Law Offices of Les Zieve

Dear [redacted] ,? ? We are in receipt of the Revdex.com’s letter dated November 14, 2016, regarding a complaint received from [redacted] (“Mr [redacted] ”) against Les Zieve/The Law Offices of Les Zieve (“LOLZ”), which is referenced as complaint? ID# [redacted] Please accept the response of LOLZ as follows:? BackgroundAlthough the complaint refers to a “purchase date” and a “purchase amount,” LOLZ did not actually sell anything to Mr [redacted] Rather, LOLZ conducted a foreclosure sale of Mr [redacted] ’s real property, as the trustee under the deed of trust, at which time Mr [redacted] ’s property was sold to a third partyAfter the foreclosing lienholder was paid its total amount due, there were funds remaining from the sale that Mr [redacted] had the right to make a claim for as the former owner of the subject propertyTherefore, although Mr [redacted] was entitled to submit a claim to LOLZ for the surplus funds, Mr [redacted] is not LOLZ’s “consumer.” ? ? ? Issues Raised In ComplaintMr [redacted] ’s complaint revolves around the resolution of his claim for the surplus fundsSpecifically, Mr [redacted] believed his calls and emails were not being returned, and felt that the claim process was taking too longHowever, with respect to calls and emails to Mr [redacted] , it should be noted that Mr [redacted] was represented by an attorney in making a claim for the surplus fundsTherefore, it would not be appropriate for LOLZ to contact Mr [redacted] directly without permission from his attorney, which permission LOLZ did not haveAlso, LOLZ does not have any record of correspondence directly from Mr [redacted] until an email was received on October 19, (i.e., after the instant complaint was made)? Once Mr [redacted] ’s October 19, email was received, LOLZ contacted Mr [redacted] ’s attorney that same day with a status of the surplus fundsThe funds were disbursed to Mr [redacted] ’s attorney’s office very shortly thereafter, on? October 24, 2016.? ? With respect to Mr [redacted] ’s claim that the process took too long, it seems that Mr [redacted] received the surplus funds within the expected timeframeMr [redacted] submitted a claim for the surplus funds on or about September 22, 2016, and the funds were disbursed to Mr [redacted] ’s attorney on or about October 24, 2016, less than five (5) weeks laterTherefore, the surplus funds were distributed to Mr [redacted] well within the six-week window during which he states he expected to receive the surplus funds.? ? ResolutionMr [redacted] s’ complaint seeks a disbursement of the surplus funds in order to resolve the complaint’s issuesAs explained above, a disbursement of the surplus funds was made to Mr [redacted] by and through his attorney on? October 24, Therefore, the issues raised in Mr [redacted] ’s complaint have been fully resolvedIn addition, although LOLZ need not respond to Mr [redacted] as a “consumer,” LOLZ did contact Mr [redacted] ’s attorney’s office to advise of this response and to request that they contact the undersigned at LOLZ if there were any questions or issues.? ? Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may haveAlso, please confirm that you have received this email response.?

Dear ***, We are in receipt of the Revdex.com’s letter dated November 14, 2016, regarding a complaint received from *** *** (“Mr***”) against Les Zieve/The Law Offices of Les Zieve (“LOLZ”), which is referenced as complaint ID# ***Please
accept the response of LOLZ as follows: BackgroundAlthough the complaint refers to a “purchase date” and a “purchase amount,” LOLZ did not actually sell anything to Mr***Rather, LOLZ conducted a foreclosure sale of Mr***’s real property, as the trustee under the deed of trust, at which time Mr***’s property was sold to a third partyAfter the foreclosing lienholder was paid its total amount due, there were funds remaining from the sale that Mr*** had the right to make a claim for as the former owner of the subject propertyTherefore, although Mr*** was entitled to submit a claim to LOLZ for the surplus funds, Mr*** is not LOLZ’s “consumer.” Issues Raised In ComplaintMr***’s complaint revolves around the resolution of his claim for the surplus fundsSpecifically, Mr*** believed his calls and emails were not being returned, and felt that the claim process was taking too longHowever, with respect to calls and emails to Mr***, it should be noted that Mr*** was represented by an attorney in making a claim for the surplus fundsTherefore, it would not be appropriate for LOLZ to contact Mr*** directly without permission from his attorney, which permission LOLZ did not haveAlso, LOLZ does not have any record of correspondence directly from Mr*** until an email was received on October 19, (i.e., after the instant complaint was made) Once Mr***’s October 19, email was received, LOLZ contacted Mr***’s attorney that same day with a status of the surplus fundsThe funds were disbursed to Mr***’s attorney’s office very shortly thereafter, on October 24, 2016. With respect to Mr***’s claim that the process took too long, it seems that Mr*** received the surplus funds within the expected timeframeMr*** submitted a claim for the surplus funds on or about September 22, 2016, and the funds were disbursed to Mr***’s attorney on or about October 24, 2016, less than five (5) weeks laterTherefore, the surplus funds were distributed to Mr*** well within the six-week window during which he states he expected to receive the surplus funds. ResolutionMr***s’ complaint seeks a disbursement of the surplus funds in order to resolve the complaint’s issuesAs explained above, a disbursement of the surplus funds was made to Mr*** by and through his attorney on October 24, Therefore, the issues raised in Mr***’s complaint have been fully resolvedIn addition, although LOLZ need not respond to Mr*** as a “consumer,” LOLZ did contact Mr***’s attorney’s office to advise of this response and to request that they contact the undersigned at LOLZ if there were any questions or issues. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may haveAlso, please confirm that you have received this email response

Dear ***,
">We are in receipt of the Revdex.com’s letter dated November 14, 2016, regarding a complaint received from *** *** (“Mr***”) against Les Zieve/The Law Offices of Les Zieve (“LOLZ”), which is referenced as complaint ID# ***Please accept the response of LOLZ as follows:
BackgroundAlthough the complaint refers to a “purchase date” and a “purchase amount,” LOLZ did not actually sell anything to Mr***Rather, LOLZ conducted a foreclosure sale of Mr***’s real property, as the trustee under the deed of trust, at which time Mr***’s property was sold to a third partyAfter the foreclosing lienholder was paid its total amount due, there were funds remaining from the sale that Mr*** had the right to make a claim for as the former owner of the subject propertyTherefore, although Mr*** was entitled to submit a claim to LOLZ for the surplus funds, Mr*** is not LOLZ’s “consumer.”
Issues Raised In ComplaintMr***’s complaint revolves around the resolution of his claim for the surplus fundsSpecifically, Mr*** believed his calls and emails were not being returned, and felt that the claim process was taking too longHowever, with respect to calls and emails to Mr***, it should be noted that Mr*** was represented by an attorney in making a claim for the surplus fundsTherefore, it would not be appropriate for LOLZ to contact Mr*** directly without permission from his attorney, which permission LOLZ did not haveAlso, LOLZ does not have any record of correspondence directly from Mr*** until an email was received on October 19, (i.e., after the instant complaint was made) Once Mr***’s October 19, email was received, LOLZ contacted Mr***’s attorney that same day with a status of the surplus fundsThe funds were disbursed to Mr***’s attorney’s office very shortly thereafter, on October 24, 2016.
With respect to Mr***’s claim that the process took too long, it seems that Mr*** received the surplus funds within the expected timeframeMr*** submitted a claim for the surplus funds on or about September 22, 2016, and the funds were disbursed to Mr***’s attorney on or about October 24, 2016, less than five (5) weeks laterTherefore, the surplus funds were distributed to Mr*** well within the six-week window during which he states he expected to receive the surplus funds.
ResolutionMr***s’ complaint seeks a disbursement of the surplus funds in order to resolve the complaint’s issuesAs explained above, a disbursement of the surplus funds was made to Mr*** by and through his attorney on October 24, Therefore, the issues raised in Mr***’s complaint have been fully resolvedIn addition, although LOLZ need not respond to Mr*** as a “consumer,” LOLZ did contact Mr***’s attorney’s office to advise of this response and to request that they contact the undersigned at LOLZ if there were any questions or issues.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may haveAlso, please confirm that you have received this email response

Dear ***, We are in receipt of the Revdex.com’s letter dated November 14, 2016, regarding a complaint received from *** *** (“Mr***”) against Les Zieve/The Law Offices of Les Zieve (“LOLZ”), which is referenced as complaint ID# ***Please
accept the response of LOLZ as follows: BackgroundAlthough the complaint refers to a “purchase date” and a “purchase amount,” LOLZ did not actually sell anything to Mr***Rather, LOLZ conducted a foreclosure sale of Mr***’s real property, as the trustee under the deed of trust, at which time Mr***’s property was sold to a third partyAfter the foreclosing lienholder was paid its total amount due, there were funds remaining from the sale that Mr*** had the right to make a claim for as the former owner of the subject propertyTherefore, although Mr*** was entitled to submit a claim to LOLZ for the surplus funds, Mr*** is not LOLZ’s “consumer.” Issues Raised In ComplaintMr***’s complaint revolves around the resolution of his claim for the surplus fundsSpecifically, Mr*** believed his calls and emails were not being returned, and felt that the claim process was taking too longHowever, with respect to calls and emails to Mr***, it should be noted that Mr*** was represented by an attorney in making a claim for the surplus fundsTherefore, it would not be appropriate for LOLZ to contact Mr*** directly without permission from his attorney, which permission LOLZ did not haveAlso, LOLZ does not have any record of correspondence directly from Mr*** until an email was received on October 19, (i.e., after the instant complaint was made) Once Mr***’s October 19, email was received, LOLZ contacted Mr***’s attorney that same day with a status of the surplus fundsThe funds were disbursed to Mr***’s attorney’s office very shortly thereafter, on October 24, 2016. With respect to Mr***’s claim that the process took too long, it seems that Mr*** received the surplus funds within the expected timeframeMr*** submitted a claim for the surplus funds on or about September 22, 2016, and the funds were disbursed to Mr***’s attorney on or about October 24, 2016, less than five (5) weeks laterTherefore, the surplus funds were distributed to Mr*** well within the six-week window during which he states he expected to receive the surplus funds. ResolutionMr***s’ complaint seeks a disbursement of the surplus funds in order to resolve the complaint’s issuesAs explained above, a disbursement of the surplus funds was made to Mr*** by and through his attorney on October 24, Therefore, the issues raised in Mr***’s complaint have been fully resolvedIn addition, although LOLZ need not respond to Mr*** as a “consumer,” LOLZ did contact Mr***’s attorney’s office to advise of this response and to request that they contact the undersigned at LOLZ if there were any questions or issues. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may haveAlso, please confirm that you have received this email response.