Blog

Law Offices of Robert W. Murphy, Esq. - Consumer Rights Lawyer and Consumer Fraud Attorney in Fort Lauderdale, FL 954.763.8660

Attorney General Announces Suit Against JPMorgan Chase for Fraudulent and Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices

05-21-2013 | admin

Fraudulent and Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices 

Unfair Debt Collection PracticesAttorney General Kamala D. Harris of California Announces Suit Against JPMorgan Chase for Fraudulent and Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices. LOS ANGELES — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed an enforcement action against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Chase) alleging that the bank engaged in fraudulent and unlawful debt-collection practices against tens of thousands of Californians. The suit alleges that Chase engaged in widespread, illegal robo-signing, among other unlawful practices, to commit debt-collection abuse against approximately 100,000 California credit card borrowers over at least a three-year period.  “Chase abused the judicial process and engaged in serious misconduct against California credit card borrowers,” Attorney General Harris said. “ This enforcement action seeks to hold Chase accountable for systematically using illegal tactics to flood California’s courts with specious lawsuits against consumers. My office will demand a permanent halt to these practices and redress for borrowers who have been harmed.”
 From January 2008 through April 2011, Chase filed thousands of debt collection lawsuits every month in the State of California. On one day alone, Chase filed 469 such lawsuits in California. The Attorney General’s complaint against Chase alleges that, to maintain this pace, Chase employed unlawful practices as
shortcuts to obtain judgments against California consumers with speed and ease that could not have been possible if Chase had adhered to the minimum
substantive and procedural protections required by law. “At nearly every stage of the collection process, Defendants cut corners in the name of speed, cost savings, and their own convenience, providing only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy to their lawsuits,” the complaint states.

Chase used California’s judicial system as a mill to obtain default judgments, the suit alleges, using illegal tactics to flood the state’s court system in
order to secure default judgments and garnish wages from Californians.

The alleged misconduct includes:

• Robo-signing: Chase illegally robo-signed various litigation filings, including sworn documents, declarations, and verified complaints, without
reviewing the relevant files or bank records or even reading the documents before signing.
• “Sewer Service”: Chase failed to properly serve notice of debt collection lawsuits against consumers while claiming they had been served as required by
law. This practice, known as “sewer service,” deprives the consumer of any notice of the lawsuit.
• Filing Irregularities: Chase haphazardly assembled its official legal filings. For example, Chase failed to redact consumers’ personal information in
attachments to filings, potentially exposing them to identity theft and in violation of California law. In addition, when asking courts to enter default
judgments against consumers, Chase consistently swore under penalty of perjury that the consumers were not on active military duty. In fact, Chase never
checked.  This deprived service members of important legal protections to which they are entitled while on active duty.

Unlawful Debt-Collection Practices

The Law Ofice of Robert W. Murphy routinely litigates claims against creditors and debt collectors who do do not give consumers their due process and statutory rights under federal and state law.  Consumers who believe they have been victims of this misconduct or similar misconduct in the State of Florida should contact our law firm.

Attorney Murphy fight against forced arbitration – Legal Right to Day in Court

05-15-2013 | admin

Sen. Franken Leads Charge to Protect Legal Right to Day in Court
Arbitration Fairness AttorneySenator Reintroduces Legislation to Restore Consumers, Workers, and Small Businesses’ Right to Seek Justice through Courts
WASHINGTON, D.C. [05/07/13]—Today, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) reintroduced legislation that would restore consumers, workers, and small businesses’ right to seek justice through the courts. The Arbitration Fairness Act would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, civil rights and antitrust cases, and would protect the right of consumers, workers, and small businesses to have their case heard in court.
“Mandatory arbitration can be a huge disadvantage to consumers, workers, and small businesses, often limiting their ability to have any meaningful legal recourse when they are wronged,” said Sen. Franken. “I’ve reintroduced the Arbitration Fairness Act to ensure that people and small businesses maintain their right to their day in court when they are cheated.”
“Forced arbitration clauses undermine our indelible Constitutional right to take our disputes to court,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who introduced the companion bill in the House. “They benefit powerful business interests at the expense of American consumers and workers. These bills are designed to defend our rights and to re-empower consumers.”
In 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The legislative history of the FAA makes clear that Congress intended to target commercial arbitration agreements between two companies of generally comparable bargaining power. However over the years, the Supreme Court has slowly broadened the reach of the FAA, ignoring evidence that the FAA was never intended to apply to consumer or employment disputes, or to supersede all other federal laws protecting consumers, workers, and small businesses.
What the Arbitration Fairness Act does:
· Restores the original intent of the FAA by clarifying the scope of its application.
· Amends the FAA by adding a new chapter invalidating agreements that require the arbitration of employment, consumer, civil rights, or antitrust disputes made before the dispute arises.
· Restores the rights of workers, consumers, and small businesses trying to compete to seek justice in our courts.
· Ensures transparency in civil litigation.
· Protects the integrity of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, among others.
The Arbitration Fairness Act was cosponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I), Maize Hirono (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tom Udall (D-N. Mex.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
                       **************************************************************************************************
During his career as a consumer attorney, Attorney Murphy has spoken out against forced arbitration as being a device to strip Americans of their Constitutional right to a jury trial. Please support the Arbitration Fairness Act by contacting your elected representative.

Consumer Financial Protection Attorney Fort Lauderdale

05-9-2013 | admin

Consumer Protection Attorney Fort LauderdaleCONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU TAKES ACTION AGAINST TWO COMPANIES FOR CHARGING ILLEGAL DEBT-RELIEF FEES
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today filed a complaint in a federal district court in New York against two debt-relief service providers that allegedly charged consumers illegal advance fees for debt-settlement services. The Bureau is seeking to halt the operations and to obtain both penalties and relief for victims.
“Today’s action takes aim at two operations we believe are designed to profit through unscrupulous and illegal business practices,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Consumers deserve better and we are proud of this coordinated effort with the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara to crack down on harmful behavior.”
According to the CFPB complaint, the defendants, Mission Settlement Agency (Mission) and related entities and individuals, and Premier Consultant Group LLC (Premier) along with a related entity, routinely charged consumers upfront fees prior to settling the consumers’ debts. These illegal fees and the companies’ failures to provide effective services often caused consumers to fall further into debt and harmed their credit history in the process. Mission is based in New York and Premier is based in New Jersey.
The Bureau alleges that all of the defendants violated the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). In addition, the Bureau alleges that Mission and its principal, Michael Levitis, engaged in deceptive and unfair practices in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Attorney Fort Lauderdale. In total, defendants allegedly charged fees to over a thousand consumers in multiple states in violation of the TSR’s advance fee ban, totaling over $1.3 million.
The CFPB initiated this investigation in July 2012, and later referred evidence of criminal conduct to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The CFPB is required by the Dodd-Frank Act to refer evidence of criminal activity to the Department of Justice. In connection with these actions, the CFPB has also received substantial assistance from the New York Office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
This action is part of the CFPB’s comprehensive effort to prevent consumer harm in the debt-relief industry. The Bureau is working to ensure federal consumer laws are being followed at every stage of the process and is focusing not only on debt-relief service providers, but also on those who facilitate their unlawful conduct and who may also violate federal consumer financial laws.

A copy of the CFPB complaint is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201305_cfpb_complaint_mission-settlement.pdf

Consumer Fraud Lawfirm

Fair Lending Practices Attorney Robert Murphy

04-2-2013 | admin

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU TO HOLD AUTO LENDERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATORY MARKUP
Bureau Provides Guidance on Fair Lending Practices to Indirect Auto Lenders
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
released a bulletin explaining that certain lenders that offer auto loans
through dealerships are responsible for unlawful, discriminatory pricing.
Potentially discriminatory markups in auto lending may result in tens of
millions of dollars in consumer harm each year, and the bulletin provides
guidance to indirect auto lenders within the CFPB’s jurisdiction on how to
address fair lendingrisk.

“Consumers should not have to pay more for a car loan simply based on their
race,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s bulletin clarifies our
authority to pursue auto lenders whose policies harm consumers through unlawful
discrimination.”

When consumers finance automobile purchases from an auto dealership, the dealer
often facilitates indirect financing through a third party lender. The dealer
plays a valuable role by originating the loan and finding financing sources. In
this indirect auto financing process, the lender usually provides the dealer
with an interest rate that the lender will accept for a given consumer.

Indirect auto lenders often allow the dealer to charge the consumer an interest
rate that is costlier for the consumer than the rate the lender gave the dealer.
This increase in rate is typically called “dealer markup.” The lender shares
part of the revenue from that increased interest rate with the dealer. As a
result, markups generate compensation for dealers while frequently giving them
the discretion to charge consumers different rates regardless of consumer
creditworthiness. Lender policies that provide dealers with this type of
discretion increase the risk of pricing disparities among consumers based on
race, national origin, and potentially other prohibited bases. Research
indicates that markup practices may lead to African Americans and Hispanics
being charged higher markups than other, similarly situated, white consumers.

Today’s bulletin explains how the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) applies to
indirect auto lending. The bulletin also provides guidance for indirect auto
lenders on ways to limit fair lending risk. The ECOA makes it illegal for a
creditor to discriminate in any aspect of a credit transaction on prohibited
bases including race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, and
age. The CFPB recommends that indirect auto lenders within its jurisdiction take
steps to ensure that they are operating in compliance with fair lending laws as
applied to dealer markup and compensation policies. These steps may include, but
are not limited to:

Fair Lending Attorney

Fair Lending Practices

•    Imposing controls on dealer markup, or otherwise revising
dealer markup policies
;•     Monitoring and addressing the effects of markup policies as
part of a robust fair lending compliance program; and
•     Eliminating dealer discretion to markup buy rates, and
fairly compensating dealers using a different mechanism that does not result in
discrimination, such as flat fees per transaction.

Murphy Law litigates claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

03-18-2013 | admin

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges Against Equifax Information Services LLC

Fair Credit Reporting ActFollowing a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that Equifax Information Services, LLC  violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by improperly selling lists of millions of consumers who were late on their mortgages.
In settling the FTC’s complaint, Equifax agreed to pay its full $392,803 gross revenues as disgorgement of its ill-gotten gain from the conduct challenged by the Commission’s complaint. The order also prohibits Equifax from 1) furnishing prescreened lists to anyone that it does not have reason to believe has a permissible purpose to receive them; 2) failing to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of prescreened lists to anyone except those who have a permissible purpose to receive them; and 3) selling prescreened lists in connection with offers for debt relief products or services and mortgage assistance relief products and services, when advance fees are charged, with limited exceptions.
The Law Office of Robert W. Murphy litigates claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for clients who have had their credit reports impermissibly accessed by businesses. It is unlawful for businesses to obtain a person’s credit report unless the business has a permissible purpose for obtaining a report. Many businesses access credit reports without such a purpose in order to sell products and services to consumers. In addition to being an invasion of privacy, such conduct may be a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Fair Credit Reporting

Fair Debt Collection Attorney Murphy Law

02-22-2013 | admin

Fair Debt Collection

Defense Lawyer for collection agency sanctioned and ordered to pay damages assessed against his client.

Fair Debt Collection PracticesIn the recent decision in Anchondo V. Dunn, 2013 WL 599798 (10th Cir., Feb. 19, 2013), the Tenth Circuit affirmed the award of sanctions by the District of New Mexico against defense counsel Steven R. Dunn (“Attorney Dunn”)  for failing to disclose insurance coverage of a now bankrupt debt collector, Anderson, Crenshaw and Associates, L.L.C. (“ACA”) .

 In this remarkable case, the appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s determination that Mr. Dunn in the course of defending a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) acted in bad faith to deprive Ms. Anchondo of a potential recovery from the insurer of ACA. The district court found that Mr. Dunn acted in bad faith in failing to disclose the existence of insurance coveragefor the FDCPA claim despite requests during the discovery process.  As a sanction for litigation misconduct, the court ordered Mr. Dunn and Mr. Backal to pay Ms. Anchondo and her counsel the damages and fees owed by ACA plus the costs incurred in litigating this matter.

The Law Office of Robert W. Murphy litigates FDCPA cases against law breaking debt collectors. The FDCPA was enacted to  protect consumers from debt collection abuse. Indeed, in enacting the FDCPA,  Congress  found abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors and that abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasion of individual privacy.

Consumers should check their Credit Reports for errors

02-12-2013 | admin

Credit Report Errors

A Federal Trade Commission study of the U.S. credit reporting industry found that five percent of consumers had errors on one of their three major credit reports that could lead to them paying more for products such as auto loans and insurance.

Credit Report ErrorsOverall, the congressionally mandated study on credit report accuracy found that one in five consumers had an error on at least one of their three credit reports.
“These are eye-opening numbers for American consumers,” said Howard Shelanski, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics. “The results of this first-of-its-kind study make it clear that consumers should check their credit reports regularly. If they don’t, they are potentially putting their pocketbooks at risk.”
The study, in which participants were encouraged to use the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) process to resolve any potential credit report errors, also found that:
  • One in four consumers identified errors on their credit reports that might affect their credit scores;
  • One in five consumers had an error that was corrected by a credit reporting agency (CRA) after it was disputed, on at least one of their three credit reports;
  • Four out of five consumers who filed disputes experienced some modification to their credit report;
  • Slightly more than one in 10 consumers saw a change in their credit score after the CRAs modified errors on their credit report; and
  • Approximately one in 20 consumers had a maximum score change of more than 25 points and only one in 250 consumers had a maximum score change of more than 100 points.
Other study results can be found in the executive summary of the report.
“Your credit report has information about your finances and your bill-paying history, so it’s important to make sure it’s accurate,” said Charles Harwood, Acting Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The good news for consumers is that credit reports are free through Annualcreditreport.com, and if you find an error, you can work with the credit reporting company to fix it.”

   The Law Office of Robert W. Murphy litigates claims on behalf  of consumer who have been the victims of inaccurate or obsolete credit reports. If you believe that your credit report has inaccurate or obsolete information please contact our office.

Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
Law Office of Robert W. Murphy
1212 SE 2nd Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Telephone: (954) 763-8660
Cell: (954)683-8691
Fax: (954)763-8607

Vehicle Dealers Indicted in Philadelphia for Odometer Fraud

01-25-2013 | admin

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 18, 2013
Used Motor Vehicle Dealers Indicted in Philadelphia for Odometer Tampering

Odometer Fraud

Odometer FraudA federal grand jury in Philadelphia unsealed an indictment yesterday charging Kyle Novitsky, 45, and Judith Aloe, 52, both of North Miami Beach, Fla., with making false odometer statements, odometer fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy to commit these offenses, the Justice Department announced today. According to the indictment, as early as 2004, and through at least 2010, the defendants devised a scheme to defraud buyers of used motor vehicles by misrepresenting mileage of approximately 247 vehicles they sold.
As part of the scheme, the indictment charges that Novitsky and Aloe purchased high-mileage, used motor vehicles  in Florida, California and elsewhere from a national vehicle leasing company. The defendants are charged with conspiring to alter the odometers or odometer tampering in these vehicles to reflect false, lower mileage. The indictment alleges that Novitsky and Aloe then fraudulently altered the motor vehicle titles and sales documentation associated with these vehicles to reflect the false, lower mileage. As a result, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued motor vehicle titles reflecting this false, low er mileage, which the defendants knew to be untrue.
Novitsky and Aloe subsequently sold the motor vehicles at wholesale automobile auctions in Manheim, Pa., and elsewhere, and provided to the buyers Pe nnsylvania titles bearing the lower false mileage. The indictment alleges that in some instances, the true mileage of the vehicle was greater than 100,000 miles more than what the title indicated, and as a result of selling the vehicles with false, lower mileages, the defendants received higher sales prices for the vehicles they sold.
“Mileage information is important for consumers to assess the value and safety of the vehicles they purchase,” said Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. “Automobile purchases are one of the biggest investments consumers make, and false odometer statements can cause the buyers of these vehicles to lose thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money. In these difficult economic times, we take seriously our obligation to prosecute those who engage in this serious form of fraud.”
The charges in the indictment are only allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Delery thanked the Office of Odometer Fraud Attorney for the Investigation at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, for their assistance in investigating and prosecuting this case .
The United States Department of Justice News
The Law Office of Robert W. Murphy has successfully litigated odometer fraud, auto fraud cases against unscrupulous automobile dealerships in both state and federal court. In 2005, Attorney Murphy obtained a landmark appellate decision in the 11th Circuit under the federal Odometer Act in Owens v. Samkle Automotive, 425 F. 3rd 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) against a dealership that concealed the prior history of a vehicle as daily rental car.

Happy Thanksgiving from Consumer Fraud Attorney Murphy Law

11-21-2012 | admin

Happy Holidays from Consumer Attorney Robert Murphy

Happy Thanksgiving from Consumer Attorney Robert MurphyHappy Thanksgiving to all our clients.  Give thanks for all that you have and cherish what really maters in life to you.  Have a safe holiday vacation and enjoy time with your family. Its not what we say about our blessings , but how we use them, is the true measure of our thanksgiving . If your family is far away don’t forget to send Happy Thanksgiving greetings card, they will surely be thankful. Remember not to eat a big breakfast in order to save room for the turkey and sweet potato pies. We thank you for your business and are very happy that you are our loyal clients.

Make sure to visit our  Consumer Fraud Attorney Blog

Robert W. Murphy Spoke at Consumer Issues Conference in Wyoming

10-31-2012 | admin

Consumer Rights Lawyer Florida

Robert Murphy – Consumer Rights Attorney

Consumer Fraud Attorney

Robert W. Murphy was a recent speaker at the Consumer Issues Conference, Consumer Financial Protection: Who’s in Charge, hosted by the University of Wyoming College of Law in Laramie, Wyoming.  Mr. Murphy spoke at length on recent United States Supreme Court and Circuit Court decisions that have impacted consumer class action litigation.

Speakers @ Consumer Issues Conference in Wyoming

Robert W. Murphy is a Consumer Fraud Attorney in private practice in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focusing on consumer class action litigation. He presently serves as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Florida College of Law in Gainesville Florida. He is a past chair of the Consumer Protection Law Committee of The Florida Bar and is a Board Member, Secretary and Florida State Chairperson for the National Association of Consumer Advocates. He has spoken at many seminars and conferences hosted by a variety of state and national organizations, including The Florida Bar, The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, the National Consumer Law Center, the National Association of Legal Aid and Public Defenders, and the United States Military Judge Advocate Corps as well as college and law schools. In October, 2007 and April, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission designated Mr. Murphy to be panel member for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Symposium in Washington, DC, which addressed the rising abuses in the consumer debt collection industry.

Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
Law Office of Robert W. Murphy
1212 SE 2nd Ave.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Telephone: (954) 763-8660

Page 1 of 3123»

Our job is to protect consumer rights in the State of Florida. Call us today for a consultation. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.