This "contact Jeff" form is only used for your convenience. This form does not make you a client of our firm. Jeff is licensed only in Pennsylvania. If you need an attorney outside of Pennsylvania, you can find one at National Association of Consumer Advocates. While we'll keep what you tell us private, remember that we can only give specific legal advice once you become a client of the firm. This is done by written agreement only.




DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

False Threats of Court Action & Wage Garnishment

On April 21, 2009, a lawsuit was filed against Thomas Landis, Esquire d/b/a Law Office of Thomas Landis, Lawrence Weil, Pinnacle Credit Services and APM Financial Solutions, LLC.  in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at case No. 09-cv-01019.

THE FOLLOWING WAS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT:

Information about the Defendants:

Thomas Landis, Esquire is an attorney that collects debts on behalf of others and is a “debt collector” as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). 

Pinnacle Credit Services and APM Financial Solutions are both debt collectors as defined by the FDCPA.

Defendant Lawrence Weil is the President of APM Financial Solutions, LLC.  Mr. Weil manages and supervises collections shared by Pinnacle, APM and Attorney Landis.

Facts of the Case:

In the complaint, Defendants were charged with abusive collection acts. 

These acts included:

- false threat of suit;

- wage garnishment; and

- disclosure of the alleged debt to an unauthorized third party.


Taken directly from the complaint, leaving out Plaintiffs’ names for privacy……..

21.        On November 5, 2008, at approximately 10:21 a.m., the following message was left on Plaintiff’s answering machine:  “Uh,   Mr….. or Mrs…..(Plaintiff’s named left out for privacy), Ken Long is calling here from Attorney Tom Landis’s office.  My number here is 1-800-853-4000, ext. 151.”

22.        Plaintiff (She) heard this message between 12 and 1 p.m.

23.        Plaintiff (She) called back asking to speak with Ken Long.  She was told he was out of the office and Daryl Fox got on the phone.  Fox asked if she was married to the other plaintiff.  She said NO.  Fox asked if they lived together.  She said they did.  Fox then said they were considered married under common law and he could speak with her about his debt.

24.        Fox disclosed Plaintiff’s (his) debt to her and threatened sit and wage garnishment if payment was not made.

25.        Plaintiffs later that evening, received a fax.

26.        On November 6, 2008, Plaintiff (she) called Fox’s extension around 2p.m.  He answered the call.  She told him she was not legally married to Plaintiff and Fox should not have given her information about his alleged debt.  Fox said, “No, you are common law married.”  She thought that Fox might be correct since she was under the impression she was calling a law office. Not wanting to fight with him, she agreed.  Fox became more pushy and aggressive.  Fox told her that if she did not put money down to show good faith, legal proceedings would be instituted and Plaintiffs would to pay Defendants' attorneys fees and Plaintiff's wages could be garnished. Fox said he would need a payment of least $100.    

27.        She began to cry. Fox said, “Come on, come on, hurry up.”  Fox was very aggressive and then he put her on speakerphone.  She heard another person in the background mocking her, saying “boo-hoo.”  She told Fox she did not appreciate the other gentlemen in the room and he said that no one else was in the room except for his 62 year old secretary.  Fox then told her to get a hold of herself.  Scared and worried that her boyfriend’s wages would be garnished, she provided Fox with banking information so that he could withdraw the $100.

28.        Thereafter, she called her bank to stop payment on the check.

29.        Ken Long then called Plaintiff, telling her, “I have your case here.”  He thanked her for the payment.  She told him the payment was cancelled.

30.        Defendants’ communications created a false sense of urgency and implicated Court and legal involvement that had not been taken and/or threats of legal action that were not intended to be taken.

Violations:

Defendants allegedly violated the FDCPA by:

1.            disclosing a debt to a third party;

2.            using conduct during the telephone calls with the intent to harass and abuse the             plaintiff; and

3.            falsely threatening wage garnishment and legal action.  The defendant never  intended to take this matter to court, and the defendant falsely implied that an attorney was already involved.

 

Outcome:

Settled out of Court in January 2010.

Settlement amount CONFIDENTIAL.

Awarded: Confidential


©2012 Jeffrey L. Suher, PC, All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission Privacy Policy
Attorney web design by Foster Web Marketing, the best attorney website design solution on the Web offering search engine optimization for attorneys, lawyer website design, video for attorneys, and more.
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog