The Langel Firm Sues Kavulich & Associates, P.C. for Taking Wrong Man's Money

A collection attorney who mistakes a consumer's identity, sues him, and then takes his money through a bank levy could conceivably plead the bona fide error defense. (assuming quick, corrective action is taken).

But what if that same collection attorney maintains collection efforts after possessing actual knowledge that these acts were against an innocent, third-party? Well that, we argue, is unreasonable and violative of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in B.H. v. Kavulich & Associates, P.C., 12-CV-5671 EDNY, 2012) filed on Friday, November 16, 2012.

In this case, our client was sued for somebody else's debt apparently due to similarly spelled names. He was never properly served with court papers and consequently suffered a default judgment that led to the seizure of his Chase bank account in approximately 2009. Since then, he and his family have exchanged overwhelming proof (license, lease, social security number and even a sworn declaration by the actual debtor!) that he was targeted wrongfully. Despite Kavulich's promise to return the money in 2010, his office continued litigation efforts by opposing our client's motion (court request) to vacate the judgment as against him and seek his money back. We argue that, in his responsive attorney affirmation, Kavulich falsely affirmed facts he knew to be false.

After years of needless litigation, Kavulich finally agreed by stipulation to vacate the judgment and cause the return of our client's money, which has been returned, but well after a court-imposed 30-day deadline.

Our client suffered real damages in this case including missed work, legal fees, and plane ticket(s) expenses, which we will vigorously fight for the return of.

Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.