Recent Developments in the Law Regarding Debt Consolidation
Services
Consumers looking to debt consolidation services as a way to
avoid filing bankruptcy need to consider some of the
"hidden" dangers inherent in such services before making
the decision to consolidate debt. Three recent judicial decisions
in California, Washington and Connecticut illustrate some of these
concerns.
In Simmons v. Daly, Murphy & Sinnot Law Center, 2003 WL
21267184 (Conn. Super. May 15, 2003), plaintiff Simmons sued the
defendant debt consolidation service she had retained to reduce
her overall debt. Simmons had seen a television advertisement for
the debt consolidation service offered by the Law Center, and
called the telephone number shown. The Law Center assured Simmons
that it would negotiate a settlement with her creditors, whereby
those creditors would accept an amount less than their claims
against her. The Law Center stated that as its fee for its
services it would charge Simmons nearly a third of the amount by
which it was able to reduce her creditors' claims. The contract
Simmons signed with the Law Center authorized electronic transfers
directly from her checking account to the Law Center. In a period
of approximately five months, the Law Center received over $2,300
from Simmons' account. Then, in April 2001, Simmons was sued by
one of her creditors. She realized she would have to file
bankruptcy, and did so. The attorney Simmons hired to file her
bankruptcy petition attempted to gain an accounting from the Law
Center of the services they had performed for Simmons, but no
accounting was ever provided. In fact, the court noted that there
was no evidence that the Law Center had ever even contacted
Simmons' creditors in an effort to negotiate reduced claims. The
court held that the Law Center had engaged in deceptive acts or
practices in violation of Connecticut's consumer fraud statute,
and awarded damages to Simmons.
In two other recent decisions, Acorn v. Household International,
Inc., 211 F.Supp.2d 1160 (N.D. Ca. 2002) and Luna v. Household
Finance Corp. III, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (W.D. Wash. 2002), courts
held that certain terms of agreements signed by consumers who
consolidated their debt into home loans were unconscionable and
therefore unenforceable. In Acorn, plaintiffs -- a community
organization of low and moderate-income families and individual
customers of the bank -- sued the bank for fraud, deceit,
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. They alleged
that the defendant bank engaged in predatory lending practices by
targeting homeowners struggling with credit card debt, tricking
them into consolidating their debt into high cost loans secured
against their homes, and trapped them into their loans by "upselling"
the loans to amounts so high in relation to the value of the
customers' homes that they could not refinance with any of the
bank's competitors. In Luna, plaintiffs alleged that the bank
misled them into entering loans with interest rates higher than
those initially promised, and sued the bank for violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Real Estate Settlement
Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Homeowners Equity
Protection Act, as well as common law fraud and emotional
distress. In both Acorn and Luna, the bank moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims on the basis of an arbitration provision
contained in plaintiffs' loan agreement. Relying on that
arbitration provision, the banks claimed that plaintiffs were
prevented from suing in court. Both the California and Washington
District courts ruled that the arbitration provision was
fundamentally unfair to the consumers, and therefore
unconscionable and unenforceable.
Luna, Acorn and Simmons all demonstrate some of the harms that can
befall unwary consumers looking to consolidate their debts.
THIS CONTENT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS IN NO
WAY GIVING ANY LEGAL ADVICE OR REPRESENTATION. THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED HEREIN WAS COMPILED FROM VARIOUS ARTICLES. FOR ANY LEGAL
ADVICE OR REPRESENTATION SEEK YOUR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL.
|