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

September 22, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Tax foreclosure sale avoided as preference. Affirming the District and Bankruptcy Courts, at 571 B.R. 662 and 588 B.R. 394, the Third Circuit held that the Chapter 13 debtors could avoid a pre-petition tax foreclosure sale as a preferential transfer. The township held a properly noticed tax sale at public auction, which resulted...
Members
October 27, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Part IV Two More Things Trustees Should Know About the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 Introduction Four bankruptcy-related bills were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019.1 The legislation affected both business and consumer cases. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of...
Members
January 13, 2019
By William H. Brown, Academy Editor & Advisor The First Circuit held that under § 362(c)(3)(A), upon the repeat filing by Chapter 7, 11 or 13 debtors within one year of dismissal of a prior pending case, the automatic stay terminates entirely on the 30th day after filing of the subsequent case as to the debtor, property of the debtor...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
July 10, 2022
Failure of Chapter 13 debtors to satisfy post-petition property tax payments to the county, specifically required in the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan, renders the debtors ineligible for a discharge, even where the debtors proposed a loan modification to repay the mortgage creditor which had advanced the post-petition taxes. (Rodriguez) In re Villarreal, 2022 WL 1102223 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 12,...
Members
moran_cathy
April 28, 2024
The Academy’s webinar on the expense side of the means test produced more questions than time allowed to answer. Here are a few more answers (or admonitions).
Members
April 18, 2021
Bankruptcy Courts Grapple with the “COVID-19 Discharge” APPENDIX A 11 U.S.C. § 1328 Discharge (Text added by CAA, effective: December 27, 2020 and subject to one-year sunset, appears in italics.) (Mandatory and precatory directions to the court, critical to the statutory analysis in In re Ritter, appears in bold.) (a) Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion...
Members
January 21, 2019
By Jan M. Sensenich, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Vermont As we reach the end of the first month of the partial government shutdown, with no end in sight, 800,000 federal workers have started missing their paychecks. As the shutdown continues, Chapter 13 trustees are weighing how best to address the inevitable question from federal government employee...
Members
August 30, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART II – BASICS OF PERFECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS Introduction Current circumstances, with a pandemic and a recession, portend a wave of bankruptcy filings. In the consumer bankruptcy field, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in UCC Article 9. In this space, we have previously looked...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
August 21, 2022
Where a Chapter 13 plan treats a claim as secured only by the debtor’s mobile home under § 506 and not real property, the effect of a notice of fees, costs and charges is irrelevant. (Coleman) In re White, 2022 WL 2826531 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. July 19, 2022) Case Summary Shalonda White filed a Chapter 13 petition in July of...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
June 16, 2024
Welp, it doesn’t look like Congress is going to act . . . As you know, Congress temporarily raised the debt limits for Subchapter V and Chapter 13 debtors. These increased debt limits are set to expire on Friday, June 21, 2024. Without further action by Congress, for Chapter 13 filers, the combined unsecured and secured debt limit will fall...

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: