Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted]
Mr***’s complaint states that Machol and Johannes served a lawsuit that bore no case information and no seal from the Court Additionally, he claims that the Court had no record of the caseFinally, he states that the amounts sought in Machol and Johannes’ suit are excessive and unsubstantiated [redacted] placed Mr***’s account with Machol and Johannes for collection on November 16, Our firm sent a demand letter on November 17, However, we received no response from Mr***Therefore, our firm pursued suit in order to protect our client’s interestsPursuant to CRCP 303, Machol and Johannes issued a lawsuit, which was served on January 28, The lawsuit was subsequently filed on February 2, 2016, within the time frame allowed by applicable court ruleOn February 3, 2016, our firm received a letter from Mr***Machol and Johannes established contact with Mr [redacted] the same day and reached a settlement agreementMr [redacted] settled the matter in full on February 3, 2016, and the case will be dismissed at the Summons return date scheduled for February 24, Machol and Johannes acted properly as set forth by the applicable rules of civil procedureMoreover, the parties reached an amicable resolution of the herein matterHowever, we invite Mr [redacted] to contact us directly if there is any additional assistance we can provide in resolution of this matter
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed and investigated the consumer [redacted] ’s complaintIn his Complaint, Mr [redacted] states that he was garnished without proper service and the garnishment caused him financial hardshipOur Compliance Department took the following steps to investigate the consumer’s complaint: Reviewed the claims made by the consumer and the consumer’s file.Reviewed the underlying service of the case with the process server.Issued a bank garnishment releaseMr [redacted] was served with a Summons and Complaint on April 19, at [redacted] *** After the herein complaint was submitted M&J contacted the process server regarding the service disputeThe process server confirmed the serviceAfter review of Mr [redacted] ’s lease documentation it appears that the service location was leased during the service time periodAfter judgment entered on January 27, 2017, M&J issued a garnishmentWrits of Garnishment are not served upon defendants, so Mr [redacted] would not have been served with this documentationMachol and Johannes LLC prides itself on compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulationsUpon review, I have determined that M&J acted in accordance with all applicable laws in this actionHowever, in consideration of the hardship Mr [redacted] experienced due to the bank garnishment levied against his funds, are office agreed to issue a release of fundsM&J is willing to discuss resolution options with Mr [redacted] and encourage him to reach out to our firm to avoid further collection
On or about 3/24/17, [redacted] sent its initial demand to the consumer at the address in [redacted] [redacted] has no record of the letter being returned by the [redacted] as undeliverableIt is presumed that the letter was either received by the consumer at that address or that it was forwarded to her at another address Pursuant to the [redacted] ), the 3/24/letter notified the consumer that she had days from the receipt of the letter to dispute the validity of the debt or it would be presumed to be a valid debtThe consumer was further notified that, if she disputed the debt within the days, that it could take up to days for the debt to be verified by **’s office The first documented contact which [redacted] had with the consumer was on 10/18/when [redacted] received an inbound call from the consumerDuring the call she claimed that she had left messages for our officeFurther, during her conversation with the account representative, the consumer disputed the balance of the debt and said that she thought it should be lowerDuring this phone call she threatened a lawsuit and a complaint to the Revdex.comShe was informed during this phone call that [redacted] would open up a disputeShe thanked the account representative and the call ended The consumer’s 10/18/complaint was documented by [redacted] and the dispute and verification processes were initiated by [redacted] on the same day On 10/23/17, the consumer called [redacted] and spoke with an account representativeThe balance of the debt was stated by the account representativeAdditionally the consumer was informed that [redacted] is still processing her dispute and that she should receive the documentation supporting the amount of the debt in the next couple of weeksThe account representative explained that the consumer could try to prove that the balance is lower should she believe that is the case after the documentation is received The consumer's dispute has been investigated and supporting documentation and verification of the debt will be issued from the firm within the next hoursAfter review, the consumer is encouraged to reach back out to the firm directly to discuss mutual resolution
Our office has attempted to contact Ms [redacted] by phoneHowever, our office has been unable to reach Ms [redacted] at any number our office has on fileWe encourage Ms [redacted] to call our office at 866-729-in order to discuss this matter
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint The consumer states that he financed a vehicle for his spouse and his brother co-signed for the loan The consumer has since separated from his spouseThe consumer obtained a separation agreement in which his ex-spouse agreed to make payments on the loan However, pursuant to [redacted] , [redacted] ***, “The trial court has jurisdiction to enter orders only as between the parties and cannot affect the rights of a third-party creditor.” See [redacted] , [redacted] (court can apportion tax liabilities between the parties even though collection efforts by the Internal Revenue Service would be joint and several)As our firm’s client was not a party to the consumer's dissolution proceedings, our client’s rights were not affected by Defendant’s dissolution proceedingsThus, Defendant remains liable for the debtWe encourage the consumer to contact us directly to discuss how we may further assist in resolution of this matter
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted] ***
As Compliance Officer at Machol & Johannes, LLC, I have reviewed Ms***’s complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein Ms [redacted] is a non-party to an account placed with our firm for collectionAs stated in her complaint, Ms [redacted] received a satisfaction of judgment in previous case that involved her and the consumer pursued by my officeHowever, that satisfaction of judgment pertained to Ms [redacted] onlyThus, the judgment was never satisfied as the second partyNonetheless, our office has suspended collections on the outstanding judgment, and closed the file back to our client for further investigation
Pursuant to the below, I have coded the consumer's file as disputedHowever, the judgment attached is a Court issued judgment that is a matter of public record in court case [redacted] The consumer may verify the validity of the judgment by contacting the [redacted] ***Our firm denies the consumer's allegations of FDCPA violations and believes that it is proceeding properly under the lawWe do apologize for any inconvenience the consumer experienced in regards to hold times, we do often receive a high volume of phone callsI encourage the consumer to reach out to his account representative directly at ###-###-####
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com ComplaintOn January 2, our office received a voicemail from the consumerWe returned the call and left a voicemail on the same dayAdditionally, our office made an outgoing attempt to the consumer again on January 4, Our firm left an additional message on January 8, On January 12, our office issued a balance letter to the consumer's last known address in an attempt to resolve the consumer's inquiryWe encourage the consumer to call us directly or to visit our website at Mjfirm.com for additional assistance
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com ComplaintThis matter was filed April 3, tolling the statute of limitations, thus the case that was recently reinstated is ongoingThe consumer’s complaint indicates that she may be represented by counsel, which prevents our firm from speaking directly with herAs long as the consumer is no longer represented, our firm is available and willing to discuss arrangements on this accountHowever, as our account representatives are not authorized to discuss detailed matter over email, we ask the consumer call us toll free at ###-###-####
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaintIn her complaint, Ms [redacted] complained that our firm issued a garnishment that has caused her financial hardshipAdditionally, she states that the firm has been non-responsive to her complaintsShe has requested the funds returned to her and asks for the balance owedJudgment entered against Ms [redacted] on September 17, On or around January 26, Ms [redacted] entered into a payment arrangement with Machol and JohannesHowever, she defaulted on her agreement in November, when she ceased making payments on the accountOn September 11, our office issued another payment agreement to Ms [redacted] She made a single payment on the agreement and again ceased making payments on the fileOn July 22, 2017, as Ms [redacted] had failed to make reasonable efforts on the account our office revived the judgment against Ms [redacted] On December 29, 2017, we served a lawful garnishment to Ms [redacted] ’s bankAfter the garnishment, we attempted to contact Ms [redacted] by phoneMs [redacted] has requested that we speak to her via emailHowever, the account representative’s ability to communicate via email are limitedNonetheless, we were able to issue Ms [redacted] a statement as to her current balanceAdditionally, if she wishes to set up another voluntary arrangement she may do so by reaching out our office directly
In further response, I have attached a copy of the settled in full letter issued to Mr***Additionally, Mr [redacted] misstates the current creditor on this case, which is [redacted] *** They are the bearer of the judgment and our clientThey have confirmed this account has been settled out
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes I have reviewed this complaintMachol and Johannes properly served the consumer on 01/17/2015, thus giving fair notice of our impending suitAs the consumer failed to answer or otherwise enter an appearance, on 03/05/Machol and Johannes filed a Motion for Default JudgmentThis Motion was ordered and approved by the court on 03/27/Once we received our judgment against the consumer, we made multiple attempts over the span of the year to contact the consumer in order to set up a payment plan On 09/15/2015, we sent a judgment reminder letter stating the balance owed and that the letter was “an opportunity to avoid further legal action which may include garnishment and/or execution and levy on non-exempt wages or assets”After the letter was sent, our office attempted to reach the consumer to negotiate paymentsHowever, the consumer either did not answer or refused to verify her informationAccording to the FDCPA, we must verify a consumer’s information before we can discuss an account in order to prevent an unauthorized third-party disclosureDue to our inability to discuss the account with the consumer, we could not negotiate a payment plan that would benefit both parties and decided to exercise our right to garnish the consumer’s wages and/or assetsThe garnishment was applied for and issued in accordance with RCW Machol and Johannes strives to reach amicable resolutions and we work with individuals towards solutionsHowever, once a garnishment issues, we are no longer in a position to set up payment arrangements against our client’s best interests However, we encourage the consumer to please make contact with our main office so that we may further discuss settlement of the account as a whole
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaintIn his complaint, the consumer states he has no recollection of the account place with our office for collectionThus, we have sent verification of the debt to the consumer in an attempt to resolve his disputeAdditionally, the consumer states that our firm refused to work with him when he contacted our company Finally the consumer states that the account representative was rude and hung up on himI have reviewed the call in question and found that the account representative offered a reduced settlement amount on the debt in question which the consumer refused I did not find that account representative was rude to the consumer nor did the account representative hang up on the consumerPursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and appropriately at all times
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/11/09) */ As a Compliance Attorney for [redacted] and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer's Revdex.com ComplaintOur firm properly served the consumer with a Summons and Complaint on April 10th by leaving the Summons and Complaint with a family member over the age of at the consumer's usual place of abodeThe manner of service is allowable under Colorado State lawThe consumer failed to file an Answer and judgment entered May The judgment was for $5,with interest to accrue at the contractual rate of 18%During this time period, we received multiple phone calls from the consumer, but he failed to set up any payment arrangements or make any payments on the accountConsumer made no voluntary payments on the debt and as the judgment remained unsatisfied our office sought to have the judgment revivedOur office served the consumer with the request for reviver of judgment on April 17, On April 24, 2014, the consumer filed an objection to our requestA hearing was scheduled on the matterThe consumer then withdrew his objection and agreed to set up payments on the judgmentOur office agreed to accept $a month on the judgment in exchange for ceasing further collection activityThe consumer failed to make timely payments and stopped making payments altogether after February 19, Thus, a garnishment was properly served in this matter after default on the part of the consumer on June 23, Since the issuing of the garnishment our staff has explained that the consumer is not eligible for a reduction of debt or garnishment at this timeHowever, our firm prides itself on reaching amicable solutions with consumersThus, our firm has agreed to review the consumer's financial situation after six months of receiving steady paymentsWe encourage the consumer to reach out to us again at that time Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/11/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The statement about leaving the summons with a family member is incorrect and a lieDuring the time in question I lived alone in a secure building to only I had the code where I could only let people in from my cell phone answering the buzz and I am the only one who has access to my phoneThis means that they illegally entered my place of residenceAgain, I asked the firm if they would garnish me fot Sa month and they declinedThe consequences I have to suffer? I have someone else supporting my child and xant afford to pay my other bills This company is worse than the IRS Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 12, 2015/11/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I did not have an opportunity to dispute the original serviceWhat this firm did was to garnish my wages first and then in court, after garnishing my paycheck asked me if I wanted to disputeThey told me that my check would continue to be garnished until I agreed to a payment planSo I agreed just to get the garnishment lifted which they didSo for lack of better words I was forced to make a payment plan and then they reimbursed me what they garnished and I have proof of this as wellThe firm sent me a check for what they garnished Again, I was never served and was conived into getting on a plan Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 14, 2015/12/01) */ I have reviewed the consumer's file, and as previously stated the consumer filed an objection to our request for reviver of judgment on April 24, In his objection he objected to the original service of the actionA hearing was scheduled on the matter based off his objectionTherefore, the consumer did have an opportunity to dispute the service at the hearing set on this matterRather the consumer chose to withdraw his objection and set up payments on the judgmentThis agreement was effectuated in open court, the consumer freely entered into the agreementAs the consumer's wage garnishment is set to expire this month, I encourage him to contact our office directly to make voluntary arrangements on the judgment
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaintThe consumer claims that our firm is double-charging him for his student loans, as his Federal Student Loans have been consolidated and he denies taking any private student loansShortly after his accounts were placed with our office, Mr [redacted] called our office on September 9, to discuss a payment plan or settlementHe was informed of the approved monthly or lump sum payment optionsHowever, he did not follow up to make an arrangementAs no agreement was reached, we verified the balance with our client and our office determined that the account was appropriate for suitOn November 8, 2015, Mr [redacted] was personally served with suitHe contacted our office after the service and entered into a Court Ordered Stipulation for a monthly payment plan; he has since made timely monthly paymentsMr [redacted] contacted our office on April 20, 2016, and indicated that he received calls from a third party agency regarding the student loans that he is paying with our officeMr [redacted] sent in documentation from the third party agency, but our office determined the documentation was for different loansPursuant to his dispute and request for documentation, our firm sent a letter in verification of debt, including a signed copy of the original loan requestPursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulationsHowever, I encourage Mr [redacted] to contact us directly if there is anything further our office can provide in resolution of this matter
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Lawyer did not issue any response to me or any kind of letter showing bill was paid in full and to this day [redacted] *** bank has not receive any of the money from the Lawyer on the credit card I called the Lawyers office times to get a letter saying the bill was paid in full and they have refused me times they said they sent me a letter well they did not send me nothing so this is another lie from this lawyer M/J I want a Letter showing the Bill or settlement is paid in full I am going to call the Courts on this all so Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted]
Mr***’s complaint states that Machol and Johannes served a lawsuit that bore no case information and no seal from the Court Additionally, he claims that the Court had no record of the caseFinally, he states that the amounts sought in Machol and Johannes’ suit are excessive and unsubstantiated [redacted] placed Mr***’s account with Machol and Johannes for collection on November 16, Our firm sent a demand letter on November 17, However, we received no response from Mr***Therefore, our firm pursued suit in order to protect our client’s interestsPursuant to CRCP 303, Machol and Johannes issued a lawsuit, which was served on January 28, The lawsuit was subsequently filed on February 2, 2016, within the time frame allowed by applicable court ruleOn February 3, 2016, our firm received a letter from Mr***Machol and Johannes established contact with Mr [redacted] the same day and reached a settlement agreementMr [redacted] settled the matter in full on February 3, 2016, and the case will be dismissed at the Summons return date scheduled for February 24, Machol and Johannes acted properly as set forth by the applicable rules of civil procedureMoreover, the parties reached an amicable resolution of the herein matterHowever, we invite Mr [redacted] to contact us directly if there is any additional assistance we can provide in resolution of this matter
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes LLC (“M&J”), I have reviewed and investigated the consumer [redacted] ’s complaintIn his Complaint, Mr [redacted] states that he was garnished without proper service and the garnishment caused him financial hardshipOur Compliance Department took the following steps to investigate the consumer’s complaint: Reviewed the claims made by the consumer and the consumer’s file.Reviewed the underlying service of the case with the process server.Issued a bank garnishment releaseMr [redacted] was served with a Summons and Complaint on April 19, at [redacted] *** After the herein complaint was submitted M&J contacted the process server regarding the service disputeThe process server confirmed the serviceAfter review of Mr [redacted] ’s lease documentation it appears that the service location was leased during the service time periodAfter judgment entered on January 27, 2017, M&J issued a garnishmentWrits of Garnishment are not served upon defendants, so Mr [redacted] would not have been served with this documentationMachol and Johannes LLC prides itself on compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulationsUpon review, I have determined that M&J acted in accordance with all applicable laws in this actionHowever, in consideration of the hardship Mr [redacted] experienced due to the bank garnishment levied against his funds, are office agreed to issue a release of fundsM&J is willing to discuss resolution options with Mr [redacted] and encourage him to reach out to our firm to avoid further collection
On or about 3/24/17, [redacted] sent its initial demand to the consumer at the address in [redacted] [redacted] has no record of the letter being returned by the [redacted] as undeliverableIt is presumed that the letter was either received by the consumer at that address or that it was forwarded to her at another address Pursuant to the [redacted] ), the 3/24/letter notified the consumer that she had days from the receipt of the letter to dispute the validity of the debt or it would be presumed to be a valid debtThe consumer was further notified that, if she disputed the debt within the days, that it could take up to days for the debt to be verified by **’s office The first documented contact which [redacted] had with the consumer was on 10/18/when [redacted] received an inbound call from the consumerDuring the call she claimed that she had left messages for our officeFurther, during her conversation with the account representative, the consumer disputed the balance of the debt and said that she thought it should be lowerDuring this phone call she threatened a lawsuit and a complaint to the Revdex.comShe was informed during this phone call that [redacted] would open up a disputeShe thanked the account representative and the call ended The consumer’s 10/18/complaint was documented by [redacted] and the dispute and verification processes were initiated by [redacted] on the same day On 10/23/17, the consumer called [redacted] and spoke with an account representativeThe balance of the debt was stated by the account representativeAdditionally the consumer was informed that [redacted] is still processing her dispute and that she should receive the documentation supporting the amount of the debt in the next couple of weeksThe account representative explained that the consumer could try to prove that the balance is lower should she believe that is the case after the documentation is received The consumer's dispute has been investigated and supporting documentation and verification of the debt will be issued from the firm within the next hoursAfter review, the consumer is encouraged to reach back out to the firm directly to discuss mutual resolution
Our office has attempted to contact Ms [redacted] by phoneHowever, our office has been unable to reach Ms [redacted] at any number our office has on fileWe encourage Ms [redacted] to call our office at 866-729-in order to discuss this matter
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com Complaint The consumer states that he financed a vehicle for his spouse and his brother co-signed for the loan The consumer has since separated from his spouseThe consumer obtained a separation agreement in which his ex-spouse agreed to make payments on the loan However, pursuant to [redacted] , [redacted] ***, “The trial court has jurisdiction to enter orders only as between the parties and cannot affect the rights of a third-party creditor.” See [redacted] , [redacted] (court can apportion tax liabilities between the parties even though collection efforts by the Internal Revenue Service would be joint and several)As our firm’s client was not a party to the consumer's dissolution proceedings, our client’s rights were not affected by Defendant’s dissolution proceedingsThus, Defendant remains liable for the debtWe encourage the consumer to contact us directly to discuss how we may further assist in resolution of this matter
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted] ***
As Compliance Officer at Machol & Johannes, LLC, I have reviewed Ms***’s complaint and investigated the allegations contained therein Ms [redacted] is a non-party to an account placed with our firm for collectionAs stated in her complaint, Ms [redacted] received a satisfaction of judgment in previous case that involved her and the consumer pursued by my officeHowever, that satisfaction of judgment pertained to Ms [redacted] onlyThus, the judgment was never satisfied as the second partyNonetheless, our office has suspended collections on the outstanding judgment, and closed the file back to our client for further investigation
Pursuant to the below, I have coded the consumer's file as disputedHowever, the judgment attached is a Court issued judgment that is a matter of public record in court case [redacted] The consumer may verify the validity of the judgment by contacting the [redacted] ***Our firm denies the consumer's allegations of FDCPA violations and believes that it is proceeding properly under the lawWe do apologize for any inconvenience the consumer experienced in regards to hold times, we do often receive a high volume of phone callsI encourage the consumer to reach out to his account representative directly at ###-###-####
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com ComplaintOn January 2, our office received a voicemail from the consumerWe returned the call and left a voicemail on the same dayAdditionally, our office made an outgoing attempt to the consumer again on January 4, Our firm left an additional message on January 8, On January 12, our office issued a balance letter to the consumer's last known address in an attempt to resolve the consumer's inquiryWe encourage the consumer to call us directly or to visit our website at Mjfirm.com for additional assistance
As a Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com ComplaintThis matter was filed April 3, tolling the statute of limitations, thus the case that was recently reinstated is ongoingThe consumer’s complaint indicates that she may be represented by counsel, which prevents our firm from speaking directly with herAs long as the consumer is no longer represented, our firm is available and willing to discuss arrangements on this accountHowever, as our account representatives are not authorized to discuss detailed matter over email, we ask the consumer call us toll free at ###-###-####
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:This is not a validation of debt Sincerely, Rhonda Kahn
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaintIn her complaint, Ms [redacted] complained that our firm issued a garnishment that has caused her financial hardshipAdditionally, she states that the firm has been non-responsive to her complaintsShe has requested the funds returned to her and asks for the balance owedJudgment entered against Ms [redacted] on September 17, On or around January 26, Ms [redacted] entered into a payment arrangement with Machol and JohannesHowever, she defaulted on her agreement in November, when she ceased making payments on the accountOn September 11, our office issued another payment agreement to Ms [redacted] She made a single payment on the agreement and again ceased making payments on the fileOn July 22, 2017, as Ms [redacted] had failed to make reasonable efforts on the account our office revived the judgment against Ms [redacted] On December 29, 2017, we served a lawful garnishment to Ms [redacted] ’s bankAfter the garnishment, we attempted to contact Ms [redacted] by phoneMs [redacted] has requested that we speak to her via emailHowever, the account representative’s ability to communicate via email are limitedNonetheless, we were able to issue Ms [redacted] a statement as to her current balanceAdditionally, if she wishes to set up another voluntary arrangement she may do so by reaching out our office directly
In further response, I have attached a copy of the settled in full letter issued to Mr***Additionally, Mr [redacted] misstates the current creditor on this case, which is [redacted] *** They are the bearer of the judgment and our clientThey have confirmed this account has been settled out
As the Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes I have reviewed this complaintMachol and Johannes properly served the consumer on 01/17/2015, thus giving fair notice of our impending suitAs the consumer failed to answer or otherwise enter an appearance, on 03/05/Machol and Johannes filed a Motion for Default JudgmentThis Motion was ordered and approved by the court on 03/27/Once we received our judgment against the consumer, we made multiple attempts over the span of the year to contact the consumer in order to set up a payment plan On 09/15/2015, we sent a judgment reminder letter stating the balance owed and that the letter was “an opportunity to avoid further legal action which may include garnishment and/or execution and levy on non-exempt wages or assets”After the letter was sent, our office attempted to reach the consumer to negotiate paymentsHowever, the consumer either did not answer or refused to verify her informationAccording to the FDCPA, we must verify a consumer’s information before we can discuss an account in order to prevent an unauthorized third-party disclosureDue to our inability to discuss the account with the consumer, we could not negotiate a payment plan that would benefit both parties and decided to exercise our right to garnish the consumer’s wages and/or assetsThe garnishment was applied for and issued in accordance with RCW Machol and Johannes strives to reach amicable resolutions and we work with individuals towards solutionsHowever, once a garnishment issues, we are no longer in a position to set up payment arrangements against our client’s best interests However, we encourage the consumer to please make contact with our main office so that we may further discuss settlement of the account as a whole
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaintIn his complaint, the consumer states he has no recollection of the account place with our office for collectionThus, we have sent verification of the debt to the consumer in an attempt to resolve his disputeAdditionally, the consumer states that our firm refused to work with him when he contacted our company Finally the consumer states that the account representative was rude and hung up on himI have reviewed the call in question and found that the account representative offered a reduced settlement amount on the debt in question which the consumer refused I did not find that account representative was rude to the consumer nor did the account representative hang up on the consumerPursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations and appropriately at all times
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/11/09) */ As a Compliance Attorney for [redacted] and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer's Revdex.com ComplaintOur firm properly served the consumer with a Summons and Complaint on April 10th by leaving the Summons and Complaint with a family member over the age of at the consumer's usual place of abodeThe manner of service is allowable under Colorado State lawThe consumer failed to file an Answer and judgment entered May The judgment was for $5,with interest to accrue at the contractual rate of 18%During this time period, we received multiple phone calls from the consumer, but he failed to set up any payment arrangements or make any payments on the accountConsumer made no voluntary payments on the debt and as the judgment remained unsatisfied our office sought to have the judgment revivedOur office served the consumer with the request for reviver of judgment on April 17, On April 24, 2014, the consumer filed an objection to our requestA hearing was scheduled on the matterThe consumer then withdrew his objection and agreed to set up payments on the judgmentOur office agreed to accept $a month on the judgment in exchange for ceasing further collection activityThe consumer failed to make timely payments and stopped making payments altogether after February 19, Thus, a garnishment was properly served in this matter after default on the part of the consumer on June 23, Since the issuing of the garnishment our staff has explained that the consumer is not eligible for a reduction of debt or garnishment at this timeHowever, our firm prides itself on reaching amicable solutions with consumersThus, our firm has agreed to review the consumer's financial situation after six months of receiving steady paymentsWe encourage the consumer to reach out to us again at that time Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/11/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The statement about leaving the summons with a family member is incorrect and a lieDuring the time in question I lived alone in a secure building to only I had the code where I could only let people in from my cell phone answering the buzz and I am the only one who has access to my phoneThis means that they illegally entered my place of residenceAgain, I asked the firm if they would garnish me fot Sa month and they declinedThe consequences I have to suffer? I have someone else supporting my child and xant afford to pay my other bills This company is worse than the IRS Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 12, 2015/11/24) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I did not have an opportunity to dispute the original serviceWhat this firm did was to garnish my wages first and then in court, after garnishing my paycheck asked me if I wanted to disputeThey told me that my check would continue to be garnished until I agreed to a payment planSo I agreed just to get the garnishment lifted which they didSo for lack of better words I was forced to make a payment plan and then they reimbursed me what they garnished and I have proof of this as wellThe firm sent me a check for what they garnished Again, I was never served and was conived into getting on a plan Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 14, 2015/12/01) */ I have reviewed the consumer's file, and as previously stated the consumer filed an objection to our request for reviver of judgment on April 24, In his objection he objected to the original service of the actionA hearing was scheduled on the matter based off his objectionTherefore, the consumer did have an opportunity to dispute the service at the hearing set on this matterRather the consumer chose to withdraw his objection and set up payments on the judgmentThis agreement was effectuated in open court, the consumer freely entered into the agreementAs the consumer's wage garnishment is set to expire this month, I encourage him to contact our office directly to make voluntary arrangements on the judgment
As Compliance Attorney for Machol and Johannes, I have reviewed this file and the consumer’s Revdex.com complaintThe consumer claims that our firm is double-charging him for his student loans, as his Federal Student Loans have been consolidated and he denies taking any private student loansShortly after his accounts were placed with our office, Mr [redacted] called our office on September 9, to discuss a payment plan or settlementHe was informed of the approved monthly or lump sum payment optionsHowever, he did not follow up to make an arrangementAs no agreement was reached, we verified the balance with our client and our office determined that the account was appropriate for suitOn November 8, 2015, Mr [redacted] was personally served with suitHe contacted our office after the service and entered into a Court Ordered Stipulation for a monthly payment plan; he has since made timely monthly paymentsMr [redacted] contacted our office on April 20, 2016, and indicated that he received calls from a third party agency regarding the student loans that he is paying with our officeMr [redacted] sent in documentation from the third party agency, but our office determined the documentation was for different loansPursuant to his dispute and request for documentation, our firm sent a letter in verification of debt, including a signed copy of the original loan requestPursuant to my review, it appears that Machol and Johannes has acted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulationsHowever, I encourage Mr [redacted] to contact us directly if there is anything further our office can provide in resolution of this matter
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Lawyer did not issue any response to me or any kind of letter showing bill was paid in full and to this day [redacted] *** bank has not receive any of the money from the Lawyer on the credit card I called the Lawyers office times to get a letter saying the bill was paid in full and they have refused me times they said they sent me a letter well they did not send me nothing so this is another lie from this lawyer M/J I want a Letter showing the Bill or settlement is paid in full I am going to call the Courts on this all so Sincerely, [redacted] ***