Sued or Sanctioned

Damian Falcone Meets His Match in Dedicated Consumer Marie

Written by Steve Rhode

Previously a reader had sent in a complaint about a debt relief group Damian Falcone & Company. You can read the consumer complaint here.

Well it turns out the consumer didn’t stop at submitting the complaint here but continued to push for satisfaction. Paul wrote in to say, “Well is a year later and I’m happy to say that because of Marie and her relentless pursuit to right the wrong that Damian Falcone was doing to herself and 87 other clients has been resolved. Marie was so instrumental in the case against Damian. We have won I’m attaching the official order from the NDML in Nevada. Thank you for your website and for you obviously in reporting and helping families all over the country.”

It does appear Damian Falcone, Falcon Credit Management LLC and Damian Falcone & Company met his match in Marie. The Department of Business & Industry in Nevada took action against the lot.

The Nevada regulators said, “Respondents created a Service Agreement that served as the contract between it and each of its clients. The Service Agreement stated that the client requested “Loss Mitigation, Financial, Credit and Debt Management services” from Respondents and agreed to pay the schedule of fees set forth in the Agreement. Among the terms of the
Agreement was a statement that Respondents would provide the client either a 4- or 6- month “membership to FalconDox software for the purpose of managing personal credit and debt.” For the software membership, the customer agreed to pay an amount ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 “upon the commencement of this agreement.” The software membership was presented as part and parcel of Respondents’ service package; it was not billed as optional. Once a client paid for the software membership, he or she was provided a link to sign in via email; the link expired if the client did not click on it within two days.

READ  Damian Falcone & Company - Consumer Complaint - August 2, 2016

Falcone told Marie Del Graziano that the software was essentially a recordkeeping device. She was to upload all documents she received from her bank to the software, and the software would assess those documents for legal violations that could be used as leverage in Respondents’ negotiations with her bank. Ms. Del Graziano did upload the communications she received from her bank, nearly 100 documents in total. Ms. Del Graziano paid Respondents $6,000 for three 4-month subscriptions to the software.”

The Nevada department ruled, “Respondents violated NRS 645F.405 by charging and collecting advance fees from clients under the guise of software memberships before the clients executed written agreements with the lender or servicer incorporating an offer of mortgage assistance. Pursuant to NAC 645F.835(2), Respondents shall issue restitution to each of the 87 clients for whom financial ledgers were included in evidence. NRS 645F.410, authorizes the imposition of an administrative fine of up to $25,000 for this violation. Respondents shall be subject to an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000 for this violation because, though it was in circumvention of the spirit and purpose of the prohibition on advance fees, Respondents evidenced multiple consultations with multiple attorneys who approved of the practice, which suggests Respondents practiced some due diligence in endeavoring to abide by the law.”

This might be a great example that just because some debt relief attorney has said a business model is “good to go” does not mean it really is. It appears Falcone made efforts to make sure his approach was compliant but in the end, the opinion of a lawyer was not good insurance against the government agency for the State.

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

About the author

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.

1 Comment

  • MPG
    Not only did you take this complaint down approximately a year ago near the time you found out that sworn statements would be required. You provided sworn testimony that the agreement you provided in this complaint was edited, at least, to remove the refund provided to you.

    The facts are:

    4/14/14 You became my client with our signed agreement.

    4/6/15 – You were offered a Trial Modification from your loan servicer. At this time you had paid $6,000 not $14,000 as you state above. You never delivered $14,000 to my office or $14,500 as you’ve stated in other complaints. You turned down the loan modification instructing me to draft an appeal, which I did – the first of 3.

    6/2/15 – You stated by email “I want you to know that I truly appreciate your efficiency and i don’t think that there is anyone else out there that is as capable to handle my situation as you.I also I actually do understand that it is a hassle to be bothered when you are so extremely busy, especially with a late pay. I get it. I’ve had my fair share of those, and do not want to be that. On behalf of my children, Paul as well as myself: We thank you for your great work and appreciate what you continue to do. Also I apologize for my overly relaxed, off color commentary that is inappropriate and my obsessive communication.”

    12/24/15 – You stated by email “I know that if someone can make this happen, it is you and I want to Thank You again for keeping me as a client, because it is evident that we share the same outlook where if you take on a task, you do it the best whether it means $50,000 or $1000,000. I have now gone to and paid, at least five other people and researched countless. You have come out unparalleled, and I am excited to be another example on your wall.”

    4/26/16 – I spoke to your lender, called and told you a Trial Modification was approved. The terms were a monthly payment beneath present market value, a 2% interest rate and the opportunity for a forgiveness of nearly $200,000.00 following 3 monthly mortgage payments. I requested you pay special attention to your mail as your lender told me they sent it to you.

    5/21/16 You delivered the offer of loan modification to my office. In the event you accepted this loan modification while I was employed by you I would be owed a fee for the agreement and possible % fee of the nearly $200,000.00 identified in the modification agreement.

    5/25/16 You sent me a letter demanding a refund of $14,000 or you would send your complaint to 14 different organizations. You have made other complaints that it was $14,500.

    4/15/17 I was provided a 426 page administrative complaint and given 12 days to provide documentation in response to 6 alleged previous clients from the previous 5 years that had never notified me of any complaint(s).

    6/5/2017 Finally, sworn statements were required.

    You stated under oath:

    You filed a complaint with the Division of Mortgage Lending on or around 5/2/16 prior to your demand for refund from my office. You had no less than 9 communications following 5/2/16 with my office and no mention of dissatisfaction in any of them;

    In your complaints you used a service agreement that had been edited from our actual service agreement which removed the refund opportunity you had available to you;

    Your previous repeated claims of never having access to the software you purchased were not true;

    You never received a 5-figure payment and others from the federal government;

    When we met you were 49 months delinquent on your mortgage.

    In the 2+ years I represented you:

    No payments were made towards your mortgage;
    Foreclosure activity was prevented;
    You received multiple offers for loan modification;

    As the administrative order has already been appealed I am looking forward to being in a court room with you and if you dispute anything contained in this reply I anxiously await your response.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top