|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
![]() |
Minnesota Sues Law Firm Over Debt Collection Meethods |
|||||
|
January 3, 2005
"This firm specializes in obtaining default judgments, often against the poor, sick, and disabled," said Tim Thompson, Litigation Director at Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance. "That's not illegal. But what is illegal is adding to the misery by piling their own attorney fees on to these judgments without following Minnesota law. They even bill for time they haven't spent on the case." "It is wrong for collection attorneys to use their knowledge of the system to make unlawful gains," said Attorney General Mike Hatch. "Garnishing wages such as Social Security, veterans' benefits, or other exempted incomes, when the law states otherwise, is inappropriate and in bad faith." Unearned Attorneys' FeesBoth lawsuits allege that M&K improperly adds unearned, or "future," attorneys' fees to the debts owed by consumers when M&K obtains default judgments, adding hundreds or thousands of dollars to the amount of the bill. They also claim that M&K files boilerplate affidavits in Minnesota district courts seeking attorneys' fees for work that has not yet been performed. M&K's boilerplate affidavits request 15% of the principal balance (up to $3,000), which includes attorneys' fees that it estimates it will incur in the future. According to the lawsuits, M&K's practices violate Minnesota law, which outlines the requirements to obtain an award of attorneys' fees in connection with a default judgment. Minnesota statutes do not include awards for unearned or "future" work. Garnishments Against the Economically VulnerableThe Attorney General's lawsuit also alleges that M&K's collection attorneys have garnished in bad faith accounts of vulnerable consumers who live on limited or fixed incomes. Under Minnesota law, creditors can collect debts by garnishing debtors' bank accounts. Minnesota law, however, provides that certain earnings are exempt from garnishment, including income from Social Security, veterans' benefits, disability, or other protected sources. M&K's collection attorneys attach bank accounts, garnishing exempted funds, thereby shifting the burden to the consumer to file a notice of exemption claiming that the funds are exempt from garnishment. The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges that M&K used the garnishment process in bad faith. Among other things, instead of releasing levies where appropriate, the lawsuit alleges that M&K's collection attorneys objected to consumers' exemption claims, often without a good faith basis for doing so, thereby forcing consumers to file court documents to prove that the funds are exempt. The lawsuit alleges that, in some cases where consumers requested a hearing to determine the validity of an exemption, M&K's attorneys either failed to show up, conceded the case at the hearing, or a court found that the funds were, in fact, exempt from garnishment. Consumers in such cases lost access to their money for weeks because their accounts were frozen by M&K's initial levy. The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges that, in some instances, M&K garnished consumers' income even after the consumer had shown a valid exemption from garnishment. This is not the first time M&K's collection attorneys have been involved in disputes over aggressive debt collection tactics. For instance, a collections case filed in Anoka County District Court by M&K was dismissed when the judge found that the default judgment was "entered in error and as a result of the false statements contained in the affidavit of plaintiff's attorney (M&K)." Last month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted the "gravity" of actions by an M&K collection attorney who falsely told the court that a Minnesota consumer had never denied that he owed a debt to the credit card company represented by M&K. Report Your Experience
|
|||||
Back to the top | |
||||||
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|