New York City Debt Collection Defense Attorney
Cutting-Edge Legal Representation Manageable Fee Structures

We Defend You Against
Equable Ascent Financial, LLC

The Langel firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Equable Ascent Financial, LLC. We defend against collection lawsuits, wage garnishments, and bank seizures. Payment plans are available.

According to the Better Business Bureau, its address is 160 N Franklin St Suite 301 Chicago, IL 60606 with a phone number of (866) 902-7395. New York state Division of Corporations lists Equable Ascent Financial, LLC as "inactive."

In New York, Equable Ascent Financial, LLC is or was often represented by Rubin & Rothman, LLC and Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP.

Contact us to help you with your matter.

We quickly stopped enforcement of a judgment obtained by Rubin & Rothman, LLC representing Equable Ascent Financial, LLC, where we argued that the underlying debt fell within the scope of the Chase-CPFB Consent Order. The Marshal involved was Henry Daly.

Equable Ascent Financial LLC Grilled about its Legal Authority to Collect on a Judgment

Equable Ascent Financial LLC filed a lawsuit against a consumer for failure to pay a consumer credit debt. However, concerns arise regarding the validity of the assignment of judgment, as Equable's status as a legal entity is in question. The court requested documentation to prove Equable's viability and the authority granted in the power of attorney.

3 Key Points in Equable Ascent Financial LLC v. Tirado:

  1. Equable's inactive status raises doubts: Equable is listed as an inactive entity with the New York Department of State, potentially invalidating the assignment of judgment.
  2. Need for proof of legal authority: Documentation is required to establish Equable's status as a viable entity at the time of executing the power of attorney and the extent of authority granted to Cavalry.
  3. Clarification on LLC's role in power of attorney: Counsel needs to address whether a limited liability company (LLC) can act as both a principal and an agent in a power of attorney, and if so, provide relevant legal support.

Case Citation: Equable Ascent Financial LLC v. Tirado, No. 6126/11, Aug. 10, 2015.

Why was Equable Ascent Financial's Power of Attorney Questioned?

GOL § 5–1501 refers to a section of the General Obligations Law (GOL) in New York that governs the use of powers of attorney. Specifically, GOL § 5–1501 provides definitions and regulations related to principals and agents in power of attorney transactions. The purpose of this section is to establish the legal framework and terminology for powers of attorney in New York state.

Equable Ascent Financial LLC v. Tirado, the court questioned whether an LLC, such as Equable Ascent Financial LLC, can act as a principal or an agent in a power of attorney. The court sought clarification on whether an LLC is permitted to execute a power of attorney and the scope of authority that can be granted in such a document.

The court also references GOL § 5–1501(C), which states that certain powers of attorney are excluded from the provisions of the law. This includes powers of attorney given primarily for business or commercial purposes, provided that they are coupled with an interest in the subject of the power.

Why was Equable Ascent Financial's Assignment of Judgment Questioned?

Now, let's discuss the concept of an assignment of judgment. An assignment of judgment is a legal process by which a creditor transfers their right to collect a debt to another party. In other words, the creditor assigns their judgment to a third party, who then becomes responsible for pursuing the debt collection.

In the context of the case, Equable Ascent Financial LLC seeks to file an assignment of judgment. This means they want to transfer their right to collect the debt owed by Damian Tirado to another entity, likely Cavalry SPV I, LLC. However, the court questions the validity of the assignment due to concerns regarding Equable's legal status and the authority granted in the power of attorney.

Vacating a Default Judgment in New York: 8 Fine Points

Court Grants Equable Ascent Financial, LLC's Motion to Dismiss a Complaint Alleging FDCPA Violations

In Yang Pao Vang v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC (E.D. Cal. 2011), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Equable Ascent Financial, LLC's motion to dismiss the Complaint made by a consumer plaintiff.

Two Core Issues in Yang Pao Vang v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC:

  1. Was Equable a "debt collector"? The case highlights the need to accurately define legal roles such as "debt collector," "consumer," and "debt" in the context of FDCPA violations. This led to the complaint's dismissal due to inadequate specification.

  2. Validation demand within 30 days: The consumer's failure to allege submission of a written debt dispute notice within the stipulated 30-day period led to the dismissal of the claim under the FDCPA's debt verification requirement. This emphasizes the significance of following legal procedures in debt disputes.

The consumer plaintiff's Complaint was a form complaint provided by the Fresno County Small Claims Court. The consumer sought $1,000.00 based on "consumer protection afforded by the FDCPA." The consumer alleged that Equable failed to validate the debt, yet still continued to report the debt to the credit bureaus, thus violating the FDCPA. Equable removed the case from Small Claims Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed where the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Such dismissals occur where no cognizable legal theory is presented, or where there is an absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable theory.

Equable argued, and the Court agreed, that the consumer's Complaint did not state a claim because the Complaint did not allege that Equable was a "debt collector," or that the plaintiff was a "consumer," or that Equable was attempting to collect on a "debt" as defined by the FDCPA.

Further, the Court agreed that the consumer's attempt to allege a violation of the FDCPA concerning Equable's reports to the credit bureaus was unfounded on the face of the Complaint. The FDCPA "requires a debt collector, who receives from a consumer written notice disputing a debt, to cease collection of the debt directly from the consumer until it has obtained either verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment and provided it to the consumer." However, if a written demand is not made, the collector may assume the debt to be valid.

Here, the consumer attempted to allege a violation of this verification requirement, but made no allegation that he submitted a written notice disputing the debt within 30 days of receiving notice of the debt from Equable. Thus, the protection of that section of the FDCPA did not apply.

The Court accordingly found that the Complaint did not plead a viable claim, and that dismissal of the Complaint was appropriate. However, the Court granted the consumer leave to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies.

5 Powerful Lawsuit Defenses for New York Debtors in 2022 and 2023

Contact us to help you with your matter.

Equable Ascent Financial, LLC Biographical Information

Equable Ascent Financial, LLC is a foreign limited liability company incorporated in Delaware and is principally located at 1120 West Lake Cook Drive, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, 60089. It is licensed (#1347396), which may have lapsed as of today) by the Department of Consumer Affairs to collect debts in the City of New York.