Bernhard Law Firm has filed three new fraud lawsuits and three new FCCPA violation lawsuits. If you have questions about fraud, banking practices, consumer purchases, unfair and deceptive business practices, or business compliance with Florida and federal law, please contact Andrew Bernhard and Bernhard Law Firm at firstname.lastname@example.org, 786-566-1969, www.bernhardlawfirm.com.
THE FRAUD CASES
The First Fraud Lawsuit – Home Construction Fraud, Abandoned Contracting
In A.M. and R.R. v. A.B., Inc., Bernhard Law Firm filed an action for fraud, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and breach of contract against a construction contracting company. As taken from the lawsuit’s pleadings:
“This is the Owners’ action for [fraud] against construction contracting company [Defendant company]. The Owners contracted with [Defendant company] in December 2013 for an expeditious gutting and reconstruction of a residence in El Portal. [Defendant company] drafted a contract providing that time was of the essence, any changes must be written and signed by all parties, and payment by 10% down, 30% at demolition, and the remainder after substantial completion of all work. All agreed and signed. In June 2014, the parties amended this contract in writing to add more work for more money. The Owners paid as required under the contract and amendment, [Defendant company] demolished the interior of the residence, but then abandoned. After the Owners’ repeated pleas for [Defendant company] to finish, in October 2014 [Defendant company] demanded an extra $21,500 to fulfill the contracts, under threat of permanent abandonment. The Owners cannot pay for [Defendant company]’s extortion, and [Defendant company] has abandoned them with an unsafe and gutted shell.”
The Second Fraud Lawsuit – Automobile Defective Design and Dealership Fraud
In C.M. v. D.L., Inc., B.M., Inc., and S.C., Inc., Bernhard Law Firm filed an action for fraud in the inducement and repair, breach of warranty of merchantability, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, against two automobile dealerships and a bank. As stated in the pleadings:
“This is [the Consumer’s] action for [fraud, product manufacturing, and business wrongs] resulting from [Auto Dealer 1’s] negligent repair of a certain dangerously defective  automobile, [Auto Dealer 2’s] fraudulent sale of this same car, and [the Bank’s] later attempts to collect on unenforceable auto financing agreements forged by [Auto Dealer 2] in [the Consumer’s] name.
In 2014, [the Consumer] attempted to purchase a merchantable  automobile, unaware that it suffered from a fatal design defect causing catastrophic engine failure while in the course of normal driving. However, [Auto Dealer 1] did know of the fatal defect and had negligently attempted to repair or replace the defect in 2013. Afterwards, [Auto Dealer 1] and [Auto Dealer 2] held the car until the express manufacturer warranties expired and sold the defective car to [the Consumer] through [Auto Dealer 2] in March 2014. Compounding the unconscionability of this deal, [Auto Dealer 2] forged a duplicative counterfeit sales contract in [the Consumer’s] name, with the forgery at a higher total price than agreed upon. [Auto Dealer 2] used this counterfeit to acquire inflated financing through [the Bank] and keep the difference.
The scheme collapsed almost immediately. In July 2014 the car’s engine seized, causing catastrophic damage. That same month, [the Bank] sent [the Consumer] documentation of the fraudulent contracts. Upon confrontation by [the Consumer], [Auto Dealer 1] and [Auto Dealer 2] ping-ponged her back and forth with excuses and finger pointing until [the Bank] repossessed the totaled vehicle, leaving [the Consumer] with a [significant] deficiency after auction and loss of her trade-in and down payment to [Auto Dealer 2]. [The Consumer] seeks to unveil this gross fraud, to clarify that any lingering contractual relationship between her and the defendants is void, and to recoup her extensive financial losses at the hands of the defendants.”
The Third Fraud Lawsuit – Auto Repair Fraud and Theft of Parts
In I.K. v. D.C.C., Inc., Bernhard Law Firm filed an action for fraud, civil theft, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, against an auto repair shop. As quoted from the pleadings:
“This is [the Consumer’s] action for breach of a car repair contract, conversion and civil theft of the vehicle’s new parts, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent repair work, stemming from [the Auto Repair Shop’s] unfinished and improper repair of [the Consumer’s] Mercedes CLS55 automobile and theft of new parts for this car. [The Consumer] seeks to unveil this fraud and recoup his losses at the hands of [the Auto Repair Shop].”
THE FCCPA CASES
The First FCCPA Lawsuit – Junk Note Traders Collect on Cancelled Loans
In J.B. v. T.M., LLC, Bernhard Law Firm filed an action for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”), against a statewide junk note trader. As quoted from the pleadings:
“[T]here exists a burgeoning black market for junked mortgages and notes that institutional lenders have deemed unenforceable and sold in unregulated bulk for deep discounts to junk mortgage scrappers. Here, an enterprising Californian has created a national distribution network () to launder junk mortgage pools from institutional lenders to local collectors, utilizing a robo-signing team deep in Missouri’s Ozark Mountains. Local junk-mortgage powerhouse [the Junk Trader Team], who has amassed a Florida web of nearly 150 shell collections companies, acquired [the Consumer]’s cancelled credit agreement from [the National Trader]. [the National Trader] acquired it in a pool of bankruptcy trash from GMAC. Now [the Junk Trader Team] has activated its shell company [the State Trader] to extort $40,000 out of [the Consumer] or the property by foreclosure.
[The Consumer] will not pay this ransom and seeks to unveil this enormous scam. Accordingly, [the Consumer] requests that the Court pierce [the Junk Trader Team]’s [State Trader] corporate veil, declare effective the patent cancellation of the credit agreement, grant damages and fees, enjoin [the Team-Trader] from continuing their fraudulent acts, and require them to record a cancellation of their fraudulent assignment documents, and any other remedy the Court deems just.”
The Second FCCPA Lawsuit – Improper Attempt to Lock Out Consumers from Home
In D.F. v. O.L.S., LLC, Bernhard Law Firm filed an action for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”), against a national loan servicer. As quoted from the pleadings:
“[The Loan Servicer] continued to attempt collection of the debt [despite its unenforceability]. To do so, [the Loan Servicer] has employed collection methods expected to abuse and harass the Family and to harm the Family’s reputation, including by posting debt notices on the Family’s home front door and threatening to illegally enter the home, change the locks, and turn off water and power. These acts violate the FCCPA..”
The Third FCCPA Lawsuit – Collection of Time-Barred Debts
In S.L. and I.L. v. B.A.N.A., Bernhard Law Firm filed an action for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (the “FCCPA”), against a national banking institution. As quoted from the pleadings:
“The facts underlying the [Consumers’] claims are straightforward: on or about February 16, 2009, [the Bank] accelerated all payments under a note (the “Note”) and security instrument (the “Mortgage”) issued by the [Consumers], converting the Note and Mortgage from an installment-payment contract capable of multiple defaults to a single-payment contract capable of only one default. Upon the February 16, 2009 acceleration and immediate default, a cause of action for breach of the Note and foreclosure of the Mortgage immediately accrued, starting a five-year limited period in which [the Bank] could file an action on the entire debt or any part thereof. On February 16, 2014, the five-year statutory limitations period expired on this entire accelerated debt, of which [the Bank] is well aware. Nevertheless, [the Bank] continued to attempt collection of the debt, violating the FCCPA and demonstrating a dispute on the parties’ rights and powers under the Note and Mortgage. Thus, the [Consumers] seek a declaratory judgment on those rights and powers (and dependent facts), and a judgment that [the Bank] violated the FCCPA.”
If you have questions about fraud, banking practices, consumer purchases, unfair and deceptive business practices, or business compliance with Florida and federal law, please contact Andrew Bernhard and Bernhard Law Firm at email@example.com, 786-566-1969, http://www.bernhardlawfirm.com.