Latest Posts
Home > Debt Relief Industry > Connecticut Goes After an August Crop of Debt Relief Providers, Including Lawyers

Connecticut Goes After an August Crop of Debt Relief Providers, Including Lawyers

I’ve said if before but the one state debt relief providers don’t want to mess with is Connecticut. Their Department of Banking is probably the leading department in the entire country for going after debt relief providers.

I think what is obvious from this recent class of Connecticut students is that simply being a lawyer does not give you a pass or “Get Out of Connecticut Free” card.

Here is the August crop they recently announced.

Consult Law Group

ROSE MARIE HOLLANDER ATTORNEY AT LAW
d/b/a CONSULT LAW GROUP

II. MATTERS ASSERTED
1. Respondent is a purported California professional law corporation with an office at 17195 Newhope Street, Suite 110, Fountain Valley, California; and a prior office at 4533 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 537, Newport Beach, California.

2. On August 20, 2010, a Connecticut resident (“Connecticut Resident 1”), while physically present in this state, entered into a “Privileged Attorney-Client Communication” (“Agreement”) with Respondent, in which Connecticut Resident 1 engaged the services of Respondent in connection with negotiating a possible mitigation of such resident’s current home loan situation. In connection with the Agreement, Connecticut Resident 1 executed a Borrower’s Authorization in which Connecticut Resident 1 authorized Respondent to request, obtain and verify any and all mortgage loan information, which included, without limitation, payoff, arrearage, reinstatement amounts, work out offers, rate and term modification, principal balance modification, short sale initiation and proceedings and deed in lieu of foreclosure.

3. In connection with the Agreement, total payment of $2,500 was debited by Respondent from the bank account of Connecticut Resident 1, which amount is in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees established by the Commissioner on or about October 1, 2009 (“Schedule of Maximum Fees”).

4. On October 11, 2010, a second Connecticut resident (“Connecticut Resident 2”), while physically present in this state, entered into an Agreement with Respondent, in which Connecticut Resident 2 engaged the services of Respondent in connection with negotiating a possible mitigation of such resident’s current home loan situation. In connection with the Agreement, Connecticut Resident 2 executed a Borrower’s Authorization in which Connecticut Resident 2 authorized Respondent to request, obtain and verify any and all mortgage loan information, which included, without limitation, payoff, arrearage, reinstatement amounts, work out offers, rate and term modification, principal balance modification, short sale initiation and proceedings and deed in lieu of foreclosure.

5. In connection with the Agreement, total payment of $2,500 was debited by Respondent from the bank account of Connecticut Resident 2, which amount is in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees.

6. During the period of August 27, 2010 through December 29, 2010, eleven (11) additional Connecticut residents, while physically present in this state, entered into similar Agreements with Respondent.

7. In connection with the Agreements, as more fully described in paragraph 6 above, payments ranging from $2,500 to $3,000 were paid to Respondent by each of the Connecticut residents referred to in paragraph 6 above, which amount is in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees.

8. The Schedule of Maximum Fees provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] debt negotiator of secured debt, including Short Sales and Foreclosure Rescue Services, may impose a fee upon the mortgagor or debtor for performing debt negotiation services not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). Such fee shall only be collectable upon the successful completion of all services stated in the debt negotiation service contract”.

9. At no time relevant hereto has Respondent been licensed to engage or offer to engage in debt negotiation in this state, nor did Respondent qualify for an exemption from such licensure.

10. On August 1, 2011, the Commissioner received a complaint filed by Connecticut Resident 1 concerning Respondent’s failure to perform the debt negotiation services in accordance with the Agreement.

11. On December 28, 2011, the Commissioner received a complaint filed by Connecticut Resident 2 concerning Respondent’s failure to perform the debt negotiation services.

12. As of January 23, 2012, Respondent had refunded $900 to Connecticut Resident 1.

IV. FINDING AND STATUTORY BASIS FOR TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

The Commissioner finds that public welfare requires immediate action to issue a temporary order requiring Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and to take such action as set forth herein to effectuate the purposes of Section 36a-52(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in that the interests of Connecticut residents are being materially prejudiced by Respondent’s receiving monies from at least thirteen (13) Connecticut residents and failing to perform the contracted services, and that the interests of additional Connecticut residents also may be materially prejudiced. The Commissioner also finds the fees paid by each of the Connecticut residents identified in Exhibits A and B to be excessive upon consideration that the Schedule of Maximum Fees issued by the Commissioner only permits a fee in connection with secured debt of $500 to be collected upon successful completion of the debt negotiation services contract, the debt negotiation services contracts were not successfully completed and the Connecticut residents received no benefit from such contracts. – Source

Performance Debt Resolution

CREATIVE MEDIA CONSULTING, INC.
d/b/a DEBT RESOLUTION BAILOUT

PLAN B CONSULTING GROUP

CREATIVE MEDIA CONSULTING INC.
(“Creative Media Consulting”)

LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT DAVIS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
d/b/a PERFORMANCE DEBT RESOLUTION

II. MATTERS ASSERTED

1. Creative Media Consulting is a Utah corporation with an office at 789 East Bamberger Drive, Suite D, American Fork, Utah.

2. Herbert Davis was a California professional law corporation with offices at 601 West 5th Street, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California; and 18653 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 335, Tarzana, California.

3. On or about April 6, 2010, a Connecticut resident, while physically present in this state, entered into a Debt Resolution Bailout Agreement (“Bailout Agreement”) with Creative Media Consulting, which included “Debt Resolution Services” by the Law Offices of Herbert Davis, for service related to the settlement of such Connecticut resident’s unsecured debts.

4. In connection with the Bailout Agreement, the Connecticut resident referred to in paragraph 3 above remitted total payments of $2,947.87 to Herbert Davis, which amount is in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees established by the Commissioner on or about October 1, 2009 (“Schedule of Maximum Fees”).

5. On or about November 13, 2009, two other Connecticut residents, while physically present in this state, entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) with Herbert Davis for assistance in settling such Connecticut residents’ disputes with such residents’ unsecured creditors.

6. In connection with the Agreement, the Connecticut residents referred to in paragraph 5 above remitted total payment of $28,021.95 to Herbert Davis, which amount is in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees.

7. The Schedule of Maximum Fees which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] debt negotiator of unsecured debt may collect total aggregate fees including the initial fee and service fees, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount by which the consumer’s debt is reduced as part of each settlement as agreed to in the debt negotiation service contract as each settlement is achieved”.

8. At no time relevant hereto were Respondents licensed to engage or offer to engage in debt negotiation in this state, nor did Respondents qualify for an exemption from such licensure.

9. On October 26, 2011, the Commissioner received a complaint filed by the Connecticut resident referred to in paragraph 3 above concerning Respondents’ failure to perform the debt negotiation services.

10. On March 28, 2012, the Commissioner received a complaint filed by the Connecticut residents referred to in paragraph 5 above concerning Respondents’ failure to perform the debt negotiation services.

IV. FINDING AND STATUTORY BASIS FOR TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

The Commissioner finds that public welfare requires immediate action to issue a temporary order requiring Respondents to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and to take such action as set forth herein to effectuate the purposes of Section 36a-52(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in that Respondents are engaging in debt negotiation with individuals who are already in debt and are being materially prejudiced by Respondents’ receiving monies from at least three (3) Connecticut residents and failing to perform the contracted services and that the interests of additional Connecticut residents also may be materially prejudiced. The Commissioner also finds the payment of fees by the Connecticut residents to be excessive, upon consideration of the fact that the Schedule of Maximum Fees prohibits a debt negotiator from charging total aggregate fees including the initial fee and service fees in excess of ten percent (10%) of the amount by which the consumer’s debt is reduced, the debt negotiation services contracts were not successfully completed and such individuals received no benefit from such debt negotiation services. – Source

Federal Modification Group

WJE ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a FEDERAL MODIFICATION GROUP
(“WJE Enterprises”)

DISTRESSED PROPERTY EXPERTS, LLC
d/b/a FEDERAL MODIFICATION GROUP

II. MATTERS ASSERTED

1. WJE Enterprises is a Michigan corporation with an office at 38950 Cherry Hill Road, Suite 300, Westland, Michigan. WJE Enterprises, Inc. has several assumed names, including Federal Modification Group, Credit Care Plus, Financial Credit Services and Eagle Nationwide Mortgage.

2. Distressed Property is a Michigan limited liability company with an office at 38950 Cherry Hill Road, Suite 300, Westland Michigan. Distressed Property has several assumed names, including Federal Modification Group, Modify My Bills and Moody, Keegan, Nelson & Associates.

3. From at least April through November 2010, Respondents offered to assist at least two Connecticut residents negotiate the terms of their residential mortgages secured by property located in Connecticut, which included the possibility of loan modifications or short sales.

4. During such time period, at least two Connecticut residents entered into contracts with Respondents for debt negotiation services. One Connecticut resident paid $2,500 and the other Connecticut resident paid $1,250 to Respondents for such services. Such amounts are in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees established by the Commissioner on or about October 1, 2009 (“Schedule of Maximum Fees”).

5. The Schedule of Maximum Fees provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] debt negotiator of secured debt, including Short Sales and Foreclosure Rescue Services, may impose a fee upon the mortgagor or debtor for performing debt negotiation services not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). Such fee shall only be collectable upon the successful completion of all services stated in the debt negotiation service contract”.

6. At no time relevant hereto were Respondents licensed to engage or offer to engage in debt negotiation in this state, nor did Respondents qualify for an exemption from such licensure.

7. At no time relevant hereto did Respondents perform or successfully complete negotiation of the two Connecticut residents’ mortgages.

8. On January 24 and November 12, 2011, the Connecticut residents, as more fully described in paragraph 4 above, filed complaints with the Commissioner against Respondents.

IV. FINDING AND STATUTORY BASIS FOR TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

The Commissioner finds that the public welfare requires immediate action to issue a temporary order requiring Respondents to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and to take such action as set forth herein to effectuate the purposes of Section 36a-52(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes. Specifically, the interests of Connecticut residents, who are already in debt, are being materially prejudiced, and future Connecticut debtors who may do business with Respondents require protection when Respondents may offer debt negotiation without the required license. The Commissioner also finds the payment of $3,750 in fees by two (2) Connecticut residents to be excessive, upon consideration of the fact that such fees are in excess of amounts allowed by the Schedule of Maximum Fees and the debt negotiation services were not successfully completed and the Connecticut residents received no benefit from such contracts. – Source

Consult Legal Group

BRUCE S. WEINER ATTORNEY AT LAW
d/b/a CONSULT LEGAL GROUP

II. MATTERS ASSERTED

1. Respondent is a purported California professional law corporation with offices at 18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700, Cerritos, California; 4533 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 537, Newport Beach, California; 1720 East Garry Avenue, Suite 111, Santa Ana, California; and 620 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California; and a prior office at 4533 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 551, Newport Beach, California.

2. On February 7, 2011, a Connecticut resident, while physically present in this state, entered into a “Privileged Attorney-Client Communication” (“Agreement”) with Respondent, in which the Connecticut resident engaged the services of Respondent in connection with negotiating a possible mitigation of such Connecticut resident’s current home loan situation. In connection with the Agreement, the Connecticut resident executed a Borrower’s Authorization in which the Connecticut resident authorized Respondent to communicate with Connecticut resident’s mortgage lender(s) concerning the hardship that may prevent the Connecticut resident from continuing to make payments on the Connecticut resident’s home loan.

3. In connection with the Agreement, total payment of $2,995 was debited by Respondent from the bank account of the Connecticut resident referred to in paragraph 2 above, which amount is in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees established by the Commissioner on or about October 1, 2009 (“Schedule of Maximum Fees”).

4. During the period of January 28 through April 25, 2011, four (4) additional Connecticut residents, while physically present in this state, entered into similar agreements with Respondent.

5. In connection with such agreements, total payments of $11,466.76 were paid to Respondent by the Connecticut residents referred to in paragraph 4 above, which individual amounts were in excess of amounts that debt negotiators may charge for services pursuant to the Schedule of Maximum Fees.

6. The Schedule of Maximum Fees, provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] debt negotiator of secured debt, including Short Sales and Foreclosure Rescue Services, may impose a fee upon the mortgagor or debtor for performing debt negotiation services not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). Such fee shall only be collectable upon the successful completion of all services stated in the debt negotiation service contract”.

7. At no time relevant hereto has Respondent been licensed to engage or offer to engage in debt negotiation in this state, nor did Respondent qualify for an exemption from such licensure.

8. On October 5, 2011, the Commissioner received a complaint filed by the Connecticut resident referred to in paragraph 2 above, concerning Respondent’s failure to perform or successfully complete the services specified in the Agreement.

IV. FINDING AND STATUTORY BASIS FOR TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

The Commissioner finds that public welfare requires immediate action to issue a temporary order requiring Respondent to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and to take such action as set forth herein to effectuate the purposes of Section 36a-52(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes in that the interests of Connecticut residents are being materially prejudiced by Respondent’s receiving monies in excess of the Schedule of Maximum Fees from at least five (5) Connecticut residents and failing to perform the contracted services, and that the interests of additional Connecticut residents also may be materially prejudiced. The Commissioner also finds the fees paid by the Connecticut residents referred to in paragraphs 2 through 5, inclusive, of the Matters Asserted, to be excessive, upon consideration of the fact that the Schedule of Maximum Fees only permits a fee of $500 to be collected upon successful completion of the debt negotiation services contract, the debt negotiation services contracts were not successfully completed and the Connecticut residents received no benefit from such contracts. – Source

Madison, Monroe & Associates

WHEREAS, the Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Sections 36a-671 to 36a-671e, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes contained in Part II of Chapter 669 of the Connecticut General Statutes, “Debt Adjusters and Debt Negotiation”;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Consumer Credit Division of the Department of Banking, conducted an investigation of the activities of Respondent, pursuant to the authority granted by Section 36a-17(a) of the 2012 Supplement to the General Statutes, to determine if it had violated, was violating or was about to violate the provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner;

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2012, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Section 36a-52(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 36a-671a(b) of the 2012 Supplement to the General Statutes and Sections 36a-52(a) and 36a-50(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes, issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing (collectively “Notice”) against Respondent, which Notice is incorporated herein by reference;

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2012, the Notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent (Certified Mail No. 70112000000247358437) and to Respondent’s agent (Certified Mail No. 70112000000247358444);

WHEREAS, the Notice provided Respondent with the opportunity for a hearing, and stated that if a hearing was not requested within 14 days of its receipt, the Commissioner would issue an order that Respondent cease and desist from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and Section 36a-17(d) of the 2012 Supplement to the General Statutes, and may order a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per violation be imposed upon Respondent;

WHEREAS, on June 8 2012, Respondent and Respondent’s agent each received the Notice and no request for a hearing has been received by the Commissioner;

Having read the record, I HEREBY ORDER, pursuant to Section 36a-671a(b) of the 2012 Supplement to the General Statutes and Sections 36a-52(a) and 36a-50(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes, that:

1. Madison, Monroe & Associates P.A. CEASE AND DESIST from violating Section 36a-671(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, in effect prior to October 1, 2011, and Section 36a-17(d) of the 2012 Supplement to the General Statutes;

2. A CIVIL PENALTY of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) be imposed against Madison, Monroe & Associates P.A., to be remitted to the Department of Banking by cashier’s check, certified check or money order, made payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”, no later than thirty (30) days from the date this Order is mailed; and

3. This Order shall become effective when mailed. – Source

Connecticut Goes After an August Crop of Debt Relief Providers, Including Lawyers
Get Out of Debt Guy – Twitter, G+, Facebook

I can always use your help. If you have a tip or information you want to share, you can get it to me confidentially if you click here.

Connecticut Goes After an August Crop of Debt Relief Providers, Including Lawyers by

Share This and Spread the Word

About Steve Rhode

Steve Rhode
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
  • Likethis
  • Justsayin

    Steve,
    Are you aware that Connecticut either doesn’t or can’t enforce these fines?? Just curious because it appears you treat it as “news” but why? What’s your point? I know personally of companies that have these million dollar fines and they don’t pay and Connecticut either can’t or won’t pursue. Just sayin

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      Which companies? I’ll bring it to their attention for comment.

      • DoubleHuh?

        Steve,

        I am personally aware that you were sent the actual order sent c/o Lloyd Regner in Dallas Texas ordering “The Debt Answer, LLC” to pay $1.2 million in fines which was never paid and Connecticut has made no efforts to collect. Upon your receipt your reply was, “That’s old news”. So, why is Connecticut “News” on any level if they have no ability to collect? That’s the question? You yourself said its OLD. Since you have first hand knowledge of connecticuts unwilliness to pursue, why do you persist to trying to apparently scare companies? Just seems odd that’s all.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Who said they were unwilling to pursue that issue? I know more about that than I can release.

      • Ohwell

        Oh well. Guess that’s meant cryptic, as I think most were of the belief that you “can” release what’s true. So I suppose we just aren’t intended to know what you mean by that.

  • Thomas Glassman Elias Realty

    Thomas Glassman is a fiction created by William Elias, aka Will Elias, 877-CALL-WILL,http://eliasrealty.com http://eliasrewards.com Elias Financial

    As of this writing, October 26, 2012, Will Elias is under an ongoing investigation by the State of Michigan Office of the Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Freddie Mac.

    http://www.michigan.gov/ag/
    http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-17337—,00.html
    http://www.fbi.gov/detroit/contact-us/contact
    http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/preventfraud/

    Will Elias http://877callwill.com used the ill begotten money from his Federal Modification Group practices to fund his massive short sale radio campaign. His advertising represents him as a short sale expert in Metro Detroit, Michigan MI with offices in Livonia and Brighton. He currently sells non-existent “software” to short sale listing clients for $995 each. The funds are directed to another of his companies, Liberty First Solutions Software LFS Software.

    Joe Kawod (pronounced kay-’wood), Dan Trubak and Kimberly Doren are all longtime employees and partners of Will Elias. They have willingly propagated the various fraudulent endeavors that have absconded hundreds of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting consumers.

    If you feel that you may have been victimized by Will Elias or William Elias or FedMod Group or Federal Modification Group or Dan Trubak or Joe Kawod or Kimberly Doren or have more information about 877-CALL-WILL or Thomas Will Elias Glassman, you should contact the office of Bill Scheutte:

    http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-21153-51368–,00.html

    • Like
    • William Elias

      Hello Steve, My name is William Elias and I own and operate Elias Realty. I am requesting that a specific response to the following post be removed:

      http://getoutofdebt.org/45282/connecticut-goes-after-an-august-crop-of-debt-relief-providers-including-lawyers

      The response is the last one on the post. It is identified as being from “Thomas Glassman Elias Realty”. This post was brought to my attention by a current employee who informed me that a former disgruntled employee bragged he made the post. This is so silly, I feel a little stupid sending this request. I am not Thomas Glassman and never have been. I did not create any “fiction”. I am also requesting any identifying information you can provide me such as the originating IP address, email address of the responder, etc…

Get My FREE Get Out of Debt Guy Newsletter

It is the smart thing to do.

I promise to keep your email safe and secure.

Close

I want to keep you posted each weekday with just one email about the latest get out of debt news, scam alerts and information to beat back debt.

You can unsubscribe at any time with just one click.

After you subscribe, check your email to confirm your subscription. If the confirmation email does not appear in your inbox in a few minutes, check your spam folder for it. Sometimes it likes to annoyingly hide there.


  • It will keep you posted on the latest scams.
  • You will be alerted to the latest articles.
  • You will wind up smarter than everyone else dealing with debt.