First a personal message to Lloyd Ward.
Lloyd, I don’t stalk you, care about you, think about you, or follow you. The only reason I’m writing this story is because people keep sending stuff to me that relates to your past debt settlement activities. I don’t even publish all the stuff people send me.
And we now resume our regular reporting.
When it came time to collect on it Ward objected. The issue went all the way to the Court of Appeals in the Fifth District of Texas.
At the heart of the matter Ward wanted the Kansas judgment for $114,000 against him to be vacated.
Hawkins obtained a default judgment against Lloyd Ward in Marion County, Kansas and then went on to sue Ward in Texas to collect on the judgment.
Hawkins had originally sued Ward in Kansas “for violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, violations of the Kansas Credit Services Organization Act, and breach of fiduciary duty.” Ward elected to not fight the case in Kansas and lost by default.
In the Texas case Ward is said to have offered up statements that “Lloyd Ward, P.C., Lloyd Ward & Associates, and Lloyd Ward Group, P.C. do not maintain an office or “do business” in Kansas. Lloyd Ward stated none of appellants specifically availed themselves of the protections or privileges of Kansas law and that it has always been the intention of Lloyd Ward, P.C., Lloyd Ward & Associates, and Lloyd Ward Group, P.C. “to remain under the auspices of Texas law.”
The appeal opinion also states, “Lloyd Ward attested neither he, Lloyd Ward, P.C. or Lloyd Ward & Associates entered into a contract to be performed in whole or in part with [Hawkins]. Appellants do not contest appellant Lloyd Ward Group, P.C. contracted with appellee. Appellee pleaded and the Kansas default judgment specifically states appellants operate as a joint venture. Appellants’ evidence in support of their motion to vacate the Kansas default judgment does not establish by clear and convincing evidence that appellants do not operate as a joint venture.
Lloyd Ward acknowledged appellee and Lloyd Ward Group, P.C.11 entered into the Client Services Agreement and stated it is a “standard contract used by [Lloyd Ward, P.C., Lloyd Ward & Associates, and Lloyd Ward Group, P.C.] for all clients seeking services similar to those sought by [Hawkins].” At the top of the Client Services Agreement, it references “Lloyd Ward, P.C.” and “Lloyd Ward, Attorney at Law,” as well as the email address for Lloyd Ward.
Further, the record contains a letter reflecting signature by “Lloyd Ward, Esq., Lloyd Ward, P.C.,” which states that [Hawkins] entered into an agreement with “Lloyd Ward.” In conjunction with the Client Services Agreement, [Hawkins] entered into the “Authorization for Debt Negotiation” with Lloyd Ward Group, P.C. The heading of the Authorization for Debt Negotiation references Lloyd Ward & Associates and Lloyd Ward, P.C. As part of the Client Services Agreement, [Hawkins] was required to open a trust account with NoteWorld Servicing Center, LLC. The NoteWorld Servicing Center “Customer Account Services Information” lists the Debt Settlement Company as Lloyd Ward & Associates.
The Texas court allowed the Kansas judgment to stand. Let the collection begin.
It is ORDERED that appellee Kelly Hawkins recover the full amount of the foreign judgment and the costs of this appeal from appellants Lloyd Ward, Lloyd Ward, P.C., Lloyd Ward & Associates, and Lloyd Ward Group, P.C. and from any supersedeas bond or cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond. After the judgment and all costs have been paid, we DIRECT the clerk of the trial court to release the balance, if any, of any supersedeas bond or cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond to appellants.
You can read the full opinion here.