Jennifer
Baltimore,#2Consumer Comment
Sat, October 15, 2005
See the new complaint I filed on 10/14. They soliticed us for a loan, I am disabled with 4 children. THey acquired us a loan and we "settled" on 9/8/05. The Lender they chose decided not to fund our loan due to an error on their part. Dana Capitol ( Joe and James) kept telling us it was a funding issue and to call the escrow company, which I did. They then told us it would fund the next week, and the next week, it did not. At this point our Sept. payment was late (we thought it was getting paid off). Now our credit scores have dropped below a certain point and nobody will give us a loan, and we have to come up with $3000.00 by the end of Nov. to keep our house.
Stacy
Lutherville,#3Author of original report
Fri, July 08, 2005
Thanks for the "info". I followed the federal procedure (I am an attorney" after all) I actually settled with them, so I guess I did something correct
Jeff
OKC,#4Consumer Comment
Thu, July 07, 2005
I read your complaint and saw that you have filed a lawsuit citiing the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) I have had extensive dealing with this law and the associated cases. First I have some bad news for you. Your case as it stands is no good. If you read the TCPA you will see that in order for the TCPA to be in effect you must first have asked the company to stop calling you. The United States Supreme court has not riled on any case dealing wiht the TCPA but if you were to do a little research you will see that in every state where there was a case dealing with the TCPA that went to that states Supreme Court you will see they all say that you must first ask the compnay to not call you. Then and only then, if they call you with in a 12 month period, you can sue for that second and any subsiquent call. I don't know of all the states that had a case go to the Supreme Court but I do know that Maryland had one. They found that in order to have a right o sue someone under the TCPA you must first have asked that compnay to not call you. That you only had a right to sue for the second and any subsiquent calls. They said they were going to agree with all the other courts that heard this type of case. Just though you might want to know.