST DUE NOTICE, dated “______, 2017” and am responding accordingly. I choose to respond point for point to what I allege is in fact, an initial communication letter from your debt collection agency.

This is to inform you that I am a “consumer” as defined under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3).  Further, I deem you as a debt collector, subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which I have a copy of, under 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5).

First, you have provided me with no written proof of any of the claims you have made in this letter.  You have listed debt collection account reference numbers that I am not personally knowledgeable of.

There is no proof provided in the initial communication I received as to who purchased any alleged student loans under any guarantee agreement bearing my name and personal identifying information.  You also failed to provide me with a copy of the guarantee agreement or any of the loan paperwork that you allege or claim I owe you that is in default.   Therefore, I am disputing the entire balance of what you claim I owe you and further require that you provide me with following:

(a.) Proof of all indebtedness, including copies of any alleged loan paperwork you have in your possession, on which you base your alleged claim of default;

(b.) Proof of the entire chain of custody of each promissory note you claim that the entity you are collecting for was “required to purchase”, including but not limited to, copies of the “guarantee agreement” for each of the alleged loans contained within your initial communication to me;

(c.) Please send me a full accounting of ALL sums due that have been applied to this alleged loan balance, including alleged default insurance payments, credit default swap payments and any other insurance that was purchased to cover the entirety of the loan should an alleged default occur, including correspondence showing the payout dates of these alleged policies;

(d.) If this loan was securitized, along with other student loans, please provide me with the name of the trust and location of its trustee, including the its full contact information and telephone number;

(e.) Since you have threatened me with the garnishment of my wages, and based on the United States Code section shown below, I demand to be provided an opportunity to view all my purported loan documents and a hearing at a location close to my home;

31 U.S.C. § 3720D: US Code – Section 3720D: Garnishment

(3) The individual shall be provided an opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to the debt.

(5) The individual shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with subsection (c) on the determination of the head of the executive, judicial, or legislative agency concerning –

(A) the existence or the amount of the debt, and

(B) in the case of an individual whose repayment schedule is established other than by a written agreement pursuant to paragraph (4), the terms of the repayment schedule.

Please be advised that I am responding with the above verbiage as you have indicated in your letter that you may utilize additional collection efforts, including an administrative wage garnishment, tax offset or assigning these alleged loans to the U. S. Department of Education, who, unless you can provide me with proof to the contrary, guaranteed these alleged loans in the first place;

(f.) Please provide me with the Name and Address of the Original Lender / Creditor and all correspondence you have in your possession related to these alleged loans.

(g.) Please provide me with the exact location of my purported loan documents, signed by me, including a direct phone number; and

(h.) Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between your agency and the U. S. Department of Education, including all loan documents, and any documents you have in your possession, bearing my legitimate signature, that prove you have the right to collect this alleged debt, including any agreements signed between you and the alleged creditor you claim to be representing in your initial communication to me.

Please be advised that, in providing the above response, John Q. Consumer is not limiting or waiving any rights or remedies he may now or hereafter have, whether arising under your purported loan documents at law or in equity, all of which rights and remedies are expressly reserved.

Further, since I cannot take your telephone calls into court, this is a demand upon you that you are restricted from contacting me at my home, on my cellular phone or at my workplace regarding the collection of any of the foregoing, until you can fully satisfy the demands set forth in this letter.

Failure to completely respond will also result in an FDCPA action being filed against your company in the appropriate forum.

All further correspondence (including your answer and supporting documentation) may be sent to the address shown below.  I expect to hear from you in short order, as this letter is intended to give you notice that I am disputing the entirety of this debt in full.

Sincerely,
John Q. Consumer (address)

Enclosure: Copy of Debt Collection Letter

Again, I managed to acquire this from a “consumer”, who sent a variation of this letter, regarding a student loan debt.  This letter is a SAMPLE and does NOT constitute the rendering of legal advice for your particular situation and may not draw any conclusions of law or guarantee any legal outcome.  If you intend on using any form of this for your own personal use, you should be aware that you do so at your own risk.  After reading this letter, I was tempted to contact “John Q. Consumer” to see if the debt collector ever responded.  It would seem to appear that when the issue of securitization is brought up, this may create a real dilemma, because the student loan itself may have already been paid in full upon the default of the borrower!  Entire of tranches of student loans may have been paid off over time!

I just thought I’d let you, the blog subscriber, know that student loan borrowers are also using similar tactics, more of which are in the new book on the FDCPA, coming out shortly, which you can pre-order on the Clouded Titles website. The book also goes into detail about how debtors have used FDCPA actions to repeatedly sue debt collectors in order to make a part-time income!  It is fascinating to see what the mind can achieve and the human condition to accomplish!  I’ve actually included an “exploded” view of an FDCPA lawsuit, both applied individually and as a class action, so you can compare notes!  I think you’ll find the 256 pages worthy of your time and consideration.

Just because SCOTUS is deciding this narrow issue does not mean that FDCPA actions will be put “on hold” either.  The definitions of the FDCPA do merit clarification by the nation’s highest court, so the lower circuits will (once and for all) STOP QUIBBLING over what the terms really mean.  This is why it pays to know the FDCPA and get an education in debt collection before getting yourself into debt!

2 Comments

Filed under Breaking News, FDCPA Education, Op-Ed Piece

TIPS ON SPOTTING FDCPA – TCPA VIOLATIONS

Consumers generally ignore a lot of debt collection activity because it invades and disrupts their comfort zones.  Since the new FDCPA book is coming out shortly, I’d thought I’d share several of the most commonly-ignored FDCPA and TCPA violations that would give rise to litigation (a smattering of what’s in the new book).

Problems with initial communication … 

You receive an initial communication (letter in the mail) from a debt collector.  There is specific language in the debt collection letter that says: (a.) that the communication is from a debt collector; (b.) you have 30 days to dispute the validity or any portion thereof; and (c.) if you dispute the letter, within a certain timeframe, the debt collector must provide you with proof (judgment or other paperwork) identifying the validity of a debt (or the portion you are disputing).  Before the 30 days are up, your phone starts ringing and the debt collectors begin hounding you for payment.

Problems with threats of litigation … 

You have an overdue bill of $74.00.  A debt collection agency sends you a letter stating that if you don’t pay it, they’ll take you to court.  Debt collectors can’t threaten to take legal action that they don’t intend on taking in the first place.  The bill is too small to waste time paying attorney’s fees and costs of suit (which would exceed the amount of the bill itself).

Problems with misrepresentation of the character and status of a debt …

The most commonly complained about violations occur when a debt collector informs you that: (a.) it is not a debt collector, when in fact, it is; (b.) it is attempting to collect a legally unenforceable debt without disclosing that the statute of limitations has expired on the collection of it;  (c.) you receive various letters from the same debt collection outfit indicating amounts that are grossly exaggerated in each letter; or (d.) there is an indication that attorney’s fees have been added to the debt when in fact, no attorney was retained to collect the debt.

Problems with follow-up communication … 

You get repeated phone calls or texts, many times a day, from the same debt collector about the same debt, hounding you for payment.

The debt collector leaves a blatant debt collection message on your answering machine, which unauthorized third parties can hear if they happen to be around when you play your messages back.

The texts the debt collector leaves on your phone incur a fee every time they text you.

The debt collector manages to reach you and calls you names or uses other defamatory language.

The debt collector calls you at work, talks to one of your co-workers and tells them you’re a deadbeat, asking if they can relay a message to have you call the debt collector back.

Third-party junk debt buyers are more likely to commit these infractions than most debt collectors; however, ALL debt collectors have one thing in common: Their activities are all covered under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act!  Many homeowners are even using these laws to stop foreclosures!  Find out how they’re doing it in this book! 

There are many more of these types of violations specifically listed in the new book by Dave Krieger entitled,  FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures … which is at the press and will be released before the end of January!   Order your 256-page copy now!   This new book contains:

  • The latest version of the FDCPA!
  • The latest version of the TCPA!
  • Detailed explanations of how to spot debt collection violations!
  • A compendium of federal district, appellate and Supreme Court case citations, FDCPA-related references and research tools for case development!
  • PLUS … detailed FDCPA-related pleadings used by attorneys in both individual and class action lawsuits to formulate federal complaints!

… all in large, 14-point print for easy reading!

Visit the Clouded Titles website and order your copy today before the first run is all gone!  It will be shipped to you (USPS Priority Mail) as soon as it comes off the press!

 

3 Comments

Filed under FDCPA Education