debt deception: how debt buyers abuse the legal system to prey on lower-income new yorkers (2010)

8/2/2019 Debt Deception: How Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to Prey on Lower-Income New Yorkers (2010)

1/36

Debt DeceptionHow Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to Preyon Lower-Income New Yorkers

May 2010


2/36


3/36

Debt DeceptionHow Debt Buyers Abuse the Legal System to Prey

on Lower-Income New Yorkers

May 2010

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY

NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVOCACY PROJECT

MFY LEGAL SERVICES

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT


4/36

i Dept Deception: HOw DEBT BUYERS ABUSE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO PREY ON LOwER-INCOME NEw YORkERS

Acknowledgments

Tis report was produced by a team o organizations that provide legal services to lowerincome New Yorkers.Claudia Wilner, Senior Sta Attorney at the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP),cowrote and coedited the report with Nasoan ShetelGomes, Sta Attorney at the Urban Justice Center, whoalsomanaged the research team. Brian Paul, a ormer intern with the Urban Justice Center, conducted extensive

research and data analysis and contributed to initial drats. Alexis Iwanisziw, Program Associate with NEDAP,provided extensive statistical analysis and created maps or the report. Carolyn Coey, Senior Attorney at MFYLegal Services, April Newbauer, AttorneyinCharge o the Civil Practice Queens Neighborhood Oce o TeLegal Aid Society, and ashi Lhewa, Sta Attorney at Te Legal Aid Society, researched, wrote, and edited sectionso the report.

Te team would like to thank the ollowing court personnel, without whom the report could not have been written:Justice Fern Fisher, Deputy Chie Administrative Judge; Ernesto Belzaguy and Carol Alt, ormer and current FirstDeputy Chie Clerk, NYC Civil Court, respectively; Assistant Deputy Chie Clerks, Mike Boyle (Civil Court, New

York County); Monica Dingle (Civil Court, Queens County); Lorraine Kenny (Civil Court, Richmond County);Ron Romano, (Civil Court, Kings County); and Eddy Valdez (Civil Court, Bronx County). Te authors wouldalso like to thank the ollowing colleagues or their invaluable assistance, recommendations, and support: Harvey

Epstein, Project Director o the Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center; Dora Galacatos,Senior Counsel to the Feerick Center or Social Justice at Fordham Law School; Sarah Ludwig and Josh Zinner,CoDirectors o NEDAP; Robert A. Martin, Associate Director, DC 37 Municipal Employees Legal Services; LoriMcNeil, Director o Research and Policy or the Homelessness Outreach and Prevention Project at Urban JusticeCenter; and Matthew Schedler, Sta Attorney at CAMBA Legal Services.

Last but not least, the authors would like to recognize our clients lowincome and working poor New Yorkers whohave borne the brunt o predatory debt collection practices.


5/36

iiDept Deception

ABoUt tHe oRgAnIZAtIons

he LegaL aid Sociey the nations oldest and largest notorprot legal services organization is morethan a law rm or the poor. It is an indispensable component o the legal, social, and economic abric o New

York City passionately advocating or lowincome individuals and amilies across a variety o civil, criminal andjuvenile rights matters, while also ghting or legal reorm. Te Legal Aid Society has perormed this role in City,

State and ederal courts since 1876. It does so by capitalizing on the diverse expertise, experience, and capabilities o850 o the brightest legal minds. Tese 850 Legal Aid Society lawyers work with 600 social workers, investigators,paralegals and support and administrative sta. Trough a network o borough, neighborhood, and courthouseoces in 25 locations in New York City, the Society provides comprehensive legal services in all ve boroughs oNew York City or clients who cannot aord to pay or private counsel. Te Societys legal program operates threemajor practices Civil, Criminal and Juvenile Rights and receives volunteer help rom law rms, corporate lawdepartments and expert consultants that is coordinated by the Societys Pro Bono program. Annually, the Societyhandles more than 300,000 cases and legal matters or clients with civil, criminal, and juvenile rights problems. TeLegal Aid Society takes on more cases or more clients than any other legal services organization in the United Statesand it brings a depth and breadth o perspective that is unmatched in the legal proession.

MFy LegaL ServiceS, inc. MFy was ounded on the principle o equal access to justice through

communitybased legal representation o poor New Yorkers. Working in concert with neighborhood social serviceproviders and community advocates, MFY provides advice and representation to over 8,500 New Yorkers each yearand initiates armative litigation that impacts many thousands o people. Trough its Consumer Rights Project,MFY provides advice and representation to consumers who are harassed by debt collectors, sued in New York courts,and aected in various ways by consumer issues. Our client population is comprised o poor and lowwage workers,persons with mental and physical disabilities, and senior citizens. MFY represented Robert Druce in CenturionCapital Corp. v. Druce, 14 Misc. 3d 564, 828 N.Y.S.2d 851 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cty 2006), the rst New York decision toclariy that debt buyers are considered debt collectors or purposes o Department o Consumer Aairs licensingunder New York City Administrative Code 20-489.

neighborhood econoMic deveLopMen advocacy projec (nedap) works topromote community economic justice and to eliminate discriminatory economic practices that harm communities

and perpetuate inequality and poverty. Trough coalition organizing, advocacy, community education, legal servicesand other strategies, NEDAP promotes air lending and nancial justice in New Yorks low income neighborhoodsand communities o color. Trough its Consumer Law Project, NEDAP provides direct legal services to thousandso lowincome New Yorkers each year, builds the capacity o legal services and communitybased organizations toaddress consumer nancial justice issues, and advocates or systemic reorm.

Urban jUSice cener, coMMUniy deveLopMen projec (Ujc) is a nonprotorganization thatserves New York Citys most vulnerable residents through a combination o directree legal service,systemic advocacy, community education and political organizing.UJC sta represent almost 9,000 lowincomeand working poor New Yorkers every year. UJCs Community Development Project was ormed in September 2001to provideree legal, technical, research and policy assistance to grassroots community groupsengaged in a widerange o community development eorts throughout New YorkCity, including consumer debt work. Since 2005,

UJC has represented allegeddebtors in consumer credit, cell phone and medical debt cases in the New York CityCivil Court. UJC has also represented victims o consumer raud and unair debtcollection practices in armativelitigation in State and Federal court.


6/36

iii Dept Deception: HOw DEBT BUYERS ABUSE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO PREY ON LOwER-INCOME NEw YORkERS

tABle of contents

exut Summ 1

Key Findings 1

Key Recommendations 2i. T dt bu busss Ml 3

Emergence o the Debt Buying Industry 3

Debt Buyers Corporate Structures 4

What Debt Buyers Purchase 5

Debt Buyer Collection Methods 5

ii. dt bu Lwsuts 6

Sewer Service 6

Lack o Proo 6

Lack o Legal Representation 7

iii. T Stu: T S imt dt buLwsuts nw yk ct 8

Case Outcomes Overwhelmingly Favor Debt Buyers 8

Impact on New York City Neighborhoods 10

Te Positive Impact o Licensing and Regulation 13

Unrepresented Deendants, Improvident Settlements 13

Pattern and Practice o Improper Debt Collection Among Law Firms 15

iv. rmmts: b Fss justt dt cllt nw yk 16

appendiceS

Appendix A: Methodology 18

Appendix B: List o Debt Buyers Included in Court Sample 19

Appendix C: Summary o Court Statistics 20

ets 21


7/36

1Dept Deception

execUtIve sUmmARy

In recent years, legal services oces have been deluged by requests or help rom thousands o New Yorkers who haveound themselves ghting extraordinary debt collection abuse. Tis abuse comes in the orm o rivolous lawsuitsled by debt buyers a relatively new and astgrowing segment o the debt collection industry. Debt buyers otenail to notiy people o the lawsuits led against them and le lawsuits without having proo o their claims. Te

people sued requently very lowincome, elderly, or disabled individuals cannot eectively deend themselves.Tey have no legal representation, are intimidated by the court process, lack knowledge o their legal deenses, acelanguage barriers, or do not receive notice o the lawsuits. For these reasons, despite oering no proo o their claims,debt buyers routinely win court judgments against hundreds o thousands o New Yorkers each year. Te cumulativeimpact o these judgments is enormous: Between January 2006 and July 2008, the top 26 debt buyers extractedmore than $1 billion in judgments against New York City residents.

Debt buyer lawsuits are overwhelmingly concentrated in New Yorks lowestincome communities and communitieso color, with devastating results. Armed with deault judgments, debt buyers can seize peoples assets, reeze theirbank accounts, or garnish their wages to collect the debts. Judgments also appear on credit reports, preventingpeople rom being able to secure housing, obtain credit, and even nd employment. Judgments are enorceable or20 years, and even longer in some cases.

In this report, we examine lawsuits led by debt buyers and their proound impact on low and moderateincomeNew Yorkers, lowerincome communities, and communities o color. We begin, in Part I, with background on thedebt buying industry, including an analysis o the debt buyer business model and collection methods. Part II ocuseson debt buyer lawsuits, particularly the systemic problems at the root o these lawsuits. In Part III, we highlightspecic ndings rom a study o debt buyer lawsuits in New York City. We draw results rom two data sets: (1) a365case sample o lawsuits brought by the 26 debt buyers who led the greatest number o cases in New York Citybetween January 2006 and July 2008 (Court Sample); and (2) a 451case sample o callers to NEDAPs legalhotline who were sued by a creditor or debt buyer in 2008 (Client Sample). Finally, in Part IV, we recommendpolicy and legislative reorms to address the problems documented in this report.

Key Findings

Te 26 debt buyers examined in this study led 457,322lawsuits in the New York City Civil Court rom January2006 through July 2008 and were awarded an estimated $1.1 billion in judgments and settlements.1 Our keyndings, based on our analysis o the Court Sample, are:

Debt buyers prevailed in more than nine out o ten lawsuits (94.3%), usually by obtaining deaultjudgments automatic judgments entered in avor o the debt buyer because the person sued did notappear in court.

Virtually all (95%) o people with deault judgments entered against them by debt buyers resided in low-or moderate-income neighborhoods, and more than hal (56%) lived in predominantly black or Latinoneighborhoods.

Not a single person sued in the Court Sample was represented by an attorney. Overall, only 1% o peoplesued by debt buyers in New York City are represented by counsel.

Only 10% o people sued answered the summons and complaint.

41% o cases were brought by debt buyers who remained unlicensed with the New York City Departmento Consumer Aairs (DCA) until legally compelled to obtain a license in July 2009. Cases led by thesedebt buyers had a deault judgment rate o 86.7%, ar higher than the rate o 72.6% among debt buyerswho were licensed during the period o the study.


8/36

2 Dept Deception: HOw DEBT BUYERS ABUSE THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO PREY ON LOwER-INCOME NEw YORkERS

In nearly two-thirds o cases (64.1%), the debt buyers were represented by one o ve law rms knownor their high volume o debt collection cases: Cohen & Slamowitz, Forster & Garbus, Mel S. Harris andAssociates, Mullooly, Jerey, Rooney & Flynn, and Rubin & Rothman.

Nearly hal o cases (47.7%) involved service by one o our process serving agencies: AAA AttorneyService, Accu-Serve, Capital Process Servers, and Samserv.

Our key ndings, based on our analysis o the Client Sample, are:

69% o people sued by debt buyers were black or Latino.

35% o cases brought by debt buyers were clearly meritless, and 66% o these clearly meritless cases werebrought against black or Latino clients.

At least 71% o people sued were either not served or served improperly.

Key Recommendations

Immediate legislative and regulatory action is needed to end abusive debt collection lawsuits. Here are our keyrecommendations:

pt t us m fl lwsuts wtut .

Debt buyers routinely le rivolous lawsuits against lowincome New Yorkers even though they have noevidence to prove the debts are owed. Te New York State legislature should crack down on this unair practiceby enacting the Consumer Credit Fairness Act (CCFA), which would raise the bar on what inormationdebt buyers have to submit to the court when ling lawsuits and applying or deault judgments.

assl ult mt ss ss.Many people never receive notice o debt buyer lawsuits because process servers routinely engage in sewerservice ailing to serve court papers and ling alse adavits o service with the courts. Te New YorkCity Council recently passed groundbreaking legislation intended to curb this unlawul practice. Te New

York City Department o Consumer Aairs (DCA) should implement strong regulations to carry out thenew law and make enorcement o the new law an agency priority.

ex mt mt t st t llts.

Te New York State Attorney General and the New York City DCA should continue to take aggressiveaction against the debt collection industry and use the ndings o this report to initiate new investigations.Te Federal rade Commission (FC) should continue to make debt collection an agency priority, withspecic ocus on the debt buying industry.

esu ul w ult umts sttlmts.Court clerks, rather than judges, routinely grant deault judgments to debt buyers despite glaring legaldeciencies in their applications. Many people sued are pressured into unair and unaordable settlementsthat leave them in a worse position than i they had ignored the lawsuits. o ensure undamental airness,additional resources need to be provided to the courts so that judges can review deault judgment applicationsand settlement agreements.

is ll stt sus l su t us.

Overall, only 1% o people sued by debt buyers in New York City are represented by counsel. Te abusivepractices described in this report have fourished because o the gross imbalance o power between representeddebt buyers and unrepresented New Yorkers. New York City and State should correct this imbalance bysupporting increased legal representation and resources or lowincome people sued by debt buyers.


9/36

3Dept Deception

I. tHe deBt BUyeR BUsIness model

Debt buyers purchase deaulted debt including credit card debt, car loans, student loans, cell phone bills, medicalbills, and health club bills or pennies on the dollar.2 Tey purchase these debts in portolios, rom originalcreditors or rom other debt buyers and debt brokers.3 Debt buyers then attempt to collect the debts using a varietyo methods, ranging rom telephone calls to lawsuits.4 I a debt buyer is unsuccessul in its collection eorts, it oten

resells the debt portolio to yet another debt buyer, which in turn resells the portolio i it too is unable to collect.5

Emergence of the Debt Buying Industry

Te sale and trading o chargedo6 debt portolios has its origin in the 1987 savings and loan crisis.7 In the atermatho the crisis, Congress created the Resolution rust Corporation (RC) to close insolvent thrits, return insureddeposits and sell any remaining assets to the private sector.8 In the early 1990s, the RC auctioned o $458.5 billionin ailed thrit assets.9 A handul o debt buying companies began purchasing, collecting and proting rom theselowcost debt portolios.10 Ater the RC sold all o the ailed thrit assets, these debt buying companies ound newbusiness opportunities by shiting their ocus to buying and collecting chargedo consumer debts.11

Te emergence o the debt buying industry coincided with an explosion over the last two decades in the availability

and use o consumer credit. Between 1990 and 2005, or example, the amount o outstanding credit card debt inthe United States grew rom $237 billion to more than $802 billion an increase o 238%. 12 During this timeliving expenses rose while real wages declined.13 Many lowincome and working poor amilies came to rely on creditcards to pay or essential expenses when their salaries ailed to cover their basic needs.14 Worse, many borrowers wereentrapped by subprime credit cards credit cards with low credit limits but exorbitant interest rates and ees, otenmarketed to lowerincome individuals who had limited access to mainstream nancial services.15 Subprime creditcards eventually accounted or more than a quarter o the credit card market.16 As debt loads became unmanageable,credit card chargeos escalated,17 creating a ertile market or the debt buying industry.

By 2005, debt buyers in the United States were purchasing more than $110 billion in ace value o debt each year.18Chargedo credit card debt accounted or roughly 91% o this gure.19 Debt buyers also enjoyed explosive revenuegrowth rom 2001 to 2006, with net income at our major rms increasing more than 700% during this period.20


10/36


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

200

400

600

800

1000

100

300

500

700

900

Revolving Consumer Credit (in billions)Debt Purchased (in billions, calculated)*Debt Purchased (in billions, actual)

20082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995

Growth of the Debt Buying Industry and Revolving Consumer Credit

12

524556

598

627

702 736

769792

824

850902

970994

465

16 2026

34

5562

6875 77

110

138

172

215

Growth of the Debt Buying Industry and Revolving Consumer Credit

*Debt buyer purchases not available for all years. Dollar value of debt buyer purchases for the years 1996-1999, 2001-2002,

and 2006-2008 were estimated using a combination of published data and industry growth rates. Debt Buyer Sources: Credit

and Collections World, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and Washington Post. Revolving Consumer Credit Source: Federal

Reserve Board, Release G19.

Debt Buyers Corporate Structures

Debt buyers organize their businesses using a variety o corporate structures, but their business practices are similaracross these structures and are consistently problematic or consumers.

Four publicly tradeddebt buyers actively purchase and collect portolios o debt: Asset Acceptance Capital Corp.,Asta Funding, Encore Capital Group, and Portolio Recovery Associates. Tese companies collect debts or others,purchase and collect their own debt portolios, and resell packaged debt portolios to smaller regional debt buyers.21Tey raise money to nance their purchases by issuing stock and by using credit lines rom banks,22 which are otenalso major credit card issuers.23 Because publicly traded debt buyers have annual reporting requirements, more isknown about their business models than about other types o debt buyers.

Tere are as many as 500 privately owned debt buyers in the United States.24 Little is known about how they nancetheir operations, though like publicly traded debt buyers, they most likely rely on private investors, commercialloans, and lines o credit. Some privately owned debt buyers have been purchased in whole or in part by privateequity rms, hedge unds or other nancial services companies that provide nancial backing or the debt buyersactivities. For example, private equity rms and other nancial services companies have purchased stakes in debtbuyers like Collect America (the parent o debt buyers CACH and CACV),25 Sherman Financial Group (the parent

o debt buyer LVNV Funding),26 and Arrow Financial Services (a Sallie Mae company),27 as well as public debtbuying rms such as Encore Capital Management.28

Some debt buyers are actually owned by the principals o debt collection law rms.29 Tese companies typicallypurchase smaller, regionally specic debt portolios rom the large debt buyers and resellers. 30 Examples rom theCourt Sample include the ollowing law rms and related debt buying LLCs: Mel S. Harris and Associates (Pinpointechnologies); Cohen & Slamowitz (Gemini Asset Recoveries and Metro Portolios); Eltman Eltman & Cooper(Erin Capital Management); and Mullooly, Jerey, Rooney & Flynn (NY Financial Services).


11/36

5Dept Deception

Major banks are a nancial lie orce o the debt buying industry. Tey oer credit on unaordable terms toconsumers, sell the resulting debts to debt buyers, and nance the debt buyers purchases with commercial lines ocredit. For example, Bank o America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank, three o the ve largest credit card issuersin the United States,31 provide a signicant amount o nancing to Encore Capital Group, one o the largest debtbuyers by revenue.32 Encore currently enjoys a revolving loan commitment o $327.5 million rom 11 banks; Banko America and JPMorgan Chase nance nearly one third o that revolving loan commitment, with credit lines o$50 million each, while Citibank provides $25 million.33

What Debt Buyers Purchase

When debt buyers purchase debts, they become legal owners o those debts, but obtain very little inormation aboutthem.34 Debt buyers usually receive an electronic le that includes only a persons name and social security number,last known address, the amount allegedly owed, the chargeo date, and the date and amount o the last payment.35Te portolio does not include documentation o the debt, such as the governing contracts and account statements.36Tis inormation is insucient to ensure that the debt buyers collect the correct amount rom the correct person.37Debt portolios are regularly sold on an as is basis, without consideration or whether collection o the debts inthe portolio is legal.38

Debt buyers ability to obtain additional documentation rom the original creditor is extremely limited: they may

purchase the right to request such documentation in a limited number o cases, or they may not have access toany supporting documentation at all.39 I the debt is resold to another debt buyer, obtaining such documentationbecomes even more dicult, as most second and subsequent sales o debt portolios do not include any direct accessto the additional documentation rom the original creditor, which means that those debt buyers almost certainlylack the documentation needed to support lawsuits led against people whose names appear in their portolios.40

Te price o the debt is infuenced by the availability o and demand or chargedo debts, the perceived likelihoodo collection, and the quality o the debt.41 Debt buyers also consider debtors personal characteristics when assessingthe value o a portolio. Some, like Asset Acceptance and Portolio Recovery Associates, use borrower demographics,42and most consider borrower assets, such as whether the borrower works or owns a house.43 Debt portolios that werepreviously worked and then resold by debt buyers are worth less because the rst buyer or buyers o the portoliohave already skimmed the easily collected debts rom the portolio.44 Tere are even markets or debts that are not

legally collectable, such as debts discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy or debts o the deceased.45

In 2008, debt portolios were selling or as much as 12 cents per dollar o debt, but have since

allen to between our and seven cents per dollar or newly charged-o credit card debt

between one and three cents per dollar, and or older or harder to collect debts, are selling or

even lower.46

Debt Buyer Collection Methods

Debt buyers employ a range o collection tactics, rom sending collection letters to ling lawsuits.47 Reporting debts

to the credit bureaus is also a powerul, but lowcost option or debt buyers, as consumers who are trying to secure aloan will oten check their credit reports and repay any past due debts that are being reported, whether or not theyactually owe the debts, in order to improve their credit scores. 48 I consumers are willing but not able to pay thealleged debts, some debt buyers even oer to renance them on subprime credit cards that have deceptive terms andhigh ees.49 Debt buyers claim that these highcost cards give consumers a chance to rebuild their credit while payingo their debt in installments, but this scheme can ensnare consumers into using a predatory product to repay debtsthey might not even owe or be obligated to pay.


12/36


II. deBt BUyeR lAwsUIts

Over the past decade, evidence rom both debt buyers and court records show that debt buyers have turned increasinglyto ling lawsuits to collect debts.50 Data rom the our publicly traded debt buyers reveal an increased ocus on legalcollections each year since 2002.51 At Encore Capital Group, or example, legal collections accounted or 48% ogross collections in 2008, up rom 20% in 2003.52 Respondents to a debt collection industry survey reported a surge

in legal collection placements as part o their response to the 2008 economic crisis.53 One prominent debt buyersaw a 95% increase in revenue rom legal collections during the rst quarter o 2009. 54 In 2007, Asta FundingsChie Financial Ocer put it simply: Were looking to sue.55

In recent years, civil courts across the country have been overwhelmed by surges in debt collection lings. TeFederal rade Commission recently observed that [t]he majority o cases on many state court dockets on a givenday oten are debt collection matters and that the glut o debt collection cases has posed considerable challengesto the smooth and ecient operation o courts.56 In New York City, debt collectors led approximately 300,000lawsuitsper yearbetween 2006 and 2008.57 Te vast majority o cases result in deault judgments automatic winsor the debt buyer because the person sued did not appear in court.58

Sewer Service

A major reason or the high rate o deault judgments is the act that many people do not know they have been sued. 59Evidence suggests that people rarely receive notice o lawsuits brought by debt buyers.60 Debt buyers oten send noticesto addresses associated with the underlying credit card accounts, which are oten outdated and no longer valid. 61

Worse, many o the process servers hired to serve papers in consumer credit actions engage in sewer service thepractice o ailing to serve court papers (and instead throwing them in the sewer) and ling alse adavits o service

with the courts. Te problem has been well documented in New York.62 In 2008, the New York State Attorney Generalon behal o the Chie Adminstrative Judge o New York led suit against 35 debt collection law rms and two debtcollection companies. Te case, Pau v. Forster & Garbus, seeks to vacate more than 100,000 deault judgments allegedlyentered because o sewer service by a single process serving agency. Te case is currently pending.

Payment practices within the debt collection industry appear to contribute to the high rates o sewer service in debtbuyer cases. Debt collection law rms usually enter into bulk contracts with process serving agencies, which, in turn,

hire individual process servers to carry out the service.63 Tese process servers oten work as independent contractors,

not salaried employees, and are paid on a piecework basis o $36 per completed service.64 Tese wages have notincreased signicantly since 1986,65 and are, in act, so low that it is impossible or a process server to serve all papersproperly and still make the minimum wage.66 Process servers who serve papers in nondebt collection matters earnsignicantly more.67 On top o that, most debt collection law rms will not pay process servers or unsuccessul

attempts at service, a practice that urther encourages process servers to lie about having completed service.68

Lack of Proof

Te staggering number o deault judgments obtained through sewer service masks the act that debt buyers rarely

have admissible evidence o the debt and that many cases are meritless.69 As discussed above, debt buyers typicallydo not purchase documentation o debts, such as credit applications bearing signatures, the contracts that appliedto each account, account statements, or customer service records that would conrm or clariy raud claims orcustomer disputes. While some debt buyers have a contractual right to obtain a portion o this inormation in alimited number o cases, this is ar rom the norm.70 In the vast majority o cases led, debt buyers cannot providedocumentation o the underlying debt.71 Te law requires that debt buyers provide proo o their claims in order to

win a case. I a debt buyer cannot do so, and the case is contested, the case must be dismissed.72


13/36

7Dept Deception

Lack of Legal Representation

Unortunately, ew debt buyer cases are contested. Most people do not receive notice and thus are not aware o thecourt proceedings, and most o those who do receive notice and appear have no legal representation. 73 Court statisticsreveal that only 1% o people sued by creditors have legal counsel. 74 Te law requires litigants, whether representedor not, to raise important deenses or else waive them, even though they generally have no knowledge o their legalrights.75 Most people are araid o what might happen to them in court and are unprepared to deend themselves.76

Debt buyers take advantage o this imbalance o power to pressure people into unaordable settlements on debts thatcannot be proven.77 By contrast, in the rare event that an individual has counsel, debt buyers tend to abandon cases,presumably because they know they will have diculty producing the documentation to prove their cases at trial.78

Case in Point: Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC

As one o the larger debt collection law frms in New York City, the frm o Mel S. Harris and

Associates LLC (the Harris Firm) oers an example o typical debt buyer litigation practices in

consumer debt lawsuits and the challenges these tactics present to the people sued.

People sued by the Harris Firm are oten aced with lawsuits that allege unamiliar debts, fled

by debt buyers whose names they do not recognize. The frms pleadings reviewed or this report

eatured complaints that all reerred vaguely to a retail charge account79 and rarely listed a specifc

account number. Three debt buyers represented almost exclusively by the Harris Firm LR Credit,80

Pinpoint Technologies,81 and Rushmore Recoveries82 do not maintain public websites or oer any

inormation to the public. Though it fled more cases than any other debt buyer in New York City

rom January 2007 through July 2008 (a total o 49,900 cases), LR Credit avoided licensing by the

DCA until legally compelled to do so in July 2009. Pinpoint Technologies never obtained a license

rom the DCA.83

Debt buyers represented by the Harris Firm achieved an initial deault judgment rate o 94%,

compared to 77.7% or all other debt buyers reviewed in our study. Only 3.6% o people sued by

the Harris Firm fled an answer.

Individuals sued by the Harris Firm fnd themselves without the inormation necessary to properly

deend themselves in court. One o the ew people in our study who answered a Harris Firm

summons described this predicament perectly: I have doubts about this debt. There is no specifc

inormation. I dont know i I owe the money.

As stated beore, debt collection lawsuits, especially those resulting in deault judgments, have a signicant impacton low and moderateincome New Yorkers.84 Debt buyers use deault judgments to reeze peoples bank accounts,garnish their wages, and pressure them into unaordable settlements.85 Judgments also appear on credit reports,preventing people rom being able to secure housing, obtain credit, and even nd employment.86 Te cumulativeimpact o these judgments when examined over multiple years is appalling.

This case study and the others that ollow in the report are typical cases rom NEDAPs legal hotline and

exempliy the problem o meritless cases fled by debt buyers.

Ms. V, a single working mother who lives in the Bronx, supports our children, and speaks only Spanish, had sixdeault judgments against her, all obtained by debt buyers. Ms. V learned about the lawsuits or the frst time when

the debt buyers started garnishing her wages. Ms. V was not served in any o the cases. Three o the six lawsuitswere served at the wrong address, and the remaining three alleged substitute service on a fctitious amily member.

As or the underlying debts, Ms. V did not believe that they were hers. In addition, it appeared that several o thedebt buyers had obtained deault judgments on the same alleged debt.


14/36


III. tHe stUdy: tHe scope And ImpAct of deBt BUyeR

lAwsUIts In new yoRk cIty

In an eort to learn more about debt buyer lawsuits and their impact on New Yorkers and their neighborhoods, weundertook a study o debt buyer lings rom January 2006 through July 2008.87 We began by identiying the 26debt buyers that led the most lawsuits in New York City. We then reviewed a stratied sample o 365 case les (theCourt Sample) selected to provide a ull and accurate snapshot o lawsuits led by debt buyers throughout the veboroughs o New York City. We reviewed the Court Sample or a range o data and recorded the outcomes or 336o the 365 cases.88 We supplemented the Court Sample with a 451case data set comprised o records o people whocalled NEDAPs legal hotline in 2008 because they had been sued by a creditor or debt buyer (the Client Sample).ogether, these data sets allowed us to gain a clearer picture o debt buyer lawsuits, including their impact on New

Yorkers and their neighborhoods, and to identiy several areas o abuse that raise particular concern and deserveurther scrutiny.

Case Outcomes Overwhelmingly Favor Debt Buyers

Below is a summary o outcomes in the 336 cases rom the Court Sample that had reached a resolution at the timewe reviewed the les. In the vast majority o cases, 94.3%, the outcomes avored the debt buyers.

Four out o ve cases (81.4%) initially resulted in deault judgments or the debt buyers.

24 people entered into settlement agreements, o whom more than hal stated in court papers that theyquestioned the validity o the debt or believed the charges were inated.

No person sued was represented by counsel (in contrast to the general population where 1% o deendantsare represented).

No cases went to trial.

Most o the cases (82%) concerned credit card debts, and the rest were a combination o cell phone,health club, and other debts.

With respect to the amounts o the debts, our analysis showed the ollowing:

Te median debt amount alleged was $2,150.

Te median deault judgment awarded was $2,577. Because deault judgments entitle debt buyers torecover the ull amount o the alleged debt, plus court costs and 9% interest, a deault judgment is alwaysworth more than an alleged debt. In our sample, debt buyers used deault judgments to inate the allegeddebt amounts by nearly 20%.

Debt buyers in the Court Sample alleged debts ranging rom $340 to $24,963, or a total o $1.31million.

Extrapolating rom the Court Sample, a air estimate o the total amount awarded to these debt buyersrom January 2006 through July 2008 was a staggering $1,098,430,663-- over one billion dollars.89 Te

impact o these lawsuits is overwhelmingly concentrated in low- and moderate-income communities andcommunities o color.


15/36

9Dept Deception

94.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5.7%

0%

Went to TrialDefault Judgment

or Settlement

Discontinued

or Dismissed

Figure 1: Case Outcomes From Court Sample(of 336 cases that reached resolution)

Our ndings also raise questions about whether people are receiving actual notice o debt buyer lawsuits.

In the Court Sample, less than 10% o people sued answered the summons and complaint.

In the Client Sample, 71% o people sued were either not served or served improperly, and more thanhal received no notice o the lawsuit at all.

Only 8% o people in the Client Sample were properly served. 90

Nearly hal (47.7%) o cases in the Court Sample involved service by one o our process serving agencies AAA Attorney Service, Accu-Serve, Capital Process Servers, or Samserv.

wo o the three individual process servers who served the most cases in the Court Sample have checkered histories:one eatured prominently in the Pau case and the other recently had his process server license revoked.

Mr. R,a 48-year-old man rom the Bronx, frst discovered that he had been sued by a debt buyer when his debitcard was denied while he was shopping or groceries. He went to his bank and learned that his bank account hadbeen rozen by a debt buyer that had obtained an $18,000 deault judgment against him. The debt buyer had sued

him or an account he had never owned; served him at an address where he had never lived; and even gotten hisname wrong in the court papers. Ater Mr. R obtained advice rom an attorney, he fled an order to show cause and

was able to vacate the deault judgment and release his bank account. He also raised the deense o identity thet/mistaken identity, and his case was dismissed when the debt buyers lawyers ailed to show up in court.


16/36


Our review o the Client Sample suggests that many cases brought by debt buyers are, in act, meritless. Furthermore,the ling o meritless cases disproportionately aects people o color. Our analysis o the Client Sample shows that:

69% o people sued by debt buyers were black or Latino.

35% o cases brought by debt buyers were clearly meritless. 91

66% o these clearly meritless cases were brought against black or Latino clients.

Overall, nearly 25% o all debt buyer lawsuits consisted o meritless cases led against black or Latinoclients.

Tat 35% o debt buyer lawsuits were identied as clearly meritless does not indicate that the remaining 65% ocases were meritorious. Many o the remaining cases in the Client Sample were also not proven, and were ultimatelydismissed because the debt buyer could not produce evidence o the debt. O course, all o the people in the ClientSample had access to advice and assistance rom an attorney, unlike most people sued by debt buyers.

Ms. P, a 35-year-old woman rom Brooklyn, was sued by a debt buyer on a credit card account that her ex-husband had opened in her name without her knowledge. The debt buyers process server claimed to have served

her at an address at which she had not lived or our years, and which had been converted to a commercial propertyprior to the date o service. Ms. P did not get notice o the lawsuit, and the debt buyer entered a deault judgment

against her. Ms. Ps frst notice that she had been sued was a restraint on her bank account, which resulted in Ms.P being charged hundreds o dollars in legal and insufcient unds ees by her bank. Ater obtaining advice rom an

attorney, Ms. P was ultimately able to get the judgment vacated and the case dismissed or improper service.

Impact on New York City Neighborhoods

Abusive debt buyer lawsuits not only harm individual New Yorkers but also have a deleterious impact on New YorkCitys low and moderateincome communities and communities o color, which bear the brunt o abusive debtbuyer lawsuits. Deault judgments obtained by debt buyers are overwhelmingly concentrated in these communities,

where thousands o New Yorkers are subject to wage garnishment and other types o judgment enorcement, such

as rozen bank accounts. In other words, these practices strip lower income neighborhoods and communities ocolor o community assets, not only destabilizing households but also jeopardizing nancial security in entireneighborhoods.

As Map 1 illustrates, 91% o people sued by debt buyers and 95% o people with deault judgments entered againstthem live in low or moderateincome communities.92 In the 12 zip codes with the highest concentration o lawsuitsin our study, one in our amilies lived below the ederal poverty level.93

Debt buyer judgments also disproportionately aect people living in New York Citys communities o color. As Map2 illustrates, 51% o people sued by debt buyers and 56% o people with deault judgments entered against themlived in communities in which the population is more than 50% black or Latino.

Ms. F, a senior citizen whose only income is Social Security and a small pension, was sued by a debt buyer or analleged Sears account. Ms. F had never shopped at Sears and was a victim o identity thet. Even though Ms. F was

not properly served, she did receive notice o the case in time to fle an answer and appear in court. At her courtdate, the debt buyers attorney threatened her by telling her that i she did not make payment arrangements they

would seize her personal property. Ms. F was scared, but she nevertheless asked to see proo o the debt. Ms. Fscase was ultimately discontinued when the debt buyer couldnt provide any proo.


17/36

11Dept Deception

Debt Buyer Lasuits in Lo and Moderate Income CommunitiesNe Yor City


18/36


Debt Buyer Lasuits in Communities of ColorNe Yor City


19/36

13Dept Deception

The Positive Impact of Licensing and Regulation

As part o this study, we examined whether the existing regulatory structure protected New Yorkers rom debtcollection abuse. New York City has long required debt collectors to obtain a license rom DCA in order to collectdebts rom city residents.94 However, during the period o the study, several debt buyers asserted that they did nothave to be licensed because they were passive entities and not engaged in traditional debt collection activities.In response to those assertions, the New York City Council amended the denition o debt collection agency in

March 2009 to expressly include all debt buyers.95 As o July 2009, all debt buyers must be licensed to collect debtsin New York City and to le debt collection lawsuits in court.96

Our study, which was conducted beore the New York City Council claried the licensing law, demonstrates thatlicensing and regulation has a positive impact on debt buyers behavior. In our Court Sample, unlicensed debtbuyers brought more than 40% o cases. Unlicensed debt buyers obtained a signicantly higher percentage o deault

judgments than licensed debt buyers, suggesting that unlicensed debt buyers engaged in more abusive practices.97

Unrepresented Defendants, Improvident Settlements

When people do appear in court, judges and court personnel actively encourage settlement because it tends to reeup court resources and allows the court to remove cases rom the crowded calendar.

Collection attorneys typically take people into the hallways or onesided settlement discussions, out o earshot ojudges and other court personnel.98 In these conversations, attorneys exert extreme pressure upon people to pay somepart o the debt regardless o their deenses or the debt buyers lack o proo. Tis is a trend seen across the country,and raises questions o how air the outcomes in these cases can be, given such an uneven playing eld.99

In the Court Sample, most settlement agreements provided or a payment plan o $50 $100 per month, with thecondition that i the individual deaulted in payment, the debt buyer would be able to enter judgment or the ullamount o the debt, plus costs and interest. Deaults in payment were not uncommon, leading us to conclude thatpeople are oten pressured into unaordable and unsustainable settlements.100 Settlements thus provided a potentialbonanza or debt buyers. When people in the Court Sample deaulted on their settlements, debt buyers were able toobtain judgments that exceeded the original debts by nearly 24%. Deaulted settlements oered the worst possible

outcomes or individuals and the best possible outcomes or debt buyers.When unrepresented people enter into settlements, they oten waive signicant deenses on which they could haveprevailed i they had understood how to assert them. In one case rom the Court Sample, E.O., a resident o Queens,

was sued by a debt buyer called Palisades Collection in 2007. A deault judgment was entered and her bank accountwas rozen. She swore that she was never served and had no knowledge o the lawsuit until her account was rozen.She expressed great conusion over the allegation that she had a debt with a company called Palisades, suggestingthat she did not even know the plainti suing her, but eventually she settled anyway. Another person, D.P. o StatenIsland, was also sued by Palisades Collection over an A& Wireless debt. D.P. stated in court papers that she didnot owe the debt and denied ever having a relationship with A&, but she settled the case anyway or $60 permonth, even though Palisades never produced any evidence that she owed the debt. A third deendant agreed to pay$50 per month to a debt buyer on a debt that she asserted had previously been discharged in bankruptcy.

In one shocking example, a debt buyer called Colorado Capital Investments sued B.P. o Manhattan twice orthe same debt. In the rst case, she obtained a dismissal with prejudice, which means that the court made a naldetermination that she did not owe the debt, and the case could never be brought against her again. Despite thisresult, Colorado Capital Investments sued B.P. again two years later on the same debt. Tis second suit was unlawuland never should have been led, but B.P. ultimately agreed to settle this unlawully led case or $75 per month.


20/36


Insufcent Scrutiny of Applications for Default Judgments

In Debt Weight, the Urban Justice Center ound that debt buyers routinely obtained deault judgments even thoughthey almost always ailed to submit the proo required by law.101 Our study shows that these practices continue. Inthe Court Sample, debt buyers never provided an adavit rom someone with personal knowledge o the acts othe case, as is required under New York law.102 Despite these glaring deciencies in their applications, debt buyersregularly obtained deault judgments.

Te problem is exacerbated by the Courts practice o giving applications or deault judgments to clerks instead ojudges. Court clerks are oten not lawyers, and they do not have the ability to assess whether the application meetsminimum evidentiary standards. Tis practice results in large part rom the overwhelming volume o debtcollection lawsuits and the Courts lack o sucient resources to handle the increased caseload. Nevertheless,the lack o any meaningul review by someone with judicial training makes the process ripe or abuse.

Custodian of Records.

In our analysis o the Court Sample, one person stood out or signing an unusually large number

o afdavits in support o debt buyer requests or deault judgments. This individual identifed

himsel as the custodian o records or LR Credit, Pinpoint Technologies, and Rushmore

Recoveries, and provided an afdavit in support o every deault judgment sought by thesethree companies, swearing that he had personal knowledge o the acts o each case. I we

extrapolate to every case fled by these companies in a year, this afant would have signed

47,503 afdavits in the year 2007 alone, claiming to have personal knowledge o the acts o

each and every one o these cases.

It can be argued that the Courts current practice o allowing clerks to review applications or deault judgments doesnot comply with New York law. In New York, clerks may grant deault judgments only when the amount soughtis a sum certain that is, an amount easily veriable rom the papers submitted in support o the application.Te amount o most consumer debts is not easily veriable, because in order to determine how much, i anything,a person owes on a consumer debt, the court would typically have to review a complicated contract, with multiple

amendments, and months or years worth o account statements. New York law requires that judges, not clerks,perorm this kind o detailed review.103


21/36

15Dept Deception

Pattern and Practice of Improper Debt Collection Among Law Firms

In New York, a small number o law rms commence the vast majority o debt collection cases. Tese rms employquestionable litigation practices that, viewed as a whole, reveal systemic problems in the judicial system.104

Out o the 23 debt buyer law rms in the Court Sample, 11 were named in the Pau case.

64% o debt buyers in the Court Sample were represented by one o ve law rms in New York -- Cohen

& Slamowitz, Forster & Garbus, Mel S. Harris and Associates, Mullooly, Jerey, Rooney & Flynn, orRubin & Rothman.

Common observable practices by these law rms include:

Filing lawsuits without having or being able to produce any proo;

Seeking deault judgments on the basis o alse and/or legally inadequate afdavits;

Hiring process serving agencies that routinely ail to serve people; and,

Using heavy-handed settlement tactics at the courthouse against unrepresented people.

Ms. W, a 38-year-old woman rom Brooklyn, was a victim o identity thet in 1999 and subsequently fled a policereport. Nearly 10 years later, in 2008, she received a letter rom a debt collection law frm claiming that she owed$1000 on an AT&T Wireless account used rom around 1999 to 2002, though she had never owned an AT&T

Wireless phone. She contacted the law frm and confrmed that she had never lived at the address that it had onfle or the alleged debt. She also axed the law frm a copy o her police report and proo that she had been living

at a dierent address at the time in question. She did not hear back rom the law frm. Then, in January 2009, herhusband went to their bank and discovered that their joint bank account had been rozen by the same law frm.

She had never received any notice rom the law frm that she was being sued or that they had obtained a deaultjudgment against her. When she contacted the law frm, she was told that the inormation she had sent the frm

was insufcient. However, ater fling an order to show cause, Ms. W was able to get the judgment vacated andcase dismissed.


22/36


Iv. RecommendAtIons: BRIng fAIRness And JUstIce to

deBt collectIon In new yoRk

Its the wild, wild west out there.105Our report shows a desperate need or reorms in all areas o the debt buyingindustry and at all stages o the debt collection process.106

pt t us m fl lwsuts wtut , s lts1. fl mtlss lwsuts.

Immediate action is needed to address the problem o abusive debt collection lawsuits. At the local level, New YorkState should enact the Consumer Credit Fairness Act (CCFA). Te proposed law would require court papers toinclude more inormation about the alleged debts, thereby preventing debt buyers rom routinely ling meritlesslawsuits and obtaining judgments on invalid debts. In addition, by reducing the statute o limitations in debtcollection cases, CCFA would encourage debt buyers to le claims in a timely manner and better protect low andmoderateincome consumers rom the excessive accumulation o interest charges and late ees.107

At the national level, Congress should amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to address the abuses

described in this report. Te FDCPA should explicitly prohibit debt buyers rom ling lawsuits without havingevidence to support their claims. Congress should enact tougher penalties or violations o the FDCPA by providingor injunctive relie and raising the amount o statutory damages, which have not changed in more than 30 years,108rom $1000 to $4000 or individuals. Furthermore, statutory damages should be available per violation, not percase.

assl ult mt ss ss.2.

Te high rate o deault judgments in cases involving debt buyers is due in part to raudulent practices in the processserving industry. Te New York City Council, with the support o the New York City Department o Consumer

Aairs (DCA), recently passed groundbreaking legislation intended to curb these unlawul practices. Te DCA shouldimplement strong regulations to carry out the new law and make enorcement o the new law an agency priority.

St u mt mt ts st t llts lw fms.3.

We commend the New York State Attorney Generals oce or the armative steps it has taken to combat abusivedebt collection practices. Te problems uncovered by the Attorney General indicate widespread, systemic abuses inthe debt collection industry.109 We urge the Attorney General to continue to take aggressive action against the debtcollection industry.

We also urge the New York City Department o Consumer Aairs (DCA) to take aggressive action to combat debtbuyer abuses. Te DCA should conduct periodic audits o individual companies, and suspend and revoke licenses

where warranted. Te DCA should also enorce the law against entities that engage in illegal and abusive debtcollection activities, including sewer service.

Finally, we encourage the Federal rade Commission (FC) to ocus on reorming the debt buying industry. In2009, the FC held regional roundtable discussions on Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and

Arbitration, which ocused on debt buyer lawsuits. Te FC should use the inormation gathered rom theseroundtables to address the problems described in this report.


23/36

17Dept Deception

Stt cutus ptts pl Su dt bus.4.

Ensure Judicial Review o Deault Judgments.

In the vast majority o cases, the debt buyers seek a deault judgment against the person sued. Largely due to theincreased volume o debt collection lawsuits, these applications or deault judgments are reviewed by court clerks,not by judges, a practice that does not conorm to New York law. Court clerks oten are not attorneys, and they lackthe legal training and expertise necessary to evaluate applications or deault judgments in debt collection cases. As a

result, debt buyers routinely obtain deault judgments despite glaring legal deciencies in their applications.

Our data suggests that the New York City Civil Court has issued thousands o deault judgments on legally insucientapplications. o rectiy this untenable situation, debt buyers should have to present proper documentation o theirclaimsideally to judges, not clerks. Additional resources should be provided to the Civil Court to accomplish this.

Review Settlement Agreements or Fundamental Fairness.

Our report demonstrates that people who make settlement agreements with debt buyers usually are worse than peoplewho deault. Many people are pressured into unair and unaordable agreements in which they are doomed to ail, withdire consequences. Debt buyers must be required to produce evidence o the debt beore the parties begin settlementnegotiations. In addition, judges should review settlement agreements to ensure that they are undamentally air.Courts should not allow unrepresented people to enter into agreements that will leave them in a worse position than

they would be in i a deault judgment were enorced or allow people who only receive exempt income to enter intosettlement agreements without understanding that their income cannot be collected by creditors.

Educate Judicial Personnel About the Debt Buying Industry and its Misuse o the Courts.

In bringing the Pau litigation, the Court has played a leadership role in the eort to remedy some o the worst debtcollection practices. Additional resources should be provided to the Court to enhance eorts to educate memberso the judiciary and key court personnel about the debt buying industry and its nationwide practice o foodingthe courts with lawsuits based on little or no proo in hopes o obtaining a deault judgment. Judicial personnelmust be inormed o these practices so they can properly scrutinize debt buyer lawsuits and prevent the courts rombecoming an extension o the debt collection industry. o that end, we urge the Oce o Court Administration toincorporate training on debt collection and debt industry practices into the mandatory annual trainings or judges,court attorneys, and clerks.

is Ll rstt rsus pl Su dt bus.5.

In the limited instances when people sued by debt buyers are represented by counsel, it makes all the dierence inthe world. Debt buyers oten walk away rom cases rather than ght what they know will be a losing battle. Tesame occurs when unrepresented litigants assert their rights by requesting proo o the debt. Unortunately, the vastmajority o people sued have no access to legal counsel and no knowledge o their rights, leaving them vulnerable tothe many abuses described in this report.

Debt Weighthighlighted the need or legal services to be available in the courthouse to provide basic inormationand advice to unrepresented litigants. Te Civil Legal Advice and Resource Oce (CLARO) currently providessuch services in Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx or several hours per week. CLARO, however, has the

capacity to serve less than 2% o the approximately 300,000 people sued each year by debt collectors in the NewYork City Civil Court. Funding or the legal services organizations that support CLARO should be increased andthe programs hours expanded so that more people can access this valuable resource.

Many lowincome people particularly those who are elderly, disabled or do not speak English need legalrepresentation, not simply advice. Unortunately, most legal services programs do not provide assistance in debtcollection cases and lowincome people cannot aord to pay private attorneys to represent them. New York City andState should nd ways to provide more legal representation or lowincome people sued by debt buyers. Certainly,local legal services oces should be unded to provide this assistance. Feeshiting statutes, which would provide anaward o attorneys ees or the successul deense o a debt collection lawsuit, could und legal services programs andconvince private attorneys to take on these cases at aordable rates.


24/36


AppendIces

APPENDIx A: Methodology

Tis study draws results rom two data sets: (1) a 365case sample o lawsuits brought by the 26 debt buyers that

led the greatest number o debt collection lawsuits in New York City between January 2006 and July 2008 (CourtSample); and (2) a 451case sample o callers to NEDAPs legal hotline who were sued by a creditor or debt buyerin 2008 (Client Sample).

o select the Court Sample, we identied the top 26 debt buyers using the Oce o Court Administrations eCourtssystem. Te Chie Clerk at the New York City Civil Court provided us with the index numbers or the 441,143cases led by the 26 debt buyers rom January 2006 through July 2008. We then designed a randomly selected,stratied, 365case sample o debt buyer lawsuits. Te sample size or each o the 26 debt buyers was in proportionto its overall share o cases in New York City. We then selected, or each debt buyer, cases rom each borough inproportion to that boroughs share o all debt buyer lawsuits led in New York City. For example, LVNV Funding,

with 27,210 cases led rom January 2006 to June 2008, was allotted 25 cases in the sample: 5 rom the Bronx, 8rom Brooklyn, 4 rom Manhattan, 6 rom Queens, and 2 rom Staten Island. Gemini Asset Recoveries, which led1,855 cases during this period, was assigned 5 cases, 1 rom each borough. Because we wanted to ensure that at leastone Staten Island ling per debt buyer was included in the sample, Staten Island is overrepresented, comprising 9%o the 365 case sample but only 4% o cases led in New York City by these debt buyers during the study period.1

We reviewed all selected case les by hand in 2009 or several key criteria and uniormity o data entry, and werecorded outcomes or 336 o the 365 cases.2

Te Client Sample is a data set collected rom NEDAPs legal hotline. Te Client Sample includes the case recordso 451 hotline callers rom 2008. Tese callers were chosen rom NEDAPs database because they had been sued bya creditor or debt buyer. When clients call NEDAPs hotline they go through an intake process that records extensivecase details and demographic inormation. Case details recorded include how the client was served; the nature othe clients deenses to the lawsuit, i any; and the name o every original creditor, debt buyer and law rm involvedin the clients case. Te demographic data collected include gender, race, and age, among others. All o NEDAPshotline callers must meet certain eligibility criteria to receive assistance.3 In addition, they are selselected as they

chose to seek help rom a legal services oce. As a result, these callers cases may not be ully representative o alldebt buyer lawsuits in New York City.

1 Te other our boroughs are accurately represented in the sample, with Brooklyn accounting or 31%, Queens at 24%, theBronx at 20%, and Manhattan at 16%, all within 3% o the true distribution.

2 At the time o review, the other 29 cases remained pending with no resolution.3 NEDAP hotline clients must live in New York City and may have a maximum income o 250% o the ederal poverty level.


25/36

19Dept Deception

APPENDIx B: List of Debt Buyers Included in Court Sample, by County

County

Plaintiff Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Total

Arrow Financial Services 3 5 2 4 1 15

Asset Acceptance 6 10 4 8 2 30

Atlantic Credit & Finance 1 2 1 2 1 7

CACHCollect America1 2 3 2 2 1 10

CACVCollect America 1 1 1 1 1 5

Cavalry Portfolio Services 1 2 1 2 1 7

Collins Financial Services 1 1 1 1 1 5

Colorado Capital Investments 1 1 1 1 1 5

Credigy Receivables 1 2 1 2 1 7

Elite Recovery Services 1 1 1 1 1 5

Erin Capital Management 3 6 3 4 1 17

Gemini Asset Recoveries 1 1 1 1 1 5

Independence Receivables 1 1 1 1 1 5

LR Credit (all entities) 10 15 8 12 5 50

LVNV Funding 5 8 4 6 2 25

Metro Portfolios 3 5 2 4 1 15

Midland Funding 8 12 7 10 3 40

North Star Capital Acquisition 2 3 2 2 1 10

NY Financial Services 3 5 2 4 1 15

Palisades Collection 5 8 4 6 2 25

Pinpoint Technologies 3 5 2 4 1 15

Portfolio Recovery Associates 2 3 2 2 1 10

RAB Performance Receivables 2 3 2 2 1 10

RJM Acquisitions 1 1 1 1 1 5

Rushmore Recoveries 3 5 2 4 1 15

Worldwide Asset Purchasing 1 2 1 2 1 7

Total 71 111 59 89 35 365

1 Collect America changed its name to Squarewo Financial in December, 2009. SeePress Release, Square wo Financial,Square wo Financial, Formerly Collect America, Unveils New Name and Look (Dec. 16, 2009), available athttp://www.squaretwonancial.com/aboutus/press/corporatenews/.


26/36


APPENDIx C: Summary of Court Statistics


27/36

21Dept Deception

endnotes

1SeeAppendix B or a list o debt buyers included in the Court Sample.

2See, e.g., National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection 7 (6th ed. 2008) [hereinater Fair Debt Collection Manual](noting that as accounts become more delinquent, they are heavily discounted and a debt buyer typically pays only pennies

on the dollar); U.S. Government Accountability Oce, Credit Cards: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Could Better Reectthe Evolving Debt Collection Marketplace and Use o echnology29 (Sept. 2009) [hereinater GAO Report], available athttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09748.pd.

3 GAO Report, supra note 2, at 26.

4Id. at 29.

5Id.

6 Charge o is an accounting term or retail credit loans that have been delinquent or past due or 180 days and which thecreditor treats as a loss.

7 Caroline Mayer,As Debt Collectors Multiply, So Do Consumer Complaints, Wash. Post, July 28, 2005, available athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702473.html; TeDebtrader.com, Debt Industry

Overview, ( 2000), athttp://www.thedebttrader.com/indushis.html.

8 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,An Examination o the Banking Crises o the 1980s and Early 1990s100 (1997),available athttp://www.dic.gov/bank/historical/history/vol1.html.

9 Lee Davison, Te Resolution rust Corp. and Congress, 1989-1993, Part II: 1991-1993, 18 FDIC Banking Review No. 3, 23(2006), available athttp://www.dic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/index.html.

10 Mayer, supra note 7.

11 TeDebtrader.com, supra note 7.

12 U.S. Government Accountability Oce, Credit Cards: Increased Complexity in Rates and Fees Heightens Need or MoreEective Disclosures to Consumers57 (Sept. 2006), available athttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06929.pd.

13 Jose A. Garcia, Demos, Borrowing to Make Ends Meet: Te Rapid Growth o Credit Card Debt in America (2007), available athttp://www.demos.org/pubs/stillborrowing.pd.

14Id. (nding that medical debt and unemployment were signicant contributors to household credit card debt loads); see alsoJose Garcia, amara Draut, Demos, Te Plastic Saety Net: How Households are Coping in a Fragile Economy(2009), availableathttp://www.demos.org/pubs/psn.pd.

15 Rishawn Biddle, Credit Cards: Deaults Force Issuers to Beat a Retreat, 25 Los Angeles Bus. J. 43 (2003), available athttp://www.thereelibrary.com/Credit+cards:+deaults+orce+issuers+to+beat+a+retreata0109847989.

16 Margo Anderson, From Subprime Mortgages to Subprime Credit Cards, 19 Communities & Banking 4, 23 (Fall 2008).

17 Federal Reserve Board, Charge-O and Delinquency Rates on Loans and Leases at Commercial Banks, at http://www.ederalreserve.gov/releases/chargeo/ (last updated Feb. 23, 2010).

18 Paul Legrady, Welcome to a New World o Debt, 11 Collections & Credit Risk 5, 26 (May 2006).

19Id.

20SeeAsset Acceptance, Inc., Annual Reports (Form 10K) (20012006 ); Asta Funding, Inc., Annual Reports (Form 10K)(20012006); Encore Capital Group, Inc., Annual Reports (Form 10K) (20012006); Portolio Recovery Associates, Inc.,Annual Reports (Form 10K) (20012006).


28/36


21Standards or Insuring the Security, Condentiality, Integrity and Protection o Customer Records and Inormation: ProposedRule and Request For Public Comment on 16 C.F.R. Part 314By the Federal rade Commission (2001) (comments by the DebtBuyers Association), available athttp://www.tc.gov/privacy/glbact/saeguard/dba.htm.

22See, e.g., Asset Acceptance, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K) 45 (2009); Asta Funding, Inc., Annual Report (Form10K) 29 (2009); Portolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K) 56 (2009); see also Press Release,Encore Capital Group, Inc., Encore Capital Group Announces Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2009 Results and NewRevolving Credit Facility (Feb. 8, 2010), available athttp://phx.corporateir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=115920&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1385087&highlight=.

23 Jeremy Simon, For Credit Card Issuers, Teres Plenty o Room at the op, June 6, 2006, athttp://www.creditcards.com/creditcardnews/usbankcreditcardissuersacquisitions1264.php.

24 Mayer, supra note 7.

25 Will Shanley, KRG Capital Purchases Collect America, Te Denver Post, Nov. 29, 2005, available athttp://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3260145. Collect America has an unusual business model: the company licenses proprietary collectionsotware to law rms that collect debts placed with them by Collect America, eectively turning the law rms into CollectAmericas ranchisees. Interestingly, these law rms are also barred rom collecting debts not placed by Collect Americaunless those debts were purchased rom a short list o suppliers approved by the company. SeeComplaint, Collect Am. Ltd. v.Law Ofce o Curtis O Barnes, P.C., 2005CV1803 (D. Colo. 2005).

26SeeRadian Group Inc., About Radian, athttp://www.radian.biz/page?name=AboutUs (stating that Radian has a 29%equity interest in Sherman Financial Group) (last visited April 11, 2010); Waite v. LVNV Funding, No, 0900295KDC,2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48233 (S.D. Ala. Jun. 9, 2009).

27SeeSallie Mae, SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae) rademarks and Service Marks athttp://www.salliemae.com/about/copyright.htm (last visited April 11, 2010); Bethany McClean, Sallie Maes Private Side, Fortune(Apr. 30, 2007), availableathttp://money.cnn.com/magazines/ortune/ortune_archive/2007/05/14/100008715/index.htm.

28 Caitlin Devitt, So SueEm. Debt Buyers Are Increasingly Going to Court to Increase Recoveries and Justiy Prices Being Paid orDebt Portolios in a Demand Driven Market, 12 Collections and Credit Risk 7, 32 (Jul. 2007), available athttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1166618590.html.

29 GAO Report, supra note 2, at 24; John Russo,Attorneys Buying Bad Debt?, Debt 3 (Nov. 1, 2008), available by subscription

athttp://www.highbeam.com/doc/ 1P31632099381.html (copy on le with authors). Russo recommends that any law rminterested in buying debt should get started by setting up an LLC or a corporation as the debt buying entity because manystates dont allow attorneys to own or have a vested interest in their les. See also Devitt, supra note 28, at 32 (stating that in2007, Gary Wood, President o Collins Financial, estimated that his company resold 20% to 25% o its debt portolios to anetwork o 2,000 attorneys).

30 Devitt, supra note 28; Kit Ladwig, Hot Prospects and Hot amales, Collections & Credit Risk (May 2003).

31 Simon, supra note 23.

32 Darren Waggoner, Encore Capital Reports Uptick in Revenue, Collections, Collections & Credit Risk (Feb. 8, 2010), availableathttp://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/encorecapitalreportsuptickinrevenuecollections30006331.html.

33 Encore Capital Group, Form 8K, Credit Agreement, Exhibit 10.1, Feb. 8, 2010, available athttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1084961/000119312510024359/dex101.htm (detailing in the Commitment Schedule amounts o revolvingloan commitments made by individual lenders to Encore Capital Group).

34 Fair Debt Collection Manual, supra note 2, at 9 (citing case law pertaining to what debt buyers buy). See also GAO Report,supra note 2, at 4445; Federal rade Commission, Collecting Consumer Debts: Te Challenges o Change2223 (Feb. 2009)[hereinater FC Report], available athttp://www.tc.gov/bcp/workshops/debtcollection/dcwr.pd.

35 FC Report, supra note 34, at 19; GAO Report, supra note 2, at 44.; see also Jim Dwyer, In Civil Court, One Nation, UnderDebt, N.Y. imes, Oct. 10, 2008, at A19, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11about.html.


29/36

23Dept Deception

36 Randy Nicola, 9 Keys to Successul Debt Buying, Debt3, at 5 (May 1, 2007) (quoting ony Jackson, vice president o salesat Collins Financial Services as saying: Media availability can be spotty.); Collecting Consumer Debts: Te Challenges oChange: Request or Comments, Original Papers, and ParticipationBy the Federal rade Commission (2007) (comments byBarbara A. Sinseley on behal o Debt Buyers Association) (stating: In act, it is common or a debt buyer initially toreceive only a computerized summary o the creditors business records...).

37 FC Report, supra note 34, at 2223; Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration: A RoundtableDiscussion by the Federal rade Commission (2009) (public comments by David B. Mertz, President, Compliance Security

Partners, LLC), available athttp://www.tc.gov/os/comments/debtcollectroundtable2/54450700006.pd.

38SeeAccount Sale Agreement Between Capital One Bank and Centurion Capital Corporation (Dec. 8, 2005) (redactedcopy on le with the authors); Purchase and Sale Agreement Between Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and Uniund CCRPartners (Feb. 28, 2005) (copy on le with the authors).

39 GAO Report, supra note 2, at 28, 4445; see alsoAccount Sale Agreement Between Capital One Bank and CenturionCapital Corporation, supra note 38; Purchase and Sale Agreement Between Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and UniundCCR Partners, supra note 38.


41Id. at 28 (citing a debt broker and concluding:[]he issuers underwriting criteria, the average account balance, and theamount o documentation available all can aect the price o a portolio.).

42SeePortolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K) (Mar. 1, 2007); Asset Acceptance, Inc., Annual Report(Form 10K) (Feb, 27, 2006).

43 Devitt, supra note 28.

44 GAO Report, supra note 2, at 2829; Collections and Credit Risk, Debt Portolio Prices Edge Higher(Mar. 23, 2010), athttp://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/debtportoliopricesedgehigher30011031.html.

45 Robert Berner and Brian Grow, Prisoners o Debt, Business Week, Nov. 12, 2007, available athttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_46/b4058001.htm; David Streiteld, Youre Dead? Tat Wont Stop the Debt Collector, N.Y. imes,Mar. 4, 2009, at A1, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04dead.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dead%20newest%20rontier&st=cse.

46

Kaulkin Ginsberg, Getting Current on Pricing in the U.S. Credit Card Debt Purchasing Market, InsideARM, Mar. 24, 2009,athttp://www.insidearm.com/go/armanalysis/gettingcurrentonpricingintheuscreditcarddebtpurchasingmarket.


48 Berner and Grow, supra note 45.

49 Press Release, Federal rade Commission, FC Sues Subprime Credit Card Marketing Company or Deceptive Credit CardMarketing (June 10, 2008), available athttp://www.tc.gov/opa/2008/06/compucredit.shtm.

50 Portolio Recovery Associates, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K) 15 (Feb. 28, 2008).

51SeeAsset Acceptance, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K) (20012006); Asta Funding, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K)(20012006); Encore Capital Group, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10K) (20012006); Portolio Recovery Associates, Inc.,Annual Report (Form 10K) (20012006).

52 Encore Capital Group, Leveraging Intellectual Capital, Presentation to Investors (June 9, 2009) (written materials on lewith the authors).

53 Patrick Lunsord,More Payment Plans and Legal Collections, Say ARM Companies in Survey, InsideArm, Jan. 27, 2009, availableathttp://www.insidearm.com/go/armnews/morepaymentplansandlegalcollectionssayarmcompaniesinsurvey.

54 Brendan Conway, Collection Agencies Call Up Revenue in Recession, Wall St. J., June 24, 2009, at B3B.

55 Devitt, supra note 28, at 32 (quoting Astas chie executive ocer).

56 FC Report supra note 34, at 55.


30/36


57SeeNew York City Civil Court Filing Statistics 1984 2008, attached at Appendix C. See also Urban Justice Center, DebtWeight: Te Consumer Credit Crisis in New York City and its Impact on the Working Poor(Oct. 2007) [hereinater DebtWeight], available athttp://www.urbanjustice.org/pd/publications/CDP_Debt_Weight.pd; Dwyer, supra note 35; NewYork City Bar Association, Out o Service: A Call to Fix the Broken Process Service Industry (April 2010), available athttp://www.nycbar.org/pd/report/uploads/ProcessServiceReport410.pd.

58See, e.g., Debt Weight, supra note 57, at 1; New York City Bar Association, supra note 57, at 2.

59 FC Report supra note 34, at 5657 (Consumer groups report that consumers requently do not appear to contestdebt collection lawsuits because they have not been properly served, and, i they do not appear, the court enters a deaultjudgment.); New York Appleseed, Due Process and Consumer Debt: Eliminating Barriers to Justice in Consumer Credit Cases,at 12 (2010) [hereinaterAppleseed Report], available athttp://ny.appleseednetwork.org/LinkClick.aspx?leticket=dFHdRj22CXY%3d&tabid=252 (Sewer service, or the intentional ailure to serve a deendant, remains the single most eectivebarrier to court.).

60 MFY Legal Services, Inc.,Justice Disserved: A Preliminary Analysis o the Exceptionally Low Appearance Rate by Deendants inLawsuits Filed in the Civil Court o the City o New York2 (June 2008) [hereinater MFY Report], available athttp://www.my.org/Justice_Disserved.pd.

61 Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 12.

62 Frank M. uerkheimer, Service o Process in New York City: A Proposed End to Unregulated Criminality, 72 Colum. L. Rev.

847 (1972); N.Y. Attorney General, N.Y. City Dept o Consumer Aairs, and Te N.Y. City Dept o Investigations, A JointInvestigative Report into the Practice o Sewer Service in New York City (1986) [hereinater N.Y. Attorney Gen. InvestigativeReport]; Barr v. Dept o Consumer Aairs, 70 N.Y.2d 821, 82223 (1987) (discussing a continuing and pervasive problem ounscrupulous service practices by licensed process servers); Matthew Goldstein, Process Servers License Revoked by ConsumerAgency or Fraud, N.Y. Law Journal, Feb. 7, 1996, at 1; MFY Report, supra note 60, at 4; David Caruso, Te AssociatedPress, Court Papers Went Undelivered; Process Server Faces Charges, N.Y. Law Journal, April 15, 2009, at 1:4 (reporting onAmerican Legal Process CEO William Singers guilty plea o scheme to deraud in the rst degree); Press Release, Oceo Attorney General, Cuomo Announces Guilty Plea o Process Server Company Owner Who Denied Tousands o NewYorkers Teir Day in Court (Jan. 15, 2010), available athttp://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2010/jan/jan15a_10.html;Ray Rivera, Council Seeks to Crack Down on Process Servers Who Lie, N.Y. imes, Feb. 26, 2010, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/nyregion/27sewer.html?scp=1&sq=Council%20Seeks%20to%20Crack%20Down%20on%20Process%20Servers%20Who%20Lie&st=cse.

63

See, e.g., An Exploratory Public Hearing on Process Server Practices in New York City by the New York City Department oConsumer Aairs (June 13, 2008) [herinater DCA Process Server Hearing ranscript or ranscript) (transcript on le withauthors), at 188189 (testimony o Douglas Preston Riley).

64See, e.g., id. at 109 (testimony o Alex Sharan); id. at 134 (testimony o Jay Brodsky); id. at 198 (testimony o Chris Rossi);id. at 207 (testimony o Bob Gulinello). Under New York law (CPLR 308), a process server must serve papers in one othree ways. Te process server can eect personal service by giving the summons and complaint directly to the deendant.Te process server can eect substitute service by giving the summons and complaint to a trustworthy individual at thedeendants home or place o employment and also sending a copy o the summons and complaint to the deendant via rstclass mail. Finally, i the process server goes to the deendants home or place o business multiple times and is unable to ndthe deendant or a person who will accept service or the deendant, the process server may resort to nail and mail service.Tis method o service involves axing one copy o the summons and complaint to the door o the deendants residence orplace o employment and mailing a second copy to the deendant via rst class mail. A process server is required to employdue diligence to serve the deendant via personal or substitute service beore resorting to nail and mail service.

65 N.Y. Attorney Gen. Investigative Report, supra note 62, at 2.

66 Id.

67See, e.g., DCA Process Server Hearing ranscript, supra note 63, at 170; idat 187 (testimony o Douglas Preston Riley).

68See, e.g.,id. at 158 (testimony o Samson Newman).


31/36

25Dept Deception

69 Robert Martin, District Council 37 Municipal Employees Legal Services, Wheres Te Proo? When Debt Buyers are Askedto Substantiate Teir Claims in Collection Lawsuits Against NYC Employees and Retirees, Tey Dont, (December 2009)(nding that debt buyers were unable to substantiate their claims in 94.5% o cases reviewed); FC Report supra note34, at 56 (Debt collectors have insucient evidence at the time they le a complaint to show that they are seeking torecover the correct amount rom the right consumer); see also Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 2324;John CollinsRudolph, Pay Garnishments Rise as Debtors Fall Behind, N.Y. imes, Apr. 1, 2010, at B1, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/business/economy/02garnish.html; Jim Dwyer, Hello Collections? Te Worm Has urned, N.Y. imes, Nov.29, 2009, available athttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/nyregion/29about.html; Dwyer, supra note 35.


71 Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 28.

72See, e,g.,Citibank (S.D.), N.A. v. Martin, 11 Misc.3d 219 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2005) (discussing standards o proo inconsumer credit cases).

73 Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 1 (Debtor deendants are virtually never represented by counsel.); Rudolph, supranote 69.

74 Response to FOIL Request to New York Oce o Court Administration, Sept. 3, 2009.

75 FC Report, supra note 34, at 56. (Consumer groups also assert that consumers who are not represented by counsel may

not know what evidence to present or how to present it.); Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 2, 2123 (Since all creditorsare represented by counsel and the deenses available to debtors can be complex, the gross disparity in representation meansthat debtors almost never raise the overwhelming majority o legitimate deenses available to them.); Rudolph, supra note69 (I the consumers were armed with more education about how to deend themselves against these debts, theyd besuccessul, said Jerey Lipman, a civil magistrate in Des Moines.).

76 Rudolph, supra note 69.

77 FC Report supra note 34, at 57 (In short, the view o consumer groups concerning debt collection litigation was aptlydescribed in a Boston Globearticle: Collectors are almost never asked to prove the debts they claim; deendants are rarelyinormed o their rights. And debtors, usually too strapped to aord a lawyer, have to contend with this legal mismatchalone.); Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 18 (Plaintis counsel may pressure unrepresented deendants intounavorable settlements.); Rudolph, supra note 69.

78 Martin, supra note 69, at 4; FC Report supra note 34, at 57; Rudolph, supra note 69.

79 A sample complaint states that: said action is based upon a Retail Charge Account Agreement executed by deendant withFIRS USA BANK. Te phrase retail charge account is used by other debt buyers to describe a credit agreement betweena consumer and individual retailer, or example, Best Buy or arget, but the Harris Firm uses it to reer to any type oconsumer debt.

80 Leucadia National Group (LUK), a publicly traded, highly diversied holding company that operates essentially like aprivate equity group, owns 19 dierent LR Credit companies, which are listed in Exhibit 21 o Leucadias annual report.Leucadia National Corp., Annual Report (Form 10K Exhibit 21) (Feb, 27, 2009).

81 Pinpoint echnologies appears to be a debt buying shell company o the Harris Firm. Te ocer listed or Pinpointechnologies in the New York State corporate lings database is an S98SHarri located at the address o the Harris Firm.Related companies Pinpoint echnologies oo and 3 are owned by partners o the Harris rm.

82 We were unable to nd inormation on Rushmore Recoveries ownership.

83 However, according to the website o the New York City DCA, a Pinpoint echnologies oo, LLC and a Pinpointechnologies 3, LLC are licensed debt collection agencies.

84 Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 2, 24.

85 Martin, supra note 69, at 3, 7; FC Report, supra note 34, at 57; Appleseed Report, supra note 59, at 2, 24; see also Rudol,supra note 66.


32/36

26 Dept Deception: HOw DEBT BUYERS ABUSE TH

debt deception: how debt buyers abuse the legal system to prey on lower-income new yorkers (2010)

Documents