Florida Injury Attorney Blawg

Helpful tips to reduce identify theft:

• Do not sign the back of your credit cards. Instead, put "PHOTO ID REQUIRED."


• When you are writing checks to pay on your credit card accounts, DO NOT put the complete account number on the "For" line. Instead, just put the last four numbers. The credit card company knows the rest of the number, and anyone who might be handling your check as it passes through all the check processing channels won't have access to it.


• Put your work phone # on your checks instead of your home phone. If you have a PO Box, use that instead of your home address. If you do not have a PO Box, use your work address. Never have your SS# printed on your checks. You can add it if it is necessary. But if you have It printed, anyone can get it.


• Place the contents of your wallet on photocopy machine. Do both sides of each license, credit card, etc. You will know what you had in your wallet and all of the account numbers and phone numbers to call and cancel. Keep the photocopy in a safe place.


• (Also carry a photocopy of your passport when traveling either here or abroad.)

• Cancel your credit cards immediately. The key to this is having the toll free numbers and your card numbers handy so you know whom to call. Keep those where you can find them.


• File a police report immediately in the jurisdiction where your credit cards, etc., were stolen. This proves to credit providers you were diligent, and this is a first step toward an investigation (if there ever is one).


• Call the 3 national credit reporting organizations immediately to place a fraud alert on your name and also call the Social Security fraud line number. The alert means any company that checks your credit knows your information was stolen, and they have to contact you by phone to authorize new credit.

• Equifax: 1-800-525-6285 1-800-525-6285


• Experian (formerly TRW): 1-888-397-3742 1-888-397-3742


• Trans Union : 1-800-680 7289 1-800-680 7289


• Social Security Administration (fraud line): (800) 269-0271 & (800) 269-0271

Continue reading "Identity Theft Safety Tips" »

In Patricia Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A, N.A., No. 4D09-651 (opinion published on June 9, 2010) (not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing), the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, sent a cautionary message to those who fail to object within a reasonable period of time to incorrect account statements.

In every civil legal case, the initial burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to present a prima facie case. In a lawsuit brought to collect a debt, this means that the Plaintiff/Creditor must come forward initially with probative evidence of the correct amount of the debt and the liability of the debtor. Without doing so, the Plaintiff/Creditor's case will fail.

In the Farley case, before the lawsuit was filed Chase Bank had rendered an account statement to Ms. Farley. When Ms. Farley failed to pay or challenge the correctness of the statement, she was sued by the bank.

At the trial court level, Chase Bank came forward with evidence that Ms. Farley had received the account statement and failed to challenge its correctness. Ms. Farley insisted that Chase Bank must prove its case by providing an itemized copy of the account sued upon. The trial court disagreed with Ms. Farley, concluding instead that the bank had made a prima facie case by presenting evidence that Ms. Farley had failed to challenge the correctness of the pre-suit account statement. Ms. Farley's appeal of the trial court's decision was rejected by the 4th DCA.

Continue reading "Florida Debt Collection Law: Account Stated - Disagree Now or Pay Later" »

Individuals and companies sued in Florida on debts (real & fabricated) and delinquent mortgages are not without legal defenses or affirmative relief. Here is a checklist of some of the available legal principles:

• Estoppel - Equitable, Promissory and Collateral.


• The action is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to such actions.


• This action is barred by the statute of frauds.


• Unclean Hands.


• Payment.


• Fraud.


• Right of Rescission.


• The note is unenforceable under Florida law.


• The Plaintiff did notify the Defendant of any assignment within thirty (30) days.


• The Plaintiff is not the real party in interest herein and has no standing to make this claim against Defendant.


• The Defendant herein did not contract with or agree to incur any debt to Plaintiff; therefore, Plaintiff does not have a legal claim against Defendant.


• The Plaintiff did not purchase or otherwise come into legal possession of any account between the alleged creditor and Defendant.


• Failure of Contractual condition precedent: no notice of default.


• No HUD counseling notice.


• Illegal charges added to balance.


• Failure of good faith and fair dealing: unfair and unacceptable loan servicing.


• Plaintiff has failed to provide servicing of this residential mortgage loan in accordance with the controlling servicing requirements prior to filing this foreclosure action.


• Defendant has a right to receive foreclosure prevention loan servicing from the Plaintiff before the commencement or initiation of this foreclosure action.


• Defendant is in doubt regarding his rights and status as a borrower under the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing or trust agreement that controls and applies to the subject mortgage. Defendant is now subject to this foreclosure action by reason of the above described illegal acts and omissions of the Plaintiff.


• Counter-Plaintiff is being denied and deprived by Counter-Defendant of their right to access the required troubled mortgage loan servicing imposed on the plaintiff and applicable to the subject mortgage loan by the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing or trust Agreement that controls and applies to the subject mortgage. Counter-Plaintiff is being illegally subjected by the Counter-Defendant to this foreclosure action, being forced to defend the same and they are being charged illegal predatory court costs and related fees, and attorney fees. Counter-Plaintiff is having his/her credit slandered and negatively affected, all of which constitutes irreparable harm to them for the purpose of injunctive relief.


• As a proximate result of the Counter-Defendant's unlawful actions set forth herein, Counter-Plaintiff continues to suffer the irreparable harm described above for which monetary compensation is inadequate.


• Counter-Plaintiff has a right to access the foreclosure prevention servicing prescribed by the National Housing Act and under the Pooling and Servicing or trust Agreement that controls and applies to the subject which right is being denied to them by the Counter-Defendant. These wrongful and predatory acts committed by the Counter-Defendant, and/or through the Counter-Defendant's agents, employees or predecessor in interest were intentional and deceptive.


• Counter-Plaintiff sues for violation of his rights under Sections 559.55-559.785 Florida Statutes, the Florida Consumer Protections Act.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals - the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

Florida medical providers must be extremely careful when balance billing patients. The consequences of making a mistake can be costly.

Section 559.72(9) Florida Statutes prohibits attempting to collect a debt that is not due. The punishment can be the assessment of actual damages, a civil fine, and the payment of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees and court costs. Section 559.77 Florida Statutes.

Many statutes, most private health insurance policies, and Medicaid and Medicare prescribe how much, if any, a medical provider may balance bill for services provided. For example, authorized medical providers in workers' compensation cases may not balance bill at all, Section 440.13(14)(a) Florida Statutes, while providers accepting payments through PIP insurance (motor vehicle accident cases) are limited to balance billing 20% of "allowable charges," which, in most instances, is significantly less than their on-the-books outstanding charges. Section 627.736(5)a.5 Florida Statutes.

Continue reading "Prohibited Balance Billing in Florida" »

Hardworking individuals today are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their expenses. Mortgage foreclosures, credit card defaults, and vehicle repossessions are reaching record proportions. With the rise in defaults come the inevitable collection efforts by creditors and debt collection agencies. In some cases, the collection efforts cause more pain than the default itself. Fortunately for Florida residents, there is a body of law designed to combat overzealous creditors and bill collectors. Unfortunately, the law, located in Chapter 559 of the Florida Statutes and referred to as the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, is little-known and greatly underutilized.

Collection efforts are allowed and take many forms, from lawsuits, dunning notices, phone calls, to reporting the debt to credit reporting agencies. Thankfully, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act prohibits some activities and provides a remedy for breaches. Examples of proscribed activities include using or threatening violence; communicating or threatening to communicate with a debtor's employer prior to obtaining final judgment; communicating with such frequency as to constitute harassment; using profane or vulgar language in a communication; simulating in any manner a law enforcement officer or a representative of any governmental agency; and communicating with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. It is also unlawful to claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when the collector knows that the debt is not legitimate or assert the existence of some other legal right when such collector knows that the right does not exist. This particular violation is quite common and typically arises in the context of a debt that once existed but was resolved.

Continue reading "Unfair Debt Collectors Beware" »