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

December 4, 2022
Many have had the unpleasant experience of coping with an ill-mannered and disrespectful opposing counsel. Unnecessary motions are filed and unfounded allegations are asserted. Relief requested has no basis in fact or law. Temperatures rise. The volume of argument is loud. Your staff and you are upset. What to do?We asked the Emeritus Trustees and here are some recommendations: First,...
Members
May 31, 2020
(Reprinted with permission: https://www.dailyjournal.com/) By M. Jonathan Hayes, Resnik Hayes, Moradi LLP (Los Angeles) I met with my best friend Jim King, consumer bankruptcy attorney extraordinaire, during the Thanksgiving break in 2014, several weeks before his untimely death. We met at his office in Glendale to do his oral history. Somewhere in there I told him he could borrow my...
Members
June 7, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Chapter 13 practitioners certainly do not need to be told that a lender with a mortgage1 on the debtor's principal residence has a special position in a Chapter 13 case. A chapter 13 plan may "modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only...
Members
August 11, 2019
By Selwyn D. Whitehead, Esq. Because inquiring minds need to know; below is a discussion of the Johnson Publishing Company, LLC’s Chapter 7 Liquidation Bankruptcy, Case No. 19-10236, which was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in Chicago on April 9, 2019, and its week-long auction from July 22-24, 2019. Here's...
Members
moran_cathy
January 23, 2022
The no man's land between the mortgage due date and late payment is a persistent trouble spot for Chapter 13 practitioners. Are there arrears when the case is filed during the grace period and the payment made before it was late? In Borre, Judge Ronald Sargis of ED CA said no. He held that the payment was not in default...
Members
ahern_larry_regular
September 18, 2022
Introduction In In re Village Apothecary, Inc.,1 the Sixth Circuit last month reduced an attorney's fees by half, where the professional's services were not "successful." The results obtained (or, actually, the lack of results) justified cutting the fees of attorneys for a Chapter 7 trustee by 50%. Why It Matters to Chapter 13 People This analysis of the implications of...
Members
June 9, 2019
By Nicholas Miller, Third-Year Student, University of Texas School of Law, and Madison Haueisen, Second-Year Student, University of Texas School of Law The second issue at hand in this year’s Duberstein moot court problem involves a matter of statutory interpretation—specifically, whether §503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a creditor to recover costs and expenses incurred in making a substantial contribution...
Members
January 24, 2021
On October 1, 2019, John G. Jansing was appointed Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton. John took over from Jeff Kellner, who retired and moved to New Hampshire. John had some great mentors: Herb Beskin in Charlottesville, Marge Burks in Cincinnati and Faye English in Columbus. John toured Herb’s office in January 2020 and...
HaleAntico
January 29, 2023
Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finds no “eligibility” exception to right to dismiss a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Powell vs TICO Construction (In re Powell) 644 B.R. 181 (9th Circuit BAP, 2022) ISSUE Did the bankruptcy court err in granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13? RULING No. FACTS This case tests the new “absolute right to dismiss” rule about...
Members
May 2, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) In calculating an above-median income debtor’s projected disposable income, the court may deduct from the debtor’s current monthly income only the expenses as listed in the IRS manual and not the debtor’s actual expenses. (Taylor) In re Rodriguez, 520 B.R. 94 (B.A.P. 9th Cir....
Members