Skip to main content
Suzanne R. Begnoche

Suzanne Begnoche’s Legal Cases

8 total

  • Johnson vs. Bullhead Investments, LLC, and Brock & Scott, PLLC

    Practice Area:
    Bankruptcy & Debt
    Date:
    May 26, 2010
    Outcome:
    Plaintiff accepted Offer of Judgment
    Description:
    CASE SUMMARY: The plaintiff consumer was targeted for collection activity on the credit card debt of another person with a similar name. She notified the debt collector that she was the wrong person. The debt collector sued her over the debt anyway. Thereafter, the Law Office of Suzanne Begnoche filed suit against the debt collector and its law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) on the plaintiff's behalf. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants had knowingly sued the plaintiff for a debt that was not hers and that was time-barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff asked for damages for emotional distress and attorney's fees accumulated in fighting the defendant's debt collection lawsuit. The defendants, who were also represented by attorneys, contested both liability and damages, and filed a motion to dismiss the case. In the motion, the defendants argued that the plaintiff had no right to bring a suit under the FDCPA and could not have been injured by their actions because she had known she was not the debtor on the account. The court ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the defendants made an offer of judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which she accepted. The defendants paid the judgment immediately. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Evans v. R32 Auto Sales, et al.

    Practice Area:
    Contracts & Agreements
    Date:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Outcome:
    Settlement after litigation
    Description:
    CASE SUMMARY: The plaintiff consumer purchased a used vehicle after seeing it in an advertisement. The advertisement stated that all of the dealership's cars included a three-month warranty. After the purchase, the plaintiff discovered mechanical problems with the vehicle, but the dealership did not honor the advertised warranty. The dealership later repossessed the vehicle from the plaintiff even though she was not behind on her payments. In her role as a staff attorney at Legal Aid of North Carolina, Suzanne Begnoche filed a lawsuit on the plaintiff's behalf against the dealership and its owners regarding the wrongful repossession of the vehicle and the failure to honor the advertised warranty. The lawsuit also alleged that the dealership had not followed North Carolina's vehicle repossession procedures. The defendants, who were also represented by an attorney, contested both liability and damages. The matter subsequently settled out of court. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Midland Funding, LLC vs. J.C.

    Practice Area:
    Bankruptcy & Debt
    Date:
    Dec 01, 2009
    Outcome:
    Settlement after litigation
    Description:
    CASE SUMMARY: The defendant consumer was sued by a debt buyer, which claimed to own an old credit card account of defendant's. However, the company from which the debt buyer claimed to have purchased the account had never actually existed. The Law Office of Suzanne Begnoche filed an answer to the lawsuit on behalf of the consumer, denying the debt buyer's claims and asking the court for a declaratory judgment regarding the existence of the alleged account, the debt buyer's ownership of it, and the consumer's liability on it. The consumer also asked the court to find that the debt buyer had filed a non-justiciable complaint and to order the debt buyer to pay the consumer's attorney's fees. The debt buyer, which was represented by an attorney, initially contested the consumer's requests for declaratory judgment and attorney's fees. During the discovery stage of the lawsuit, however, the debt buyer admitted that the alleged original creditor had never existed, that the consumer had never entered into a credit agreement with any company of that name, and that it had filed the lawsuit without having any credit agreement signed by the consumer, any account history, or any documentation of finance charges or fees on the alleged account. The matter subsequently settled out of court. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. T.T.

    Practice Area:
    Bankruptcy & Debt
    Date:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Outcome:
    Settlement after litigation
    Description:
    CASE SUMMARY: The defendant consumer was sued by a debt buyer, which claimed to own an old cell phone account of defendant's. However, the Law Office of Suzanne Begnoche could find no proof that the company from which the debt buyer claimed to have purchased the account had ever actually existed. In addition, the lawsuit's effective date was past the statute of limitations for collection on such a contract. The Law Office of Suzanne Begnoche filed an answer to the lawsuit on behalf of the consumer, denying the debt buyer's claims and asking the court for a declaratory judgment regarding the existence of the alleged account, the debt buyer's ownership of it, and the consumer's liability on it. The consumer also asked the court to find that the debt buyer had filed a non-justiciable complaint and to order the debt buyer to pay the consumer's attorney's fees. The debt buyer, which was represented by an attorney, subsequently settled out of court. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Russell vs. Absolute Collection Service, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Lawsuits & Disputes
    Date:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Outcome:
    Verdict for the Plaintiff. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $30,501 in actual damages and $7,000 in statutory damages. The court awarded Plaintiff $70,069.50 in attorneys’ fees and $5,736.67 in costs
    Description:
    The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, a medical debt collection agency, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and North Carolina law when it attempted to collect from her a bill that she had already paid in full and when it threatened to report the bill as past due to the credit bureaus. The Plaintiff was represented by Martin Attorney at Law, PLLC and the Law Office of Suzanne Begnoche. The Defendant, which was represented by several attorneys, denied that its actions violated any laws. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Staton vs. Vandenberg Chase & Associates, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Lawsuits & Disputes
    Date:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Outcome:
    Judgment for the Plaintiff. After a bench hearing, the judge awarded $53,000 in actual damages and $25,000 in statutory damages. The judge also awarded $4,425 in attorney's fees and $251 in costs. .
    Description:
    The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, a debt collection agency, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and North Carolina law when it harassed her by telephone and continued calling after a cease and desist request and notice that all calls should be directed to Plaintiff's attorney. The Defendant failed to respond to the lawsuit complaint, and Plaintiff obtained a default judgment. The court later denied the Defendant's motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Josey vs. Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc.

    Practice Area:
    Bankruptcy & Debt
    Date:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Outcome:
    Settlement in favor of the Plaintiffs in the amount of $43,500.00, inclusive of $8,470 in fees and $262 in costs. This settlement was approved by a United States Bankruptcy Court judge.
    Description:
    The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, a commercial debt collection agency, violated North Carolina law when it made several harassing telephone calls that included false threats that frightened the Plaintiffs. The Defendant, which was represented by counsel, denied that its actions violated any laws. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.
  • Ahmed vs. Department Stores National Bank, Trans Union LLC, et al.

    Practice Area:
    Identity Theft
    Date:
    Feb 02, 2014
    Outcome:
    The Plaintiff accepted offers of judgment from Department Stores National Bank for $15,000.00, plus fees and costs, and from Trans Union, LLC, for $20,000, inclusive of fees and costs.
    Description:
    The Plaintiff alleged that he was a victim of identity theft and that Defendants (two credit card companies and a credit bureau), had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they wrongfully verified identity theft accounts on his credit report. The Defendants, which were represented by counsel, denied that their actions violated any laws. DISCLAIMER: The attorney does not make any guarantees of results or outcomes in any particular case. Each case is different and requires investigation and analysis by an experienced legal professional. Past results do not guarantee future success.