Fort Myers, FL
Foreclosure Lawyer at Fort Myers, FL
Practice Areas: Foreclosure, Bankruptcy & Debt, Consumer Protection
OUTCOME:
In this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, the court denied 3 defendants’ motions to dismiss the case where suit was filed on the basis that the defendants made improper demands for an alleged de ... ficiency balance due on a mortgage debt.
OUTCOME: Circuit court confirming that bankruptcy protections are not protections that would prohibit a debtor from claiming section 222.25(4).
In this case, the debtors filed chapter 13 bankruptcy with a plan to keep their home but did not claim the Florida constitutional homestead protection and elected instead to claim the personal property ... protection of sec. 222.25(4), Fla. Stat. The trustee objected to exemption asserting that despite not claiming the homestead exemption, the debtors were still receiving its benefits due to the protections under chapter 13 and were thus barred from claiming the personal property protection. The bankruptcy court and district court agreed with the trustee on appeal. Appeal was taken to the Eleventh Circuit and the decisions were reversed with the circuit court confirming that bankruptcy protections are not protections that would prohibit a debtor from claiming section 222.25(4).
OUTCOME: Florida Second District Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and ruled that the billing statements were, in fact, attempts to collect debt by the mortgage servicer/bank.
In this case, the firm represented a homeowner who entered into a loan modification with its mortgage servicer, but the client continued to receive billing statements alleging amounts due over and abov ... e the terms of the modification. The lower court dismissed the case on the bank's motion, claiming that the billing statements could not be considered attempts to collect debt under the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. The firm appealed the decision to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, case no. 2D12-6271, which reversed the lower court's decision and ruled that the billing statements were, in fact, attempts to collect debt by the mortgage servicer/bank.
OUTCOME: Federal Court recognized that the two actions sought different kinds of relief, and the plaintiff could maintain both actions despite the fact that they arose out of the same conduct.
The firm was hired to represent Mr. Davis in the case of Davis v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., case no. 8:14-cv-198-T-24 TGW, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida for ... unfair debt collection activity. The complaint alleged that the defendant debt collector violated the FDCPA and FCCPA through certain messages left on the plaintiff's answering machine in an effort to collect debt. We also alleged that these collection efforts also happened to be made while the plaintiff was protected by the automatic stay in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Accordingly, the firm filed an adversary proceeding against the defendant for the same conduct in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, case no. 8:14-ap-00488-CED. The defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the Federal District Court case, claiming that a debtor could not seek relief under the FDCPA and FCCPA in federal court while simultaneously seeking relief under the automatic stay in bankruptcy court for the same conduct. In its decision denying the defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Federal Court recognized that the two actions sought different kinds of relief, and the plaintiff could maintain both actions despite the fact that they arose out of the same conduct.
OUTCOME: The Court ruled that the debtor did discharge such debt.
The firm represented the debtor/plaintiff in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Vincent Russo v. HD Supply Electrical, Ltd., 9:11-bk-21854-FMD. The main issue was whether a debtor's pre-petition pers ... onal guarantee of business debt survives the debtor's personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge. The Defendant, HD Supply vigorously defended their actions. In the order issued by the Bankruptcy Court on the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court ruled that the debtor did discharge such debt.
OUTCOME: Bankruptcy Court Reversed
This is a social security case where we appealed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling. The District Court stated that Social Security Income is not a component of projected disposable income and therefore sha ... ll not be used to pay unsecured creditors in a Chapter 13 Plan.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
