We Defend You Against
Forster & Garbus, LLP
The Langel Firm defends consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Forster & Garbus, LLP. We defend against collection lawsuits, and wage garnishments, and bank seizures. Forster & Garbus often represents National Collegiate Student Loan Trust and LVNV Funding, LLC.
If you need help against Foster & Garbus, LLP, call us at (888) 271-7109, or complete this form.
STATE-COURT CASES
Successful Garnishment Settlement: LVNV Funding, LLC v. Providian Financial Corp.
We stopped a $13,489.94 garnishment (income execution by Marshal), and convinced Forster & Garbus, LLP to accept a little over $1,000 it had obtained through a prior garnishment to settle the case in full. (LVNV Funding, LLC A/P/O Providian Financial Corp. L.B., #90349/08).
Debt Validation Violation Case: K. K. v. Forster & Garbus
After receiving a collection demand letter from Forster & Garbus, our client responded with a timely, written demand for validation of the debt. Astutely, our client sent it certified, return receipt requested, as all consumers should do. Despite its signed receipt of the validation demand letter, Forster left our client a voicemail the very next day. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a strictly enforced piece of law, and in our opinion, the one phone call made by Forster & Garbus without validating the debt violated that statute. The parties are settling the case. K. K. v. Forster & Garbus, 158932-06 (Civil Court, New York County, 2012).
Credit Card Lawsuit Discontinued: LVNV Funding, LLC v. E.M.
Threatening a countersuit for a venue violation under FDCPA § 1692i(A)(2) and credit reporting violations under FDPCA § 1692e(8), Forster & Garbus on behalf of its client LVNV Funding, LLC, immediately discontinued with prejudice its $14,576 credit card lawsuit. LVNV Funding, LLC v. E.M., 2457/12 (Civil Court, New York County, 2012).
Venue (location) Transgression Resolved: Atlantic Credit & Finance v. S.S.
Our client was sued in Staten Island but had been living in Brooklyn since 2010. Forster & Garbus, representing Atlantic Credit & Finance, a Virginia-based debt buyer, conceded to the venue transgression and immediately discontinued the action. Atlantic Credit & Finance v. S.S., 6670/12, (Civil Court, Richmond Court 2012).
What is "Venue," and Why is It Important in Debt Collection?
In the context of law, "venue" refers to the specific geographical location or jurisdiction where a legal case is filed or heard. It determines the court or tribunal where the case will be resolved. For example, if you are involved in a legal dispute, the venue would be the specific courthouse or court system where your case will be handled. The choice of venue is often based on factors such as the location of the parties involved or where the events giving rise to the legal issue occurred. It is important to ensure that the venue is appropriate and complies with the applicable laws and rules governing the jurisdiction.
FEDERAL-COURT CASES
Court Holds Debt Collectors Not Required to Disclose Accruing Interest and Fees in Settlement Offers: Cortez v. Forster & Garbus, LLP
Summary: The case involved a consumer's action against a debt collector, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) regarding a debt collection letter that offered to settle the consumer's credit card debt. The Court of Appeals held that a collection notice extending a settlement offer in full satisfaction of the debt did not need to disclose that the debt was still accruing interest and fees to comply with the FDCPA.
3 Key Points:
- The FDCPA requires debt collectors to disclose that the account balance may increase due to interest and fees when notifying consumers of their account balance.
- However, when a debt collector extends a settlement offer that clearly states the specified amount will fully satisfy the debt if paid by a specific date, it is not required to disclose that interest and fees are still accruing.
- The collection notice offering a settlement choice to the consumer, with specified payment amounts and dates, was found to be clear and accurate in communicating the offer to clear the outstanding debt.
Case Citation: Cristian D. Cortez v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, No. 20-1134, August Term 2020, Argued: January 28, 2021, Decided: June 4, 2021.
Forster & Garbus in hot water for suing wrong person
A respected colleague of ours helped make some good law. A Supreme Court judge upheld a negligence theory against Forster & Garbus finding that it must make a "reasonable effort" to ensure that it sues the right people. This holding is pivotal for consumers suing collectors and their lawyers for negligently caused injury. Ordinarily, in other contexts, attorneys who represent adverse parties generally don't owe you a "duty" of reasonable care. See the full blog entry here: Forster & Garbus Sues Wrong Woman. Lindor v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, et al., 20517/10 (Supreme Court, Kings County).
Class Action Proceeds: Lee v. Forster & Garbus LLP: FDCPA Violation in Debt Collection Letter
Class action proceeds against Forster & Garbus, LLP for misidentification of creditor "NCOP XI, LLC A/P/O Capital One." See full blog entry here.
Synopsis: The debtor filed a class action lawsuit against a successor creditor and its representative, alleging that a collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by failing to identify the creditor to whom the debtor owed the debt. The court denied the motion to dismiss and held that the debtor had stated plausible claims for misleading and unfair communication, emphasizing the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer.
3 Key Points:
- The collection letter was deemed misleading and failed to identify the creditor, violating the FDCPA.
- The letter was found to be unfair and deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer due to the lack of information regarding the relationship between the successor creditor and the original creditor.
- The debtor was allowed to bring the FDCPA action against both the successor creditor and its representative, even though the representative was not listed as a possible defendant in the debtor's bankruptcy schedule of assets.
Case Citation: Eun Joo Lee v. Forster & Garbus LLP and NCOP XI, LLC, No. 12–cv–420 (DLI)(CLP), March 1, 2013.
FORSTER & GARBUS BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Forster & Garbus, LLP is a high volume consumer debt collection law firm that brings tens of thousands of cases against consumers each year. It represents banks, lenders and third-party debt buyers. Forster & Garbus is a New York domestic limited liability partnership with its principal place of business in Commack, New York.
Contact The Langel Firm at (888) 271-7109 for representation in your lawsuit.
More information to help with a wage garnishment:
- Receive a Notice of Garnishment? Here’s a Summary of New York Law
- How much of my wages can be garnished? Summary of New York Law
- Vacating a Default Judgment in New York: 8 Fine Points
Here is a list of New York City’s Marshals who enforce wage garnishments:
- City Marshal Ronald Moses
- City Marshal Bruce Kemp
- City Marshal Gregg E. Bienstock
- City Marshal Martin Bienstock
- City Marshal Henry Daly
If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109 or complete this form.