Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C.

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C(hereinafter “FSKS”) was retained to represent Plaintiff to domesticate Florida judgment in New Jersey as allowed by lawOn November 20, 2015, the judgment was domesticated in the Superior Court of New Jersey under docket number [redacted] On December 2, FSKS sent a notice of wage executionOn December 8, the consumer contacted our office and verbally informed our office that this matter was previously paid in FloridaFSKS informed the consumer to provide us with documentation to support that assertionThe consumer provided our office with documentation to support his assertion that this matter may have been paid which was provided to Plaintiff for reviewSaid documentation was submitted to our client for review and it was determined that this claim may have been previously paid and that they desired us to vacate the judgment and recall the matterFSKS is in the process of preparing and submitting an ex parte order to vacate the judgment to the New Jersey Superior CourtUpon receipt of a filed copy, same will be submitted to consumerPlaintiff does not intend on pursuing this judgment

Our firm was retained to conduct a mortgage foreclosure on property located in Bloomfield, NJ. Said property is owned by the Complainant and his spouse. On July 26, 2007,...

the Complainant executed a Note in the amount of $250,000.00 to the Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. To secure payment of this obligation, the Complainant and his spouse executed a Mortgage to the Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, on the same day. The Mortgage was subsequently assigned to the Plaintiff herein, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust.On January 4, 2016 our office filed a foreclosure Complaint with the Office of Foreclosure. In accordance with Court Rule 4:64-1(a), our office reviewed a title search prior to the filing of said Complaint. Court Rule 4:64-1(a) states:
Prior to filing an action to foreclose a mortgage, a condominium lien, or a tax lien to which R. 4:64-7 does not apply, the plaintiff shall receive and review a title search of the public record for the purpose of identifying any lienholder or other persons and entities with an interest in the property that is subject to foreclosure and shall annex to the complaint a certification of compliance with the title search requirements of this rule.
The additional lienholder joined as a Defendant in the foreclosure action was made a party defendant to the action as said judgment was found in the title search plaintiff was required to review prior to the filing of the foreclosure Complaint. This party was identified as having an interest in the property and was properly joined to the action to foreclose said interest.
In summary, our firm was retained to protect our client’s interest in the Bloomfield, New Jersey property by prosecuting a mortgage foreclosure. This foreclosure is on property located in Bloomfield, New Jersey, not property in Irvington, NJ. The owner/obligor/mortgagor being foreclosed upon is “Jr.” not “Sr.” as alleged in the Complaint. Said action was brought in accordance with state Court Rules and Statutes. New Jersey is a judicial foreclosure state and the proper venue to litigate any issues pertaining to this matter is within the court system, not with the Revdex.com.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The attorney in question should have done the investigation prior to sending
out the subpoena - it is not allowed under any rules of any court on a closed
matter.  This has caused undue stress and a waste of my valuable time to
respond to this erroneous action. 
Regards,
Robin [redacted]

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. (hereinafter “FSKS”) was retained to represent Plaintiff to domesticate Florida judgment in New Jersey as allowed by law. On November 20,...

2015, the judgment was domesticated in the Superior Court of New Jersey under docket number [redacted]. On December 2, 2015 FSKS sent a notice of wage execution. On December 8, 2015 the consumer contacted our office and verbally informed our office that this matter was previously paid in Florida. FSKS informed the consumer to provide us with documentation to support that assertion. The consumer provided our office with documentation to support his assertion that this matter may have been paid which was provided to Plaintiff for review. Said documentation was submitted to our client for review and it was determined that this claim may have been previously paid and that they desired us to vacate the judgment and recall the matter. FSKS is in the process of preparing and submitting an ex parte order to vacate the judgment to the New Jersey Superior Court. Upon receipt of a filed copy, same will be submitted to consumer. Plaintiff does not intend on pursuing this judgment.

Review: On December 24, 2013, I received a letter via certified mail from Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. in regards to a judgment in the amount of 3,178.37 from November 18, 2009. I believe this is an example of "Debt Tagging" as I have the same name as this individual but this is not my debt. Please remove my address from your database. In reviewing this alleged debt by researching the docket number supplied in the letter, this individual has a different address than mine.Desired Settlement: Do not send me letters as this is not my debt. Do not call my place of residence.

Business

Response:

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. (hereinafter "respondent") represents [redacted], LLC. with regard to a judgment entered in favor of [redacted], LLC. (hereinafter "plaintiff") and against [redacted]. The judgment was obtained in Middlesex County Superior Court, Special Civil Part on NOvember 18, 2009 in teh amount of $3,178.37. The respondent was substituted into this became attorney of record for the plaintiff on or about December 10, 2013. The third-party [redacted] (hereinafter "complainant") indicates that although he has the same name as the defendnat in our case, his research shows he is not the [redacted] pertaining to our matter. I conducted my own independent investigation which shows two (2) separate [redacted]'s receive mail at 177 Pulaski Avenue, Perth Amboy, NJ 08861 and they appear to be father and son. Obviously it is the [redacted] who is not the complainant that is the judgment debtor in this action. The complainant conveniently left out the fact that there is another [redacted] who either used to receive mail at his address or continues to receive mail at his address. At this time we have removed the address in question from our database but it may become necessary to reinstate the address if it becomes apparent that the defendant continues to receive mail at that address. There has been no wrong doing in this case since even my current investigation using Lexis Nexis Accurint shows that the address we used was proper.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

My son, who does have the same name as myself, is not the individual you are looking for as you stated via a response through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the individual in question was born in 1974. My son was born in 1983. My son also has a middle name with the initial **". I am not sure if all internet research sites will always pick this information up. I believe you should be able to find this information via a Lexis/Nexis search or a credit report. I will also send a separate statement to Lexis/Nexis if indeed this information is showing up in their records in error. Please remove address. I find it offensive that you presume that I was purposely holding this information.

Business

Response:

I acknowledge the concerns of the complainant. It is obvious that this judgment does NOT pertain to the [redacted] who is filing this Revdex.com complaint but instead pertains to a [redacted] who was born in 1974. My online research did suggest that the [redacted] pertaining to our matter received mail at the comaplinants address at one time. However, based upon the complainants representations we have removed the compalinants address which appears to be the desired result of the complainant. Again, the judgment is not against the [redacted] who filed this Revdex.com complaint and the address at issue has been removed from our system.

Review: I had a judgment filed against me by [redacted] in the state of Florida in 2002. I subsequently paid the judgment in full in August 2010. This legal firm filed a judgment against me in the state of New Jersey on 11/20/15 transferring the original judgment from Florida and proceeded to attempt to garnish my wages. On 12/9/15 I contacted them and faxed them the satisfaction of judgment from Florida. Today 1/6/16 I spoke with the 4th paralegal there who told me they were going to look in to it.Desired Settlement: I want a reversal of the judgment in the state of New Jersey. This debt was paid in full and I have provided the documentation proving that.

Business

Response:

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. (hereinafter “FSKS”) was retained to represent Plaintiff to domesticate Florida judgment in New Jersey as allowed by law. On November 20, 2015, the judgment was domesticated in the Superior Court of New Jersey under docket number [redacted]. On December 2, 2015 FSKS sent a notice of wage execution. On December 8, 2015 the consumer contacted our office and verbally informed our office that this matter was previously paid in Florida. FSKS informed the consumer to provide us with documentation to support that assertion. The consumer provided our office with documentation to support his assertion that this matter may have been paid which was provided to Plaintiff for review. Said documentation was submitted to our client for review and it was determined that this claim may have been previously paid and that they desired us to vacate the judgment and recall the matter. FSKS is in the process of preparing and submitting an ex parte order to vacate the judgment to the New Jersey Superior Court. Upon receipt of a filed copy, same will be submitted to consumer. Plaintiff does not intend on pursuing this judgment.