Nissan to Recall 2013-2015 Altimas for the THIRD TIME over Hood Latches

Nissan is recalling almost 1 million 2013-2015 Nissan Altima sedans because the hood latch could fail, and the hood could fly up and block the driver's view of the road while in motion.  This type of repeated recall can go a long way to making cars qualify for manufacturer's buyback under the lemon laws of most states. Keep mind though, the damage formulas under most lemon laws does not result in a windfall for the consumer. If you have a late model Nissan Altima or other vehicle that has been subject to numerous recalls or repairs, or  if the dealer's service department just can't seem to fix the stupid thing, go to www.consumeradvocates.org and find a NACA lawyer in your state who does lemon law cases.

By the way older cars simply aren't covered under lemon laws. Indiana's lemon law is fairly typical, it only covers vehicles within the first 18 months or 18,000 of when they are delivered to the first consumer buyer.  That being said, if you buy a used car that fails to meet the standard of a warranty that you bougth or which came with the car, you may have some rights as well.

Here's a video that explains the problem on a 2013 Altima.

Do you have a problem with a Recreational Vehicle built in Elkhart County, Indiana? We can help

Elkhart County, Indiana is the RV manufacturing capital of the United States. Elkhart county earned this reputation over the years by having a manufacturing base with skilled labor and a component supplier network located near the manufacturing hub.

Most of the manufacturers in Elkhart county do good work and care about their customers. There are a few bad apples, and there are a few that usually do good work but sometimes have a lemon slip through the cracks.

Most RV buyers who have problems with their vehicles make the mistake of waiting too long before contacting an attorney. As a general rule, I suggest that you contact an attorney after you have given the manufacturer or its dealer 2 opportunities to fix a given defect or two times into the depot to fix a mix of defects.  If you purchase the vehicle from a dealer in your state, you can contact an attorney in your state, and find one through the NACA attorney finder. If you purchased directly from the manufacturer in Indiana, then I suggest that you contact an Indiana attorney. We are one of just a handful of consumer firms in Indiana that handle RV cases. Please contact us if you are having a problem with any of the manufacturers below which are based in Elkhart Count or any other RV manufacturer:  (This is a list of companies - not necessarily a list of companies with a history of problems.)

DRV

Dutchman Manufacturing, Inc.

Forest River Industries, Inc.

Grand Design RV

Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.

H-L Enterprise, Inc.

Heartland recreational Vehicles

Jayco RV

Keystone RV Company

Numar Company

Nexus

Renegade RV, KVLLC

The RV Factory

Thor Motor Coach

Winnebago Industries Towable

An Excellent Q&A on Student Loans

Three of my NACA colleagues,  Jay S. Fleischman, Joshua R.I. Cohen, and Adam Minsky, who practice mostly related to stduent loans, hosted a live question and answer session this week. They recorded the session and posted it to Youtube.

I have mixed feelings about student loan cases. On the one hand, with student loan debt exceeding credit card debt, the need is there, and there are plenty of people with student loan problems. On the other hand, if I had to live in the student loan universe 24 hours a day, I would probably go crazy.

Are you getting dunned for student loans on a college that closed or lost its accreditation?

I got a call from a former student of Ivy Bridge College, a college that lost its accreditation and closed in 2013.  She is still being dunned for money.  Borrowers often have defenses to these loans, but the defenses are often situation-specific.  If you are being dunned for money on a loan for a college or trade school that was either a scam or closed completely, contact a lawyer in your area through NACA at www.consumeradvocates.org.

Are you getting collection calls from GAFCO - Great American Finance Company?

Are you getting collection calls from GAFCO,  the Great American Finance Company?  This company, based out of Illinois, buys finance companies from furniture companies. After fielding a complaint from a caller, I checked online and the company has numerous complaints especially about its billing process and collection communications.  I'm exploring several theories concerning possible violations, but I have to collect information to determine whether these theories will be good enough to bring as cases.  Whereever you are located, drop me a line and let me know your beef with GAFCO. If I think you are on to someting, I will link you up with a NACA attorney in your area.

Holy Cow: Supreme Court Does the Right Thing - Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided the case of Campbel-Ewald Co. vs. Gomez.  This is a case that consumer advocates were anticipating with some trepidation. At issue in the case was a tactic that corporate defendants regularly practice to "pick off" class actions and avoid class action liability. Corporations regularly make "Rule 68 Offers of Judgment" to the named plaintiffs in class actions giving the named plaintiff the full relief the named plaintiff can receive, and then argue that there is no further controversy as to the named plaintiff, so the case is "moot" and must be dismissed.  We weren't looking forward to this decision because this same Supreme Court upheld boiler plate arbitration clauses that mandate arbitration and prohibit class actions.  The Supreme Court did the right thing though, and its decision yesterday makes it harder for defendants to pick off class actions through Rule 68 offers.

Mr. Gomez received unwanted text messages from Campbell Ewald, a contractor for the navy. The messages touted Navy careers. Mr. Gomez asserted that at age 40, he was understandably not interested in Navy careers (and the Navy probably wasn't interested in him), and he sued under the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act, a statute which tries to discourage unsolicited text messages by imposing liability against the sender of up to $1,500 per message if it is sent willfully. Mr. Gomez also sued on behalf of the class of other people who got the unsolicited messages. Campbell Ewald defended by offering $1,500 for each message Mr. Gomez received, then claimed the case was moot because Gomez could not obtain any more relief than what was offered.   There was a split in the federal circuits on whether such an offer moots a case, so the Supreme Court accepted the case to settle the issue.

Much to our surprise, the Supreme Court ruled for Mr. Gomez, the plaintiff.  The opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg adopted reasoning by Justice Kagan in an earlier dissenting opinion written by Justice Kagan when she was a court of appeals judge.  The court ruled that an offer of judgment not accepted simply lapses.  It only becomes relevant again on the issue of costs at the end of the case. (That is what a the plain text of the rule says.) The liberal-moderate wing was surprisingly joined by Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion making the ultimate decision 6-3. 

The Campbell-Ewald case once again shows that the make-up of the Supreme Court is important, and who we elect as President makes a difference in who is on the court.  Clinton-appointed Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion, and Obama-appointee Kagan provided the persuasive reasoning. 

Human Rights Watch Issues Report on the Debt Buying Industry

Human Rights Watch just issued a detailed study on the Debt Buying Industry titled US: Courts Rubber Stamp Corporate Suits Against Poor.   They found the industry to be abusing court system.  Imagine that, go figure.  All kidding aside, the more publicity to this problem, the better, and Human Rights Watch deserves some credit for taking the time and effort to try to get a big picture look at the problem.

I haven't had the time to digest this thing in detail, and I have my own work to do, but there is some interesting stuff in there.  Here's a paragraph about Encore Capital.

Industry leader Encore Capital, a firm better known to millions of alleged debtors as Midland Funding, is one of a handful of large firms that dominates the market for purchased debt, which is also home to a proliferation of much smaller players.[5] Encore’s balance sheets are more transparent than many of its competitors’ because it is a publicly traded company, and they help illustrate the scale and reach of the debt buying industry. In 2013 and 2014 alone, Encore purchased more than 35 million charged-off consumer accounts with a total face value of nearly $100 billion, and in an average year it successfully collects more than $1 billion from US consumers.[6] The company, which has never actually loaned anyone a penny, claims that one in every five US consumers either owe it money or have owed it money in the past.[7] 

 
One in five consumers, holy cow! The last study I saw, Midland Funding is the biggest filer of collection suits in my state, Indiana.  The tragedy is that debts which the initial creditor decided there was no fiscal utility in trying to collect, are being passed down to bottom feeder debt collectors, and that is worse than keeping them on the books of the original creditor. Why?  with the original creditor, the debt stays on the consumer's credit report for seven years after it goes delinquent, then it falls off the credit report completely. When the bottom feeder debt collector gets it, the bottom feeder often waits until the statute of limitations is about to expire (in Indiana, that's 6 years) then files a law suit. The judgment on the lawsuit stays on the credit report for 10 years after it is obtained.  In other words, the debt that would have fallen off the report for 7 years haunts the consumer's credit for 16 years. That's not the end either. In Indiana, you can potentially collect a judgment for 20 years after you obtain it.   The latest thing I've seen is a new breed of collection agency that specializes in collecting old judgments. 

I'll write more when I have the time. These people just piss me off so much I have to cool down. 

Are you being garnished by Centurion Capital Corp?

We have heard a report of consumers being garnished on old judgments obtained by Centurion Capital Corp.  Here's the problem: Centurion Capital Corp. has been dead since 2008. This truly is "zombie debt."

Centurion was a big player in the bottom-feeder debt market in the 2006-2007 period. The company caught some heat for its practices, and it dissolved in 2008.  Even though Centurion has not existed since 2008, it appears that some people are still being garnished (supposedly by) Centurion.  We'd like to know where this money is going.

Some other companies have been associated with Centurion Capital Corp. Here are some:


Aries Data Collection
Great Seneca Financial Corporation
Colonial Credit Corporation
Monarch Capital Corporation
Platinum Financial Service Corporation
Palisades Collection, LLC
Palisades Acquisitions XVI

Very important: even if there is a legitimate judgment against you, a defunct company doesn't necessarily have the right to continue to collect on it.  When I was doing research on this, I ran into this video on Youtube.  It shows the weakness of the claim of a typical debt buyer. This video is based on a case involving Centurion Capital Corp.

VW AdBlue Heater Element Failures in TDI Vehicles - A common problem with an uncertain resolution

A lot of VW TDI (diesel) vehicle owners are reporting failures in the heater element of the Adblue (diesel emission fluid or DEF - urea, basically) system with vehicles that are 2,3 or 4 years old.  The owners are quoted 4 figure repair amounts and almost always are told that the part is not covered under warranty. The failures are so frequent that the parts to fix the problem might be backordered.  How common is this problem? There are 15 pages of consumers complaining about the problem on the TDICLUB Forum.

As I understand the problem, the DEF heater tends to go bad after the comprehensive warranty ends, and it is not covered by the 80,000 mile extended emissions warranty.  Federal law mandates that the emissions system must be fully warranted for performance for 24 months 24,000 miles whichever comes first, and "major components" of the emissions system must be warranted for 8 years, 80,000. Unfortunately the DEF system isn't on the major component list.

The question I can't answer, but owners should be asking is whether there is a relationship between premature DEF heater failure and the cheating software.  In the alternative, should VW be able to dodge repairing the emissions system on any vehicle that was never in compliance in the first place.

If you have a VW affected by an Adblue heater failure or any other failure in the emissions system that is not covered by warranty, I suggest you write the company and complain, but I suggest that you also write to the Environmental Protection Agency. You should suggest that any settlement with VW over the emissions scandal should include a provision where VW reimburses owners for any repairs the emissions system for an extended period of time/miles.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality Compliance Division, Light-Duty Vehicle Group 
 Attn: Warranty Complaints 
 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 
 Email: complianceinfo@epa.gov

I was not able to find any sign of a going concern class action law suit on the problem I think if there was a fairly good case for a class action, there would be multiple law firms vying to start one.  This suggests that hiring a lawyer might not be the best way to address the problem.

If you are successful in getting VW to pay for your Adblue heater, please send me an email giving me specifics with year and miles on your vehicle, and how you approached getting the refund, and I will post your information on the blog for the benefit of anyone else trolling the web to find the answer to their problem.  It looks like some people are getting VW to pay for the part but not the installation or to pay for part of the bill.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

WHAT ABOUT THE VW EMISSIONS SCANDAL ENTIRELY - CAN I GET VW TO BUY MY CAR BACK?

Right now, nobody knows what the end result of the government action against VW will be.  I like Consumers' Union's criteria for an appropriate settlement, which is  below.

Most VW owners will just have to wait until the matter is resolved - a process that could take a couple of years. If your car becomes undrivable and or unsaleable, you should contact a private attorney, but please keep in mind, that nobody has found a magic bullet solution as of yet.  

Is Caliber Home Loans engaged in a pattern and practice of Stealth Foreclosures?

I am beginning to get the picture that Caliber Home Loans, as servicer for a number of securitized trusts, may be engaged in "stealth foreclosures" on a grand scale.  Why do I think that. Well, I have one case that fits the bill, but that one case seems like it is probably one of many just from one securitized trust.  I have written before that Caliber Home Loans is effectively a servicing arm for Lone Star Funds, a private equity vehicle packaging up billions of dollars worth of troubled mortgages.  Loan Star has packaged lots of funds, but the most recent significant ones are LSF 8 Master Participation Trust and LSF 9 Master Participation Trust.

What is a Stealth Foreclosure, and why is it bad?  In a stealth foreclosure, a previous owner of a loan sells the loan during a foreclosure case. What should happen is the new owner should intervene as a party and replead the case. The new owner should also engage in loss mitigation (mortgage modifications, etc.)  Intervening in a mortgage foreclosure case and engaging in another round of loss mitigation naturally slows down the foreclosure process, but if that's a problem, there's no law saying any mortgage buyer has to buy loans that are already in foreclosure.  From the point of view of the homeowner, and probably society as a whole, slowing down the case is probably good, especially if the previous lender didn't engage in good faith loss mitigation in the first place - a practice which is all too common.  The stealth foreclosers may just be allowing the previous owners to run the foreclosure because they are lazy, but they also could be holding back because there could be problems with the transfers to the new owners. Problems with these transfers could give the homeowners defenses to the foreclosure - but not if they don't know the people foreclosing on them have already sold the loans.

To put things in perspective, understand how companies like the LSF Master Participation Trusts get a huge chunk of their loans. They buy the loans from HUD auctions.  HUD gets the loans when it pays off on FHA insurance contracts.  At this point, the original lender has been paid off and has avoided a large loss on the contract thanks to federal mortgage insurance.  When HUD auctions the loan the new buyers buy at a huge discount, perhaps paying 70% the original amount of the loan.  As a matter of public policy, HUD could have offered a 30% subsidy to the original lender to offer to the borrower, or HUD could have offered the 30% subsidy direclty to the borrower.  Insstead, the hedgefund owned mortgage pool gets the loan subsidy.  The loan pool then has the opportunity to cut a deal with the homeowner at a significant discount to keep the homeowner in the home.  Instead of doing so, they seem to be just going through with the foreclosures and putting the home on the market.  All of the delays, evictions and distressed sales are driving down the home values in many neighborhoods, even for folks that never got behind on their mortgages at all.   In other words, it isn't a hardship to require the new loan buyers to engage in loss mitigation, these buyers have already received a huge subsidy either at taxpayers' or mortgage insurance payers' expense.

To allow these opportunist mortgage funds to engage in stealth foreclosures continues the harmful economic trends that have become commonplace, the trend toward commonized costs and privitized profits.

If you have a loan that has been taken over by Caliber Home Loans which is already in foreclosure by another lender.  I suggest that you contact Caliber and demand that the new owner intervene in the foreclosure case. If they do not, you should file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Tell the CFPB that your new and old lenders are conspiring to do a stealth foreclosure. contact a consumer attorney in your area through the National Association of Consumer Advocates at www.consumeradvocates.org or www.naca.net.