CFPB Announces Action Against Monster Loans, Lend Tech Loans, and Associated Student Loan Debt-Relief Companies

January 9, 2020, the Bureau filed suit against several companies and individuals involved in offering student loan debt-relief services for allegedly obtaining consumer reports illegally, charging unlawful advance fees, and engaging in deceptive conduct. The Bureau’s action is against a mortgage lender called Chou Team Realty, LLC, which does business as Monster Loans (Monster Loans); an allegedly sham mortgage brokerage called Lend Tech Loans, Inc.; and several student loan debt-relief companies, including Docu Prep Center, Inc., which does business as DocuPrep Center and Certified Document Center; Certified Doc Prep Services, LP; Assure Direct Services, Inc.; Direct Document Solutions, Inc.; Secure Preparation Services, Inc.; and Docs Done Right, Inc. The Bureau is also taking action against several individuals, including Bilal Abdelfattah, who is also known as Belal Abdelfattah and Bill Abdel; Thomas “Tom” Chou; Sean Cowell; Robert Hoose; Eduardo “Ed” Martinez; Jawad Nesheiwat; Frank Anthony Sebreros; and David Sklar.

As described in the complaint, the Bureau alleges that between 2015 and 2017, Monster Loans violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by obtaining consumer-report information for millions of consumers with student loan debt from a major credit bureau on the pretense that the company planned to use the information to offer mortgage loans to consumers when, in fact, Monster Loans provided the reports to the student loan debt-relief companies to use in marketing their services. The Bureau also alleges that, between 2017 and at least early 2019, Lend Tech Loans similarly violated the FCRA by obtaining consumer report information for millions of consumers for use in marketing student loan debt-relief services.

The Bureau further alleges that, while offering and providing student loan debt-relief services, certain defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by making deceptive representations about the companies’ services. Specifically, the Bureau alleges that certain defendants misrepresented to consumers that they would have their interest rates reduced, have their credit scores improved, and that the U.S. Department of Education would become their servicer. The Bureau also alleges that certain defendants unlawfully charged and collected at least $15 million in fees before consumers received any adjustment to their student loans and made any payments toward their adjusted loans.

The Bureau filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 9, 2020. The Bureau’s complaint seeks an injunction against the defendants, as well as damages, redress to consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the imposition of civil money penalties. The complaint also names several defendants in order to obtain relief and seeks disgorgement of those relief defendants’ ill-gotten gains.

The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have violated the law.

The complaint is available at: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_chou-team-realty-monster-loans_complaint_2020-01.pdf.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

April 7, 2019
By Helen M. Morris, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia It really takes so little to make a Chapter 13 Trustee happy—debtor’s counsel using calculators when they draft a plan ($100 for 36 months is NOT $4,936.87 no matter how many times it is repeated); saying “the Trustee is right” distinctly in open...
February 28, 2021
By Joseph A. Bledsoe, III (“Jody”), Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of North Carolina (New Bern) In the aftermath of City of Chicago v. Fulton, discussions abound as to whether it is sufficient for a chapter 13 debtor to seek return of his vehicle, repossessed prepetition, via a motion for turnover. Most seem to believe a motion...
Members
moran_cathy
January 12, 2025
“Three cheers for Jen Lee’s piece on the need to pitch the manifest strengths of Chapter 13. Her advice to use head-to-head comparisons with alternative approaches to debt for the client is right on. An image makeover for Chapter 13 would be even more powerful if we can spread the word to a broader audience, before they’ve shorted their tax withholding, encumbered their exempt homestead, signed on with a profit-focused ‘debt consolidation’ company, or dipped into their retirement funds.” Think Chapter 13 needs an image makeover? Let us hear from you.
Members
November 8, 2020
By James J. Robinson, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Alabama When do the trustee’s duties end, and who gets the money? Harris v. Viegelahn, 135 S. Ct. 1829 (2015). This opinion of the unanimous Court requires the trustee to return to the debtor undistributed plan payments—originating from wages earned postpetition—on hand at a good-faith, post-confirmation conversion rather...
Members
August 25, 2019
By Karin N. Amyx, Staff Attorney to the Trustee Carl Davis (Wichita, KS) To me, the word “timeshare” conjures up images of a dark conference room at a resort hotel where unwitting tourists are being goaded into signing usury contracts in exchange for a free meal ticket at the buffet. But what is a timeshare? And how do you deal...
Members
moran_cathy
November 3, 2024
“These suits now regularly result in the plaintiff being in deep debt to the IRS with insufficient funds to pay even the tax. AKA: Tax Hell.”
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
February 4, 2022
Chapter 13 debtor’s counsel’s fee award was reduced to $48,116 from the requested $95,480 due to pre-petition payments, confusing and “lumped” time entries, and excessive hourly rates for some services performed, even though the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was never even proposed much less confirmed. The debtor never attended a meeting of creditors, but the debtor managed to recover his...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
December 18, 2022
Where a debtor fails to disclose to the Court or the trustee a forbearance on his mortgage that he was to pay directly, the Court would grant the trustee’s motion to modify to recapture as much as possible of the surplus funds the forbearance generated. (Kenney) In re Ilyev, 2022 WL 2965029 (Bankr. E.D. Va. July 26, 2022) Case Summary...
Members
Miller_Deb_pp
November 12, 2023
Just a few more weeks ‘til principal and interest gotta be listed separately on a POC.
Members
ahern_larry_regular
April 24, 2022
Larry Ahern this week concludes a two-part examination of whether a Chapter 13 trustee may retain fees paid without a confirmed plan before dismissal. Part 1 analyzed McCallister v. Evans, a recent case accepting the trustee's position considering a division in the caselaw and analyzing relevant statutes. In this Part 2, he turns to the debtor's case, which has substantial...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: