There has been much litigation over HOA violations in the last few years. Circuit Courts have been scrutinizing HOA violation claims very carefully. Enforcement and damages for violations can be won. The December 2011 Loudon County Circuit Court case of Lee’s Crossing Homeowners’ Association v. Zinone is a good example of such enforcement. In Lee’s Crossing, the court found that in building her home, the homeowner committed multiple violations of the plan approved by the Architectural Review Board. Ultimately, the court assessed damages in favor of the homeowners’ association on the basis of “one overriding violation,” the failure to comply with the ARB-approved application.
A Blog for individuals and businesses concerned with Creditor’s Rights
Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2014
Monday, October 21, 2013
Collections: Sanctions on Improper Fair Debt Claim
In the case of Guidry v. Clare, a United States District Court in Northern Virginia granted an award of $16,000.00 in sanctions against a debtor who was a plaintiff in a Fair Debt Practices Collection Act (FDCPA). The Court held that the debtor’s case, which also included state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, was filed wholly without merit.
The Court found that the dispute arose when the debtor wrote the plaintiff, a company that provided cheerleading training, a check for $62.50 for the debtor’s daughter’s class. The check was returned for insufficient funds. The company’s office manager (Clare) contacted the debtor to make the check good. The debtor did not respond. Over the next several months the company made several other efforts to collect on the check, including a letter from the company’s attorney and from a collection agency. The company’s office manager also advised the debtor that the company would seek a warrant for the debtor’s arrest if the debt was not paid within seventy two hours. When the debtor did not respond, the company filed a criminal complaint for misdemeanor larceny by check. A few days later, a policeman served the warrant on the debtor at the same time he served a warrant from another creditor for felony larceny by check. The debtor was arrested and released on her own recognizance on both charges. She paid the face amount of the company’s check, plus a $30.00 bank service charge. As a result of this, the prosecutor withdrew the bad check charge.
A few months later the debtor filed her FDCPA action. After much litigation, the case was dismissed, without prejudice, because the case was not served within 120 days. The complaint was refiled. The company’s attorneys sought dismissal and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Court dismissed the case, scheduled a hearing on sanctions, and ordered the parties to prepare briefs. After reviewing the briefs the Court concluded that the debtor’s case was “meritless, indeed flatly frivolous”. The meritless claims included allegations that the company’s manager had failed to make a meaningful disclosure of her identity and debt collection purpose in her telephone calls to the debtor, that a debt collector was barred from filing a criminal complaint, that the company’s manager had made false representations to authorities in order to disgrace the debtor, and that the collection letters failed to disclose their debt collection purpose. The Court ruled that the letters contained the required disclosures and the purpose of the phone calls were clear. The Court further ruled that the law prohibits only the threat of criminal action if there is no intent to follow through on the threat. In this case the intent to follow through was evident from the fact that a warrant was issued, and there was no evidence that the representations to authorities were false or made with an intent to disgrace the debtor. The Court found that there was also no basis for the state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The Court wrote that “it cannot be forgotten or overlooked” that the case “was spawned by Guidry’s failure to pay a $62.50 debt, or rather by her attempt to pay it with a bad check”.
Creditors take heart - there is still some common sense in this world!
The Court found that the dispute arose when the debtor wrote the plaintiff, a company that provided cheerleading training, a check for $62.50 for the debtor’s daughter’s class. The check was returned for insufficient funds. The company’s office manager (Clare) contacted the debtor to make the check good. The debtor did not respond. Over the next several months the company made several other efforts to collect on the check, including a letter from the company’s attorney and from a collection agency. The company’s office manager also advised the debtor that the company would seek a warrant for the debtor’s arrest if the debt was not paid within seventy two hours. When the debtor did not respond, the company filed a criminal complaint for misdemeanor larceny by check. A few days later, a policeman served the warrant on the debtor at the same time he served a warrant from another creditor for felony larceny by check. The debtor was arrested and released on her own recognizance on both charges. She paid the face amount of the company’s check, plus a $30.00 bank service charge. As a result of this, the prosecutor withdrew the bad check charge.
A few months later the debtor filed her FDCPA action. After much litigation, the case was dismissed, without prejudice, because the case was not served within 120 days. The complaint was refiled. The company’s attorneys sought dismissal and sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. The Court dismissed the case, scheduled a hearing on sanctions, and ordered the parties to prepare briefs. After reviewing the briefs the Court concluded that the debtor’s case was “meritless, indeed flatly frivolous”. The meritless claims included allegations that the company’s manager had failed to make a meaningful disclosure of her identity and debt collection purpose in her telephone calls to the debtor, that a debt collector was barred from filing a criminal complaint, that the company’s manager had made false representations to authorities in order to disgrace the debtor, and that the collection letters failed to disclose their debt collection purpose. The Court ruled that the letters contained the required disclosures and the purpose of the phone calls were clear. The Court further ruled that the law prohibits only the threat of criminal action if there is no intent to follow through on the threat. In this case the intent to follow through was evident from the fact that a warrant was issued, and there was no evidence that the representations to authorities were false or made with an intent to disgrace the debtor. The Court found that there was also no basis for the state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The Court wrote that “it cannot be forgotten or overlooked” that the case “was spawned by Guidry’s failure to pay a $62.50 debt, or rather by her attempt to pay it with a bad check”.
Creditors take heart - there is still some common sense in this world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)