The Indiana Consumer Law Group was blessed in 2008 with many excellent clients, for which I am very grateful. I believe that we obtained justice for some, yet for others obtaining justice is a work in progress. I hope that 2009 will see many continued victories, but mostly I pray that, in each and every case, justice will be done.
Here’s wishing you many blessings in 2009! I want to leave you with a few of my favorite Bible verses on justice:
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you;
I received a press release the other day – why, I’m not sure – about a company offering new technology to law firms. Here is how it was described: “Technology Company Offers Voice Recognition Solution with Settlement Overtures to Reduce Operational Burden of Collection Attorneys.” Did you get that? If you’re like me, you had to read it about four times and still couldn’t grasp what they meant. I had to read on, and I’m still not sure I completely understand it, but apparently it is computerized auto-dialer and caller that makes collection calls and, get this, through the voice recognition technology, even makes payment arrangements with the alleged debtors. It “has been designed specifically for law firms that are purchasing debt or working on behalf of clients for collection purposes.”
First, did you know that some law firms are actually purchasing debt themselves? That’s right. Just like debt collectors like Asset Acceptance, LVNV and others, some law firms now buy old debt for pennies on the dollar and proceed to attempt to collect on it. Being a law firm, it’s easy for them to sue people since they don’t have to hire an attorney. And they get to keep every penny they collect. What keeps them in check? Supposedly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but that only works if people know their rights and do something about it when they are violated. Also, law firms have to worry about their lawyers’ law licenses, which can be revoked for unethical conduct.
I think it just kind of looks bad to judges when a law firm is suing someone on a debt they bought. I’ve often wondered how often these firms sue under the name of the original creditor (not very often, I hope) or some kind of holding company they use to buy the debt (all the time, I imagine).
Almost every new car has a couple of kinks that need to be fixed, but after you have a few miles on your new vehicle, you expect it to run like a charm – and it should. But what can you do when your new ride has a serious defect and the dealer can’t (or won’t) fix it? Under Indiana lemon law, you do have rights. Sergei Lemberg, an attorney specializing in lemon law, offers an overview of our lemon law, and tips to preserve your Indiana lemon law rights.
Q: What vehicles are covered under the lemon law in Indiana?
Sergei: Indiana’s lemon law covers new passenger vehicles, SUVs, vans, and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. It also covers used vehicles that are sold during the new car warranty period.
Indiana radio station WIBC FM 93.1 is focusing on identity theft this week on their Morning News Program. I was interviewed this morning for the program and had a great time speaking with Terri and Jake about my experiences assisting victims of identity theft. I appreciate them taking the time to highlight this issue. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to express my opinion that the identity theft victims I come into contact with have trouble recovering from this crime primarily because the credit reporting agencies do not take the dispute process seriously. They don’t take it seriously because the dispute process doesn’t make them money. But I guess that’s for another day…
National Consumer Protection Week is March 2-8, 2008. In honor of this highly publicized week (not), I am going to write today about the importance of being proactive rather than reactive.
Whether the issue is a lawsuit by a debt collector, fraud perpetrated by an auto dealer, credit report errors or any one of a number of other issues, I speak with Indiana consumers all the time who put off addressing the issue for far too long. I’m sure there are many reasons for this. One of the primary ones, I believe, is a feeling of helplessness. But KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and it’s NEVER TOO LATE TO BECOME PROACTIVE. Some knowledge costs money, and I understand that, but there is a lot of knowledge out there on the internet on so many consumer issues that is totally free.
For instance, I give free initial consultations. I’m guessing, but I bet only 10-15% of the consumers I speak with become clients. Some I can’t help, some I can help with some simple advice, some choose not to hire me and some I can help and they become a client. The point is that if you look hard enough for information, free information, it can be found. Now I know I am really preaching to the choir here, because if you are reading this blog entry chances are you are looking for information on the web on a consumer issue and are being proactive. But we all need to be reminded of how critical it is to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, including myself!
Within the last week, the Associated Press reported that a lady who won a car on the game show “The Price is Right” had filed a lawsuit against the game show, CBS Broadcasting and the dealer who sold her the car. Back in 2004, she won a new 2004 Pontiac GTO Coupe while appearing on the show. She had the car for approximately a year when she took it in for service and learned that it had been wrecked and repaired before it was delivered to her as a “new” car.
This lawsuit has garnered publicity simply because of the connection with “The Price is Right.” Before I became a consumer lawyer, I would have read this article and thought what a freaky set of circumstances this was. A car dealer took a car that they knew had been wrecked, repaired it and passed it off to this contest winner, ripping her off for potentially thousands of dollars. Then the contest winner somehow finds out about it and sues. Wow. Sadly, these are not freaky circumstances. It happens every day all over the United States, and as I say that I don’t believe I’m exaggerating.
You see, before I became a consumer lawyer I didn’t realize how much money is involved in buying and selling cars in the U.S. Or how competitive the market is. Or how greedy dealers can be. Or how people who work in the industry, for whatever reason, get to a place where misleading consumers and taking advantage of them isn’t seen as wrong but as a legitimate way to do business.
I just read a letter to the editor of a Henderson County, North Carolina newspaper on the dangers of arbitration agreements. Having seen the impact of mandatory arbitration agreements, I couldn’t agree more with the writer’s comments. Here is a reprint of the letter in its entirety:
Published Friday, September 28, 2007
Protect your right to go to court
Indiana’s new security freeze law goes into effect September 1, 2007. Here’s what the Indiana Attorney General’s Office says about the new law:
What is a security freeze?
A ‘security freeze’ is a new consumer right provided by Indiana law. Placing a security freeze on your credit reports can block an identity thief from opening a new account or obtaining credit in your name. A security freeze, also known as a credit freeze or a file freeze, keeps new creditors from accessing your credit report without your say so. If you activate a security freeze, an identity thief cannot take out new credit in your name, even if the thief has your Social Security number or other personal information, because creditors cannot access your credit report.
A couple of months ago, the United States Supreme Court issued what will no doubt become a landmark opinion in the FCRA litigation arena. That case, Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, clarified for all the courts in the land, including the Seventh Circuit (that had wrongly imposed a higher standard), that punitive damages may be awarded under the FCRA for the reckless disregard of a statutorily-imposed standard of conduct. Many courts had previously said that only intentional or knowing conduct would suffice.
What does this mean? Well, it’s HUGE! Quite simply, it means that punitive damages will be much, much easier for consumers to obtain under the FCRA. It means that FCRA defendants will have a much more difficult time obtaining summary judgment on punitive damages claims. It means the value of many FCRA lawsuits just went up astronomically, because now consumers can get these claims before a jury. And when that happens, look out! I think we’ll see a slew of large punitive damage verdicts in the next year.
Hopefully, this will make both the furnishers and credit reporting agencies care a little bit more about maintaining standards designed to ensure accurate credit reporting.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Heather Gillespie and Angela Cinson v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C. on May 3, 2007. The case contains some language of which every FCRA/Consumer lawyer in the United States should be aware.
Plaintiffs in this case claimed that Equifax’s consumer disclosure was not clear and accurate as required by sec. 1681g(a)(1) of the FCRA because the disclosure does not allow a consumer to determine whether Equifax is properly calculating when a debt must be removed from a consumer’s credit report as required by sec. 1681c(a)(4) (seven years for most adverse accounts). The court agreed, finding that the disclosure was accurate but not clear:
We conclude that the consumer reporting agency must do more than simply make an accurate disclosure of the information in the consumer’s credit file. The disclosure must be made in a manner sufficient to allow the consumer to compare the disclosed information from the credit file against the consumer’s personal information in order to allow the consumer to determine the accuracy of the information set forth in her credit file. In writing sec. 1681g(a)(1), Congress requires disclosure that is both “clearly and accurately” made. An accurate disclosure of unclear information defeats the consumer’s ability to review the credit file, eliminating a consumer protection procedure established by Congress under the FCRA.
