Tuesday, April 27, 2010

JUDGE MCMAHON TROUNCES HIGH VOLUME DEBT COLLECTOR, FOSTER & GARBUS, IN RICHMOND COUNTY SUIT

In Citibank, N.A., v. HS Index No. 101954/2009, Supreme Court Justice Judith McMahon dismissed a suit which purportedly sought to enforce a note against Defendant in the amount of $495,000.00 Dollars. But there’s a little problem—no such note exists. In his motion to dismiss Robert Brown, Esq., the attorney for the Defendant pointed out that the Citibank, N.A., was attempting to enforce an instrument that the Defendant never actually executed. In this case, the Defendant executed a home-equity line of credit which is not memorialized by a note, as for instance in a traditional home mortgage, since the principal loan amount of a line of credit fluctuates in a manner similar to a credit card.

Even more disturbing is the apparently false affidavit of service submitted by Citibank’s counsel, Foster & Garbus, Esqs., of Farmingdale, New York. An affidavit of service is evidence that defendants received sufficient notice for a law suit to proceed. Without proper service, defendants, more often than not, find out that a lawsuit had been commenced only after a judgment is entered against them.

Foster & Garbus is one of the largest debt collecting law firms in New York State and is alleged to have abused serving process in a lawsuit instituted by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for “Sewer Service.” The affidavit of service proffered by Foster & Garbus is this case is yet another example of such abuse.

Attorney General Cuomo has made an example of Forster & Garbus in order to put all law firms engaged in high-volume debt collections (also know as “foreclosure mills”) on notice that they are responsible for the conduct of the companies they use to serve complaints and other legal documents. Law firms cannot turn a blind-eye to the abuses perpetrated on their behalf. The Attorney General’s Office has made two press releases on this matter, dated April 14, 2009 and July 22, 2009 where Cuomo notes that Forster & Garbus LLP “relied on legal papers… that it knew or should have known were false.”

“Sewer service” is the term used when the process server states in an affidavit that he served the defendant when he did not. When a defendant fails to respond to a law suit, as is so often the case in collection matters, the plaintiff wins by default. Armed with a default judgment, a creditor can garnish the defendant’s wages or bank account.

Sewer service is worse today than ever before. In 1986, 48,000 default judgments due to sewer service were entered annually in New York City. Today, 300,000 debt collection suits are filed annually in New York City of which more than 80% result in default. The majority involve debt collectors who pay process servers as little as $5 per service which leads to sewer service.

Because sewer service undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system while preventing defendants from raising legitimate defenses, it is of great concern to judges, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), public interest lawyers and the media. Indeed, Administrative Judge Fern A. Fisher of the Civil Court of the City of New York laments that “many defendants” are not receiving notice from process servers.

When a process server actually attempts service in accordance with the law, he is able to personally serve the defendant about 40% of the time. This finding was made by the undercover detective who worked as a process server in 1986. When one examines affidavits of service involving debt collectors, personal service is rarely made. Indeed, South Brooklyn Legal Services examined 324 affidavits of service related to eight process serving agencies and found a highly suspect personal service rate of 2.73%.

Acknowledging these defects among others, Justice McMahon dismissed the lawsuit brought by Foster & Garbus against the Defendant herein. This is the second time Justice McMahon has thrown out such a case by Foster & Garbus—see Citimortgage, Inc., v. Maria Gil, Index No. 100830/2009. Maria Gil was also represented by foreclosure defense attorney, Robert E. Brown, Esq.

Justice Judith McMahon is an Acting Supreme Court Justice presiding in Richmond County Supreme Court since January 2006. Justice McMahon has a predominately civil caseload but also sits in Criminal Court on weekends in the arraignment part. Previously, she had been elected in November 2002 to New York City Civil Court and was also a court attorney to Justice John Leone and Justice Eric Vitaliano. Prior to working in the court system, she was a trial lawyer involved in complex tort litigation for the law firm of Julian and Schlesinger. She had attended Rutgers College of Pharmacy and practiced pharmacy for five years before attending New York Law School.

8 comments:

  1. These guys are crap. I had a friend who was litigating against when they were representing ctimortgage. The problem is that the person who allegedly was an employee of citimortgage April Hodges was not an employee of citimortgage she was an LPS employee.

    See Citimortgage vs Veronica Fowler 5936/2010 Kings County Supreme

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hi anonymous,

      Is there a way to get a documented evidence that Ms. Hodges is not an employee of citimortgage? I checked the website of the court. The case is still going on. So, there is no judgement to refer to. Is there a way to get a copy of the evidence, submitted to the court. Ms. Fowler appears in my case too

      Delete
  2. I worked for this collection firm. I was fired because I refused to adhere to their sewer policies. Make them take you to court and make sure you show up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. All of the reps use pseudonym names. I believe that as per the FDCPA, the animals that call you are suppose to ID themselves by their real names. They sign agreements prior to working there that they were properly trained to act in accordance with the FDCPA. They need to be shut down!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The F&G supervisors make decisions based on their quotas....look to settle at the end of the month when the supervisors are trying to "make their number". Second thought; refer to my first posting and DON'T PAY THEM! MAKE THEM TAKE YOU TO COURT! AND SHOW UP!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. One thing I've noticed is that there are plenty of beliefs regarding the lenders intentions if talking about property foreclosures. One fairy tale in particular is always that the bank wishes to have your house. The bank wants your hard earned dollars, not the home. They want the amount of money they lent you having interest. Averting the bank will still only draw some sort of foreclosed conclusion. Thanks for your post.

    Regards,
    Dee
    For Sale For Lease Pty Ltd
    A Property management Malvern For Sale For Lease Proprietary Limited
    Prahran, Victoria 3181
    Australia

    ReplyDelete
  6. I went to settlebankdebt and settled student loan with them for less than 35 cents on the dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing blog that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. debt collectors

    ReplyDelete