Asher v. Morning Law Group, P.C., Case No. 8:26-cv-00895

Primary Source: View Original Complaint (PDF) — Asher v. Morning Law Group, P.C., Case No. 8:26-cv-00895

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following facts are taken directly from the complaint filed by Phyllis A. Asher against Morning Law Group, P.C. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 30, 2026. These are allegations only; no finding of fact has been made.

1. Claimant brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., the Florida Credit Services Organization Act (“FCSOA”), pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 817.700 et seq., the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq., breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and legal malpractice.
2. The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331.
3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
4. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district.
5. Claimant is a natural person and consumer, over 18 years-of-age, residing in Sarasota, Florida.
6. Respondent is a company that purports to help consumers resolve their debt and improve their credit scores.
7. In October 2024, Claimant was facing financial difficulties and had a number of debts prompting her to begin looking for companies who may be able to assist her in maintaining her creditworthiness and resolving her financial obligations.
8. Subsequently thereafter, Claimant discovered Respondent through its representation that it could help consumers resolve their financial obligations by negotiating with creditors to reduce their outstanding debts and improving their credit.
9. Claimant spoke with Respondent and Respondent’s agent represented to Claimant that it would be able to: (1) resolve Claimant’s financial obligations for a significant discount by negotiating with Claimant’s creditors; and (2) improve Claimant’s credit scores.
10. Respondent further represented to Claimant that all she would need to do is make monthly payments over a certain period of time and that Respondent would utilize the payments to expeditiously resolve Claimant’s enrolled debts.
11. On or around October 11, 2024, having relied on Respondent’s representations, Claimant formally enrolled various debts into Respondent’s debt settlement programs by entering into a contract with Respondent.
12. Specifically, Claimant enrolled a total debt amount of approximately $23,545.
13. Pursuant to the contract, Claimant was obligated to make monthly payments of approximately $250.
14. Claimant proceeded to make her monthly payments to Respondent in a timely manner.
15. During the enrollment period, Claimant was repeatedly informed that Respondent was actively communicating with her enrolled creditors to settle outstanding debts.
16. Despite Respondent’s assurances, Respondent failed to resolve Claimant’s debts as expeditiously as Respondent represented it would.
17. Despite Respondent’s representations, Claimant’s credit score did not improve.
18. Claimant signed up for Respondent’s debt settlement and credit improvement services based on its representations that it would negotiate and settle her outstanding debts and remove settled accounts from her consumer credit reports.
19. Throughout its dealings with Claimant, Respondent deceptively and misleadingly strung Claimant along, telling her what she wanted to hear in order for her to keep making payments, only to turn around and fail to deliver on the promises and representations that induced Claimant’s continued participation in Respondent’s debt settlement program.
20. Furthermore, Respondent repeatedly informed Claimant that it was working on negotiating settlements with her creditors on her behalf.
21. However, Respondent chronically failed to engage the vast majority of Claimant’s creditors in settlement discussions, which resulted in Claimant’s creditors hounding Claimant for payments.
22. Despite Claimant paying a significant sum into Respondent’s program, Respondent failed to meaningfully (1) engage Claimant’s creditors in settlement discussion, (2) resolve Claimant’s debts, or (3) improve Claimant’s credit score.
23. As a result of Respondent’s inaction, Claimant’s creditors continued to hound Claimant through harassing collection calls and other collection activity.
24. After over a year of faithfully making her payments into Respondent’s debt settlement program, Claimant was shocked to learn that the Respondent had failed to resolve her enrolled accounts.
25. Claimant grew more frustrated upon discovering that Respondent had allocated a substantial portion of Claimant’s monthly payments toward its own fees, rather than using those funds to settle Claimant’s enrolled accounts.
26. As a result of Respondent’s inaction, Claimant’s credit score has decreased significantly despite Respondent’s assurances that Claimant’s credit score would improve during Respondent’s program.
27. Moreover, as a result of Respondent’s inaction, Claimant was sued by some of the creditors that she enrolled in Respondent’s program, to which Claimant was forced to represent herself.
28. Claimant suffered significant damages as result of Respondent’s misrepresentations and omissions, including: financial losses, emotional distress, aggravation, mental anguish, decreased credit score.
29. Simply put, Claimant found herself in a much worse financial position after enrolling in Respondent’s “debt settlement” program.

Claims for Relief

Count I — Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. The complaint alleges Respondent violated the FDUTPA by, inter alia, unfairly and deceptively (1) failing to provide debt settlement services to the best of its ability in an effort to effectuate reasonable settlements; (2) putting its financial interests ahead of Claimant’s interests; (3) representing to Claimant that its program could improve Claimant’s credit when it had knowledge that its program would destroy Claimant’s credit; (4) charging settlement fees that are not authorized by contract and/or statute; (5) withdrawing funds from Claimant’s designated savings account without Claimant’s authorization; (6) misleading Claimant into believing she had full control over Claimant’s designated savings account; and (6) failing to represent Claimant in her suits brought by creditors.

Count II — Breach of Contract. The complaint alleges Respondent breached its contract with Claimant by, inter alia, (1) failing to provide debt settlement services to the best of its ability in an effort to effectuate reasonable settlements; (2) putting its financial interests ahead of Claimant’s interests; (3) charging settlement fees that are not authorized by contract and/or statute; (4) withdrawing funds from Claimant’s designated savings account without Claimant’s authorization; (5) taking full control over Claimant’s designated savings account; and (6) failing to represent Claimant in her suits brought by creditors. The complaint further alleges the aforementioned conduct breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Count IV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The complaint alleges Respondent owed Claimant a fiduciary duty because Claimant reposed a special confidence in Respondent and Respondent was bound to act in good faith and with due regard of Claimant. The complaint alleges Respondent breached that duty by, inter alia, (1) failing to provide debt settlement services to the best of its ability in an effort to effectuate reasonable settlements; (2) pocketing unearned fees and fees not authorized by the contract and/or statute; (3) putting its financial interests ahead of the interests of Claimant; (4) withdrawing funds from Claimant’s designated savings account without Claimant’s authorization; and (5) taking full control over Claimant’s designated savings account after misleading Claimant into believing that she had full control over her designated savings account.

Count III — Fraud. The complaint alleges Respondent committed fraud by falsely representing to Claimant that it would (1) expeditiously resolve her debts; (2) improve her credit scores; and (3) provide legal assistance in any suit brought by her creditors. The complaint alleges Respondent knew that its debt resolution program cannot possibly improve Claimant’s credit scores as it requires Claimant to stop making payments to her creditors, which will in turn decrease her credit scores.

Count IV — Negligent Misrepresentation. The complaint alleges Respondent made negligent misrepresentations through its conduct in promising Claimant that it would (1) promptly communicate with Claimant’s enrolled creditors, (2) efficiently settle Claimant’s enrolled debts, (3) improve Claimant’s credit score; and (4) provide legal assistance in any suit brought by her creditors. The complaint further alleges Respondent implicitly and/or explicitly represented to Claimant that its services would improve her credit scores when it knew that her credit scores would decrease due to missed payments.

Count V — Legal Malpractice. The complaint alleges Claimant and Respondent entered into an attorney-client relationship on October 8, 2021, upon Claimant executing a Client Retainer Agreement in which Respondent agreed to provide legal representation and debt resolution services. The complaint alleges Respondent breached its duties under that agreement by, inter alia, (1) failing to promptly communicate with Claimant’s enrolled creditors, (2) failing to resolve any of Claimant’s enrolled debts, and (3) falsely representing to Claimant that it would provide legal assistance in any suit brought by her creditors.

Count V — Violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq. The complaint alleges Respondent violated CROA § 1679b(a)(3) and (a)(4) by, inter alia, (1) misrepresenting the efficacy of its program; (2) misrepresenting that its program could improve Claimant’s credit; and (3) misleading Claimant into believing that she had full control over her designated savings account. The complaint further alleges Respondent violated CROA § 1679b(b) by charging and receiving money for services agreed to perform before such services are fully performed, and violated CROA § 1679d by failing to include the required bold-face cancellation disclosure in immediate proximity to the place reserved for Claimant’s signature on the contract.

Count VI — Violations of the Florida Credit Services Organizations Act (FCSOA), Fla. Stat. § 817.700 et seq. The complaint alleges Respondent violated Fla. Stat. § 817.7005(a) by charging Claimant money prior to fully resolving all of Claimant’s enrolled debt, and violated Fla. Stat. § 817.7005(1) by failing to obtain the requisite surety bond of $10,000 required to charge fees prior to the completion of its services. The complaint further alleges Respondent violated Fla. Stat. § 817.7005(4) by, inter alia, (1) falsely representing to Claimant that its program could improve Claimant’s credit; (2) misrepresenting the efficacy of its services; (3) misleading Claimant into believing she would have full control over her designated savings account; and (4) falsely representing to provide legal assistance in any suit brought by Claimant’s creditors. The complaint also alleges Respondent violated Fla. Stat. §§ 817.704(1)(a) & (2) through its failure to properly provide the length of time for cancellation as required by Florida law, which mandates a five-day cancellation window.

Remedies Sought

• A judgment in Claimant’s favor and against Respondent
• An award of actual damages in an amount to be determined at evidentiary hearing pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2)
• An award of punitive damages
• An award of Claimant’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.2105
• Declaring that Respondent breached the underlying contract
• Awarding Claimant actual and punitive damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation
• A judgment in favor of Claimant for legal malpractice
• Awarding Claimant actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679g(a)(1)
• Awarding Claimant punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679g(a)(2)(A)
• Awarding Claimant costs and reasonable attorney fees as provided under 15 U.S.C. § 1679g(a)(3)
• Declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the Florida Credit Services Organizations Act
• Awarding Claimant actual and punitive damages under the FCSOA
• Award any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Morning Law Group, P.C. been found liable?

No. This is a complaint — a legal filing that contains allegations. Morning Law Group, P.C. has not been found liable for any wrongdoing. Courts require proof before entering judgment.

What is the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act?

The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq., prohibits unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. The FDUTPA is to be construed liberally to protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises. A consumer who suffers damages from a violation may seek actual damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief under Fla. Stat. § 501.211.

What is the Florida Credit Services Organizations Act?

The Florida Credit Services Organizations Act (FCSOA), Fla. Stat. § 817.700 et seq., regulates companies that charge fees to help consumers improve their credit or obtain extensions of credit. Under Fla. Stat. § 817.7005(1), a credit service organization may not charge or receive any money prior to full and complete performance of its services unless it has maintained a surety bond with the state of at least $10,000. The FCSOA also requires credit service organizations to include specific cancellation disclosures in their contracts, giving Florida consumers a five-day window to cancel.

What does the CROA require regarding advance fees?

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(b), no credit repair organization may charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration for the performance of any service which the credit repair organization has agreed to perform for any consumer before such service is fully performed. This advance-fee prohibition is a core protection of the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and applies regardless of state law.

What is legal malpractice under Florida law?

Under Florida law, to establish a cause of action for legal malpractice based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) the attorney’s employment; (2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty; and (3) the attorney’s negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client. Tarleton v. Arnstein & Lehr, 719 So. 2d 325, 328 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). The complaint alleges Morning Law Group, as a law firm providing legal representation under a Client Retainer Agreement, owed Claimant duties as her attorney.

What is the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing?

Under Florida law, every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which requires parties to act in a way that does not deprive the other party of the benefits of the contract. A breach of the implied covenant occurs when a party acts in bad faith or engages in conduct that frustrates the other party’s reasonable contractual expectations, even if the conduct does not technically violate any express contractual term.

Source: CourtListener — Asher v. Morning Law Group, P.C., Docket 73114559. Information on this page is taken from the court complaint. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.