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

August 15, 2021
By Karin N. Amyx, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Trustee Carl Davis (Wichita, KS) Trustees possess a variety of sensitive information that could be useful to litigants in contract disputes, divorce and child custody matters, insurance litigation or criminal prosecution. Additionally, debtors, creditors or third parties may be interested in the trustee’s internal operating procedures or legal position on disputes...
Members
September 20, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Chapter 13 debtors’ FDCPA claim was not “related to” bankruptcy case. After reopening closed case, the debtors filed adversary complaint against mortgage holders and servicers, alleging various claims for violation of discharge injunction, automatic stay and FDCPA. The complaint plausibly pleaded elements required for §§ 362(k) and 524(i), but the claims under FDCPA...
Members
emily-connor-kennedy
March 6, 2022
There are several different types of security clearances that an individual might seek as a prerequisite to employment. What each clearance requires depends on many factors, such as whether the person is a civilian or part of the armed forces, whether the clearance is for facility access only (versus access to sensitive documents), and the scope of the access in...
Members
October 3, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Administrative fees and claims existing when Chapter 13 plan was confirmed would reduce the amounts received by unsecured creditors in a Chapter 7 under the “best interests of creditors test;” unsecured creditors, expected to receive payments over three years, must be paid the “present value” of that stream of...
Members
rebeccaherr
April 23, 2023
In recent years, a handful of cases have discussed the issue of what happens to the trustee’s percentage fee, collected from debtor plan payments, upon the dismissal or conversion of a case prior to confirmation. This is an emerging area of law, with decisions on both sides.  However, with this new issue, there appears to be at least some confusion...
Members
moran_cathy
December 17, 2023
Part I discusses projecting income tax deductions on the means test when the year of filing situation looks much like last year. Part II looks at things when they aren’t the same year over year.
Members
leforceheadshotcropped (2)
January 16, 2022
When do the facts justify a long bar to refiling over the 180-day period in § 109(g)? Sometimes it is Justice Stewart’s infamous words from Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 187 (1964)–“I know it when I see it.” Even so, a Trustee must provide evidence and authority to the Court for a long prejudice period. In In re Parson 2021...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
A reverse mortgage, having fallen due as a result of the death of the borrower, is not protected from modification by the borrower’s heirs by virtue of § 1322(c)(2). (Halfenger) In re Sandoval, 2022 WL 982182 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Juan Sandoval filed Chapter 13 and proposed a plan which dealt with his principal asset, a...
Members
February 21, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction The Academy has focused at length on the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA).1 SBRA deals on its face with a non-consumer topic, but it is of interest also to Chapter 12 and 13 trustees and debtors, creating a new, more debtor-friendly subchapter V of Chapter 11 for...
Members
October 20, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Claim allowed after reopening of no-asset case. The Chapter 7 case filed as no-asset was reopened after discovery of assets for distribution, and debtors objected to a claim on basis of statute of limitations. Affirming, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the time to commence action on the claim had been tolled under...
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: