On April 16, 2007, the Plaintiff executed a mortgage loan from Bank of
America, N.A. After the Plaintiff failed to make adequate payments, Bank
of America, N.A. filed a Foreclosure Complaint. In January 2013, the Plaintiff
filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, resulting in an entrance of an automatic
stay. In June 2013, the Plaintiff filed a modified Chapter 13 bankruptcy,
proposing to surrender the home to Bank of America, N.A. to satisfy the
claims. The modified plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court in June 2013.
Not too long after, Bank of America, N.A. sold the debt to BSI Financial
Services, Inc. On October 1, 2014, BSI Financial Services, Inc. sent the
Plaintiff a Notice of Servicing Transfer, which told the Plaintiff to
send any payments due on or after October 1, 2014 to BSI Financial Services,
Inc. The new servicing group also attached a disclaimer, which read:
If you have filed a bankruptcy petition and there is an “automatic
stay” in effect in your bankruptcy case or you have received a discharge
of your personal liability for the obligation identified in this letter,
we may not and do not intend to pursue collection of that obligation from
Six months after the notice was sent, BSI Financial Services, Inc. placed
over ten phone calls to the Plaintiff’s cell phone, and no less
than five to the Plaintiff’s home telephone. In addition, BSI Financial
Services, Inc. left over 10 voicemails.
Finally, the Plaintiff answered and requested for BSI Financial Services,
Inc. to stop calling them since they had already filed bankruptcy. Unfortunately,
the calls continued. The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that BSI
Financial Services, Inc.:
- Made at least 10 calls between October 15, 2014 and December 12, 2014
- Used an automatic telephone dialing system when calling
- Continued to make calls to the Plaintiff cell phone
- Continued to contact the Plaintiff without consent
Following these claims, BSI Financial Services, Inc. requested that the
court dismiss four different claims.
Because the Plaintiff made various claims, the court made multiple decisions.
These decisions are listed below:
- The court determined that Count 1 of the Complaint would not be dismissed
because BSI Financial Services, Inc. acted as a debt collector, violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- The court determined that Count II of the complaint would be dismissed
because there was no proof that the voicemails left to the Plaintiff were
prerecorded, that the Plaintiff answered the calls, or that there was
a delay before the Plaintiff received a human response.
- The court determined that Count III would not be dismissed because the
defendant participated in acts of collecting, assessing, or recovering
a claim against the debtor by sending the Plaintiff letters and making
multiple phone calls for collection purposes. By participating in such
activities, the defendant violated the bankruptcy automatic stay.
- The court must further analyze the fourth claim to determine whether the
defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Deceptive Business Practices Act.
We Represent Those Facing Serious Financial Hardships
If you and your family are experiencing serious financial troubles, we
encourage you to contact our Chicago consumer lawyers at Sulaiman Law
Group, LTD right away. When you choose to work with our firm, we will
listen to you and examine every detailed involved with your case. From
there, we can formulate an effective strategy to help you and your family
move towards a more comfortable living situation. When our firm is on
your side, you won’t have to worry about a single thing. Throughout
every case, our Chicago consumer attorneys will address any questions
or concerns you may have to make you feel as safe as possible.
Don’t worry another day.
Contact Sulaiman Law Group, LTD and let us provide you with a comprehensive solution! We have a perfect
10.0 Superb Avvo Rating!