|
2713877
|
2017-10-27
|
Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
|
Debt collection
|
|
| Issue |
Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Debt collection
|
| Sub Issue |
Threatened to sue you for very old debt
|
| Sub Product |
Other debt
|
| Date Received |
2017-10-27
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-10-27
|
| Complaint What Happened |
This company contacted me and left a very threatening voicemail. Said company stated that if they were not contacted back would pursue legal action. Also did not state what it was regarding leaving an assumption that I have done something wrong. Contacted company back and the person on the phone threatened to sue me for a dead debt that is over XXXX XXXX XXXX. I stated multiple times that I do not agree to this debt and the company insisted that I had. Repeated over and over again. Then stated that since I agreed to the debt it starts over the statue of limitations for the next XXXX years. I know the law and this is not true and told the man this who became more irate and threatening to sue me. Continued until the company hung up on me.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
2480134
|
2017-05-09
|
Communication tactics
|
Debt collection
|
|
| Issue |
Communication tactics
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Debt collection
|
| Sub Issue |
You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying
|
| Sub Product |
I do not know
|
| Date Received |
2017-05-09
|
| Submitted Via |
Postal mail
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-05-19
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
2447379
|
2017-04-21
|
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
FHA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2017-04-21
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-04-21
|
| Complaint What Happened |
I was behind on my mortgage and called the mortgage company to make a payment on X/XX/2017 . I was told at that point that I could not make a payment with them, but I needed to contact XXXX , XXXX , XXXX , XXXX regarding a reinstatement quote. I immediately called them and was told that I needed to send in writing that I was requesting a quote. I sent them an email on the same day X/XX/2017 . I received an email back from them the same day stating that they could not find my account. I never heard back from them again until X/X/17 when I was served with a summons for foreclosure. Again, I contacted the mortgage company and XXXX 's office regarding the payments that needed to be made. I was told again to send an email requesting a reinstatement quote ( as it had to be in writing ). I sent the email on X/X/17 , this time with no response. I followed up with the mortgage company about a week later, who stated that the lawyers office forwarded them the quote email and they replied back the same day with the total amount. I called XXXX 's office on two separate occasions having to leave a message both times with no contact back. I finally sent my 3rd reinstatement quote request on X/XX/17 by email again. This time I received an email by the end of the day, with all fees and costs quoted, but with an deadline to pay by X/XX/17 . They gave me a 4 day deadline to pay close to {$10000.00}, and this is AFTER I was already told twice by their company that I would have 30 days to pay reinstatement from the date that the quote was given to me. I feel that if XXXX 's office has responded when I first sent the email back in XXXX , or even the second email the beginning of XXXX there would be more time to resolve this issue as supposed to 3 days before I am supposed to respond to a foreclosure summons. I also feel that 4 days is an unreasonable amount of time to try to pay back fees, especially when I was already told twice that I would have 30 days.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
928953
|
2014-07-09
|
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
VA mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2014-07-09
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2014-07-14
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
|
3558274
|
2020-03-07
|
Struggling to pay mortgage
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Servicemember
|
| Issue |
Struggling to pay mortgage
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)
|
| Date Received |
2020-03-07
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2020-03-07
|
| Complaint What Happened |
I just received a letter from McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC ON XXXX. I took out 2nd mortgage in XXXX, since then I received two modifications. My second mortgage of originally XXXX after making payments reduced to 45k-46k. The balance was put in back of the loan and stayed silent. Now this law firm is asking the balance with fees and interest totaling XXXX as of XXXX XXXX. This firm has not taken any action as of yet. Just trying to collect a misinform debt. My home foreclosure may be their short term goal.
I did indeed noticed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not mentioned at all in the letter sent. The original company ( SLS ) in which the money was said to be owed and they would proffit 100 % of the proceeds if successful. I also just looked at my County Court public records and also noticed ( XXXX XXXX ) just filed or added their named along with others on XX/XX/XXXX.
I am just a XXXX military war vet. trying to survive another year. Now this.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
3406370
|
2019-10-15
|
Trouble during payment process
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Older American
|
| Issue |
Trouble during payment process
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional home mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2019-10-15
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2019-10-17
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
2722929
|
2017-11-07
|
Attempts to collect debt not owed
|
Debt collection
|
|
| Issue |
Attempts to collect debt not owed
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Debt collection
|
| Sub Issue |
Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed
|
| Sub Product |
Credit card debt
|
| Date Received |
2017-11-07
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2017-11-07
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent not provided
|
|
|
3020103
|
2018-09-15
|
Attempts to collect debt not owed
|
Debt collection
|
|
| Issue |
Attempts to collect debt not owed
|
| Timely |
Yes
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Debt collection
|
| Sub Issue |
Debt is not yours
|
| Sub Product |
Mortgage debt
|
| Date Received |
2018-09-15
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2018-09-21
|
| Complaint What Happened |
On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter referred to as " Plaintiff '' ) acknowledged receipt of my communication submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I am a victim of identity theft. I do not owe any debt alleged by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. A settlement demand was made on XX/XX/XXXX ( see enclosed attachments ) .On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accepted the settlement offer. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX failed to prepare and forward the necessary settlement documents as stated in their letter. Phone calls were made to McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce , LLC the office representing XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX regarding the XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act, FACT ACT, FAIR HOUSING ACT, 42 U.S.C. 3601 and EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1691. The indebtedness incorporated into the Final Judgment for Foreclosure in XXXX XXXX, Florida case number XXXX is incorrect in respect to the following : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. was not the owner and holder of the original promissory note at the inception of this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. did not have standing at time of inception of this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. never filed a valid Certification of Note Possession or affidavit of record indicating it was in continuous possession of the original promissory note at the time suit was filed. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. was not the owner and holder of the original promissory note at the time to foreclose. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. did not have standing at the hearing/trial on XX/XX/XXXX. The original promissory note was surrendered and cancelled by the Court. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. had to have continuous possession of the original promissory note prior to hearing/trial and prior to filing of Lis Pendens. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. did not have the original promissory note when it went to file this case. There is a genuine issue of material fact in this case in that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. lacked standing to file suit against me. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. was not in continuous possession of the required documents to bring suit against me. I informed and disputed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. regarding the amount in controversy in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. is not entitled to Final Judgment for Foreclosure because the original promissory note did have endorsement. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Certification of Note Possession attached as Exhibit A in its Verified Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage ( filed XX/XX/XXXX ) is inadmissible. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. was never in continuous possession of the original promissory note in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. can not prove it had endorsed original promissory note the whole time in this case. I disputed Verification of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. complaint in this case. I did not default in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. chose not to amend its Certification of Note Possession in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. chose not to amend its Verified Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Complaint has failed to cure this Courts lack of subject matter jurisdiction. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. can not establish it had continuous possession or is entitled to enforce the original promissory note in this case. I am not incumbent to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Executive Office confirmed on XX/XX/XXXX via written correspondence that I, ( non-borrower ( s ) /non-customer ( s ) /non-tenant ( s ) ), have no personal obligation to make payment. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. can not prove it had the endorsed original promissory note at the time of the inception of this case and at the time to foreclose. Countervailing facts and evidence in favor of me are demonstrated in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. failed to meet its burden in this case. I was granted permission from the Court on XX/XX/XXXX to further file and prosecute this case against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. As pled in Court, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. responses in opposition to my motions itself doesnt demonstrate a colorable entitlement to relief. I raised defense at the first opportunity. My pleadings and/or appropriate motions were timely raised. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has failed to comply with, and demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Florida Statues. Compliance is clearly a condition precedent to maintaining a suit and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. must allege compliance in its Complaint. XXXX XXXX XXXX, v XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has failed to plead that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case as required by Rule 1.110 ( b ) ( 1 ) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1.110 ( b ) requires XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. to plead a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief As the Complaint does not comply with minimum pleading requirements and in doing so, fails to state a cause of action and/or presents fatal defects and/or flaws, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. The Complaint states, Plaintiff has and hereby declares the full amount payable under the Note and Mortgage to be due and payable. 7. This vague declaration is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, and fails to put me on notice as to the amount in controversy. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Complaint made the bare allegation that All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed or have occurred. 8. This bare allegation is legally insufficient to meet the requirements of Florida Statues. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has failed to provide any facts to support its bare allegation. If a complaint is so vague, indefinite, and ambiguous as to wholly fail to state a cause of action, it is subject to dismissal. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). In considering the validity of the Complaint upon filing of a motion to dismiss, the Court must confine strictly to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX ). Looking to the four corners of the Complaint, it is clear that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has failed to plead any allegations which would support a recognized cause of action under Florida law against the me. Pursuant to Court rulings in the State of Florida, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. can not apply or seek issuance of a Writ of Possession in this case. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. sued me using unfair tactics and bad faith inconsistent with Government/Federal laws and lending guidelines, including violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regulations. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. responses in opposition to my motions are sham pleadings, as defined under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.150. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. pleadings are inherently false and clearly known to be false at the time the pleading was made. The Court should warrant the rejection of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. pleadings as a sham, a mere pretense, set up in bad faith and without color of fact. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. pleadings should be stricken, as the issues raised therein are a sham, knowingly false and without any justiciable standing and have been raised by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. for the sole purpose of delay. As set forth hereinabove, the allegations made in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. responses in opposition to my Motions are known by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. to be false, filed solely for the purpose of delay and to frustrate the judicial process, and thus, constitute sham pleading.
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
1670502
|
2015-11-24
|
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Tags |
Older American
|
| Issue |
Loan modification,collection,foreclosure
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)
|
| Date Received |
2015-11-24
|
| Submitted Via |
Web
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
No
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2015-12-07
|
| Complaint What Happened |
In XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and their attorneys at McCalla- Raymer , LLC XXXX sold our home of 23 years on the courthouse steps in XXXX XXXX GA. This was the first and only mortgage on the home, i.e., there were no second mortgages or other leins on the property, and we only had 7 years left on that same 30 year mortgage. We were six months behind on our mortgage ... the same six months that followed our attendance at a " save your home '' seminar at the Georgia XXXX sponsored by XXXX XXXX. The only option we were given [ several months later ] was to double our mortgage payments for 6 or 7 months, and then we would be " caught up '', which we could not possibly afford since I was unemployed and my wife had taken a job in another State to provide for our basic needs.
The issue we are facing now, over five years since the foreclosure, is that while the house sold for approximately {$90000.00} [ vs. the roughly {$60000.00} we owed after they tacked on another {$7000.00} in legal fees ], leaving a little over {$30000.00} in excess proceeds. After over three years of trying to get them to release these excess funds, we were able to get approximately {$19000.00} of those funds released to us. The other approx. XXXX was held because back in the early nineties, we had my wife 's mother added to the title so she would agree to move in with us, as she was XXXX. She had no other assets when she died XX/XX/XXXX, so there was never a need for probating her will ( or so we thought at the time ). Recently, we received hold harmless, " no administration needed '' form, and some other agreement to sign in order to receive the remaining $ XXXX in excess proceeds ... except that the amount they would release was only {$6100.00}! When I called to ask the reason for the nearly {$5000.00} in additional charges on funds that they have owed to us for over FIVE YEARS, they claimed that they needed to do research to prove [ to themselves ] that my wife was the correct heir to those funds ( she was an only child ), while these charges were in fact for research that only served to protect THEM!
XXXX XXXX and their agents, McCalla-Raymer, held {$30000.00} of our money for well over three years ... begrudgingly releasing {$19000.00} at that point after many, many phone calls, and they have held the remaining {$11000.00} for over five years now. Considering that we were only six months late on a total of about {$6000.00}, I feel we are justifiably outraged at the actions of these individuals and their corporate veils. FYI, three months after the foreclosure in XXXX, the new owners sold our former house, for which they paid {$90000.00} ... for {$160000.00}!! We had paid {$110000.00} in XXXX, and had planned to never sell the house.
We feel we should at the very least be able to receive the entire {$11000.00} in excess proceeds from the sale of the foreclosure, assuming they are legally, if not morally, required to pay us interest on the money they have held for the last 5+ years. We honestly feel that if we had not repeatedly requested information on these funds, this money would have simply been kept, as there was never ANY accounting for anything that transpired from the foreclosure or anything thereafter. I 'm sure we would have heard from them if the house had sold for less than what we owed! I only discovered how much the house sold for when I met with the new owners to retrieve some personal property from the house. Several thousand dollars worth of personal property went missing the week before the foreclosure because someone showing the house to potential buyers had apparently left the door unlocked.
This has been a recurring nightmare over much of the last five years! Can you help us?
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
Consent provided
|
|
|
5848096
|
2022-08-05
|
Trouble during payment process
|
Mortgage
|
|
| Issue |
Trouble during payment process
|
| Timely |
No
|
| Company |
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC
|
| Product |
Mortgage
|
| Sub Product |
Conventional home mortgage
|
| Date Received |
2022-08-05
|
| Submitted Via |
Referral
|
| Company Response |
Closed with explanation
|
| Consumer Disputed |
N/A
|
| Date Sent To Company |
2022-08-05
|
| Consumer Consent Provided |
N/A
|
|
