The Moore Law Group

Review: Moore Law group was hired by [redacted] Bank to place a lien on my home in 2009. I have made several contacts with Moore Law group in the past to try and resolve the issues with the liens and work out something to have them removed. I have spoken in the past with ([redacted] 1/13) which when I first get in touch with them they state call me back on another day. When I call back I can never seem to get in touch with anyone leaving several messages with no return phone call. Now a year and a half later I am still trying to contact the Moore law Group and still getting the same runaround. When I contacted them on June 3, 2014 I was told they no longer have my case and to contact [redacted] card. I did just that. I contacted[redacted] card and [redacted] card stated that Moore Law group still had my case and they patched me through to an associate [redacted]) at the Moore Law group while I was on the phone with them. I explained to [redacted] that I sent an email to them last week with no response regarding my case. I explained that my home is currently going in to foreclosure and I need to have the liens removed so that I can modify my home to save it. [redacted] from the Moore Law group asked me to fax over all the paperwork showing that, which I did and to call him back on June 10, 2014. I contacted Jason Allen back on June 10, 11, and 12 and left several messages. I received no call back. I decided to try a random extension and spoke with [redacted] on 6/12 who told me that [redacted] was out of the office all week. He told me to call back on Monday June 16, 2014 to contact [redacted]. I called back on Monday June 16, 2014 spoke with [redacted] which he stated he had to contact [redacted] to see what can be done. Today is June 20,2014 and I have yet to hear from him regarding the lien and what [redacted] Bank has to say.Desired Settlement: I would like to have the lien removed along with all the appropriate paper work (release from judgment lien) so that I may file it with the county and proceed with the modification of my home.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Two weeks after I contacted the Revdex.com, I received a message from the Moore Law Group. I returned the call on Monday July 7, 2014 and spoke with [redacted] He stated that on July 2, 2014 The Moore Law Group sent a Release of Lien ([redacted] Card) to the Riverside County Recorder's office on my behalf. He stated that the [redacted] Card Lien strip was being removed at no charge. He stated once it is recorded and they receive it back I would receive a copy from them. On July, 16, 2014 I contacted [redacted] from the Moore Law Group to check the status and he stated that he no longer knows the status and that if I wanted to know the status I would need to check with the Riverside County Recorder's office. On July 17, 2014 I checked with the Riverside County Recorder's office and the [redacted] card Lien is still in place. There has been no release of lien by the Moore Law Group. I am not sure if they are lying to stop me from calling.

Regards,

Business

Response:

July 21, 2014

Revdex.com of San Diego & Imperial Counties

Revdex.com

4747 Viewridge Ave #200

San Diego, CA 92123-1688

Re: Consumer Complaint ID [redacted]

Dear [redacted]

I am in receipt of your letter dated June 23, 2014 (received June 26, 2014) regarding the complaint

submitted on June 20, 2014 by [redacted]

This letter shall serve as our formal response addressing the specific issues mentioned in the complaint.

Initially, let me state that we have been working directly with the consumer and have resolved the

matter. The resolution should be satisfactory to the consumer. However, in light of her most recent

communications with your office, we feel that we must formally address this matter directly with you as well.

Despite having no legal obligation to do so, we have confirmed that the resolution requested by the

consumer, being that the judgment lien which shows of record be released, has in fact occurred. We

received confrrmation on Friday, July 18,2014, from the Recorder's Office in Riverside County that they

have received, processed and recorded the voluntary release of lien.

However, we wish to address the underlying claim made against The Moore Law Group, as we believe

that, under the circumstances, we have gone above and beyond that which is legally required of us, as we have

not been served with an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court avoiding the judgment lien in question or

requiring that we release the judgment lien.

THE CLAIM

[redacted] complaint arises out of the fact that a judgment lien was recorded against her interest in

real property in Riverside County in 2010 that she filed for reliefunder Chapter 7 of the United States

Bankruptcy Code on or about November 6, 2010, and that to date, she has not received an order avoiding the

judgment lien.

Despite having no legal obligation to remove the lien, in response to [redacted] request, on July 2,

2014, we took the steps necessary to remove the lien voluntarily.

To the extent that [redacted] feels that we were not responsive enough to her contacts with this office,

we do apologize.

OUR INVESTIGATION AND RESULTS THEREOF

On June 15, 2009, a complaint for money and damages was filed in the Superior Court, County of

Riverside and assigned case number [redacted] On October 28, 2009, the Superior Court entered judgment

against [redacted] On February 3, 2010, the County of Riverside Assessor recorded an

abstract of judgment as instrument number [redacted] regarding the entered judgment in case number

[redacted] This abstract of judgment encumbered any and all interest that [redacted] had in real property

located in Riverside County.

On November 6, 2010, [redacted] tiled for relief under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy

Code. We received notice that the Court granted [redacted] a discharge under 11 USC §727 on March 11,

2011. However, the fact that the discharge was granted did not remove the lien on real property created by the

abstract of judgment. It should be noted that per the schedules tiled by [redacted] the real property in question

was only claimed exempt to the amount of $1.00. And at the time she filed her petition, it appears that she

owned or had an economic interest in at least three parcels of real property.

As a matter oflaw, while the discharge in the bankruptcy case discharged [redacted] personal liability

to satisfY the judgment, it did not release the lien created by the filing of the abstract. Liens are voided only if

certain circumstances are met to the satisfaction of the Court. In most cases those circumstances are that the lien

was created within 90 days of the tiling of the Bankruptcy Court petition or that the lien impairs the consumer's

claim of exemptions as set forth in the Bankruptcy Court documents. In this case, [redacted] did tile a Motion

to Avoid the lien created by the Abstract of Judgment. Her Motion was denied without prejudice despite the fact

that our office filed no opposition.

Despite the fact that there is no Court Order or any legal requirement that we release the lien, on July 2,

2014, we mailed out a release oflien to the County of Riverside Assessor. We confirmed with the County of

Riverside Assessor's Office on July 18,2014, that the release of lien had been recorded on July 17,2014. We

were further advised by the Assessor's Office that public record would not reflect the recordation of the release

of lien until at least July 21, 2014.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information.

The Moore Law Group