A Federal Magistrate Judge in Texas said this week that a plaintiff suing a collection agency for FDCPA violations filed the case in bad faith and that not only should his case be dismissed, but he should be found liable for the attorney’s fees accrued by the debt collection agency over the course of its defense. Paul D. Stickney, magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, wrote in his findings, conclusions and recommendations to the District Court that Craig Cunningham’s case against The CMI Group, based in Carrollton, Texas, had “no genuine issues of material fact” and should be dismissed. He further recommended a finding that Cunningham filed the action in bad faith and for purposes of harassment and that CMI should be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
From the article: In January he was favorably spotlighted in a lengthy feature in the Dallas Observer which called him “a radical enemy of the banking system.”
Favorably? Does anyone else see that observer article, linked by op, is favorable to him? Maybe FWF readers see it differently than an outsider since we've had other interaction with the celebrity?
While I strongly support people sticking up for their FDCPA rights, what C47 did was akin to prodding someone with a stick until they hit you so you can then accuse them of assault and sue them for it.
I am strongly in favor of consumer rights but, Craig is a known abuser of those rights. He is not a lawyer and I believe is sole occupation is to sue for profit. Hopefully, this decision will stop others for following his path.
SlimTim said: From the article: In January he was favorably spotlighted in a lengthy feature in the Dallas Observer which called him “a radical enemy of the banking system.”
Favorably? Does anyone else see that observer article, linked by op, is favorable to him? Maybe FWF readers see it differently than an outsider since we've had other interaction with the celebrity?
It might be favorable to him in the eyes of some deadbeats, not for normal FWF readers though.
Guess now he finds out the flaws in his asset protection strategies. For the fees that he will be assessed, I foresee very vigorous and active efforts to bust those trusts he hides behind.
I did have to commend CN47 on his suggestions for valid suits/claims for the little guy who didn't actually owe debt or was genuinely harassed. But as a numbers game he gambled and over stepped the boundary set by law. All his winning may soon be attorneys fess but then I think he will declare bankruptcy and try to hide what assets he has anyway. He was a dark knight of the pro cosumer crowd that hit a hit a hornets nest with a stick one too many times.
DamnoIT said: I did have to commend CN47 on his suggestions for valid suits/claims for the little guy who didn't actually owe debt or was genuinely harassed. But as a numbers game he gambled and over stepped the boundary set by law. All his winning may soon be attorneys fess but then I think he will declare bankruptcy and try to hide what assets he has anyway. He was a dark knight of the pro cosumer crowd that hit a hit a hornets nest with a stick one too many times.
+1
arch8ngel
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Sep. 2, 2010 @ 1:06p
SlimTim said: From the article: In January he was favorably spotlighted in a lengthy feature in the Dallas Observer which called him “a radical enemy of the banking system.”
Favorably? Does anyone else see that observer article, linked by op, is favorable to him? Maybe FWF readers see it differently than an outsider since we've had other interaction with the celebrity?
The closest that article came to painting him favorably was to show that he's a dog lover
I disagree. I think in the eyes of most people, he was depicted pretty favorably in the article. There are a few phrases in there that aren't so favorable, like how he learned to "hide behind the law". But overall, I think it depicts him as a rebel defying the industries that most people have come to loathe (banks and debt collectors). Quotes like "I'm running around trying to keep the ship afloat, and the banks don't care" resonate with a majority of the people, who complain that banks are just cut-throat money making machines that don't care who they throw under a bus to make a profit. And "If you're in a position where you have to make a choice, my argument is food, clothing and shelter come first... Nobody ever went to hell for not paying a debt", which sounds like a very reasonable stance if you don't stop to critically analyze the situation and say "wait, how does that have anything to do with why this Craig guy was in debt".
In summary, the article probably wasn't too flattering in the eyes of the "pay your debts, deadbeat" crowd, but for most people I think it probably made him look pretty decent.
A Federal Magistrate Judge in Texas said this week that a plaintiff suing a collection agency for FDCPA violations filed the case in bad faith and that not only should his case be dismissed, but he should be found liable for the attorney’s fees accrued by the debt collection agency over the course of its defense. Paul D. Stickney, magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, wrote in his findings, conclusions and recommendations to the District Court that Craig Cunningham’s case against The CMI Group, based in Carrollton, Texas, had “no genuine issues of material fact” and should be dismissed. He further recommended a finding that Cunningham filed the action in bad faith and for purposes of harassment and that CMI should be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
It's interesting, the Dallas Observer article claims:
Cunningham filed his lawsuit against Credit Management, L.P. (CMI) in August 2009, claiming violations in the amount of around $200,000—by far his gutsiest lawsuit yet. The original bill for Time Warner was for $79.84 back while he was living in El Paso. Cunningham admits he may have missed the last payment for the Time Warner bill. Time Warner, rather than validate the bill, sent his account to a collection agency. That was ACS, which Cunningham sued for violating his Texas rights, as well as federal law. ACS closed his account, but the debt wasn't forgiven. Instead, CMI picked it up.
CMI started calling Cunningham's cell phone with an auto-dialer, leaving prerecorded messages to please call them immediately regarding an outstanding bill. Cunningham told them to stop calling his cell phone on the auto-dialer, but they continued, each call a violation of TCPA. As Cunningham disputed the bill, CMI by law is also expected to cease collection efforts. So every call was another violation of FDCPA. Plus, to this day, CMI has not provided Cunningham with anything from Time Warner, he says, either a bill or a letter, verifying that he in fact owes anything, another violation of the law. "I don't really know if I owe it," Cunningham says. "If I do, send me a bill. If they don't want to send me a bill, I don't think I need to pay 'em."
But apparently those things must not be true if the court is saying he filed in bad faith (or is the judge just pissed off at him)?
LordKronos said: I disagree. I think in the eyes of most people, he was depicted pretty favorably in the article. There are a few phrases in there that aren't so favorable, like how he learned to "hide behind the law". But overall, I think it depicts him as a rebel defying the industries that most people have come to loathe (banks and debt collectors). Quotes like "I'm running around trying to keep the ship afloat, and the banks don't care" resonate with a majority of the people, who complain that banks are just cut-throat money making machines that don't care who they throw under a bus to make a profit. And "If you're in a position where you have to make a choice, my argument is food, clothing and shelter come first... Nobody ever went to hell for not paying a debt", which sounds like a very reasonable stance if you don't stop to critically analyze the situation and say "wait, how does that have anything to do with why this Craig guy was in debt".
In summary, the article probably wasn't too flattering in the eyes of the "pay your debts, deadbeat" crowd, but for most people I think it probably made him look pretty decent.
You are reading waaay too hard into this. The article describes how CN47 got his debt (stupidity and greed) and since you like quotes, how about this one: "And, he found a new way to deal with his debt: He could hide behind the law." Very few people would argue that it's somehow positive to mess up majorly on your own and then hide. The story on how he got the loans alone is far from endearing (knowing that military loans don't show). Yeah, he's had some reasonable fights and some of the advice is useful, but his "origins" story hardly makes him sympathetic.
wpgabriel said: It's interesting, the Dallas Observer article claims:
Cunningham filed his lawsuit against Credit Management, L.P. (CMI) in August 2009, claiming violations in the amount of around $200,000—by far his gutsiest lawsuit yet. The original bill for Time Warner was for $79.84 back while he was living in El Paso. Cunningham admits he may have missed the last payment for the Time Warner bill. Time Warner, rather than validate the bill, sent his account to a collection agency. That was ACS, which Cunningham sued for violating his Texas rights, as well as federal law. ACS closed his account, but the debt wasn't forgiven. Instead, CMI picked it up.
CMI started calling Cunningham's cell phone with an auto-dialer, leaving prerecorded messages to please call them immediately regarding an outstanding bill. Cunningham told them to stop calling his cell phone on the auto-dialer, but they continued, each call a violation of TCPA. As Cunningham disputed the bill, CMI by law is also expected to cease collection efforts. So every call was another violation of FDCPA. Plus, to this day, CMI has not provided Cunningham with anything from Time Warner, he says, either a bill or a letter, verifying that he in fact owes anything, another violation of the law. "I don't really know if I owe it," Cunningham says. "If I do, send me a bill. If they don't want to send me a bill, I don't think I need to pay 'em."
But apparently those things must not be true if the court is saying he filed in bad faith (or is the judge just pissed off at him)?
remember that the article portrayed the claims in the manner Cunningham presented them. The article should not be read in the vein of the claims having held legal merit.
The Court's rationale on WHY they don't hold water should hopefully put a damper on some of the deadbeat mentality. They held that even his TCPA claims were bunk and also noted that Cunningham could not even demonstrate that the auto-dialer was used in a manner contrary to law.
The comments under the insidearm article make me sick. We all know collection agencies deserve the bad rep they have, because they constantly use illegal tactics. Even if Craig went a little too far in this case, he's done a great deal for advancing and protecting consumer rights. It's unfortunate that his real name was tied to his online identity. It's also unfortunate that this case may decide on previously undecided issues and set a precedent that's bad for consumers.
RushnRockt said: You are reading waaay too hard into this.....and since you like quotes, how about this one: "...hide behind the law."
And then on the opposite end of "reading waaay too hard", apparently you didn't bother to read hard enough into my post, because I already pointed out that specific quote in my post. Thanks for trying, though.
Scripta, in total I think his actions have done consumers much more harm than help. Some of his advice was already questionable, but by abusing the protections for innocent consumers, I think he's effectively making it much harder for abusive collection agencies to be sued successfully.
The defendant suggests this case will set a useful precedent, and it sounds like the judge is reacting harshly to the shenanigans - that the debt was probably totally valid and the celebrity is perceived to have been acting in bad faith in many ways.
I agreed with him at times and disagreed with him at times. My biggest issue was how he would exploit the system.
Wasn't both parties at fault? Wasn't the issue was the CN didn't give them a reasonable opportunity to fulfill some of their obligations after they already failed to meet other obligations? It looked like the magistrate simply didn't like him based on his actions and history.
It will most likely be appealed. I am not defending codename but he probably does have ground to stand on. If they failed to validate the debt before sending it to collections, they were most likely acting in bad faith. Probably a rouge judge that disagrees with the laws as they are written and has decided he will rewrite the legislation. On the other hand, knowing Codename's style, he probably did act rather inflammatory on a legitimate debt. I just hope that this does not set a bad precedent for average people.
I am actually one of the FWF users who benefited from his advice.
Using his advice I got a collection record off my credit report.
I was happy with that, I did not sue, didn't pursue it any further, etc...
After reading this article and from personal interaction with CN47, I believe he had good intentions in the beginning, did genuinely want to help others, but got caught up in his online persona and it took over from there.
This happens to athletes, movie stars, etc.... Why couldn't it apply to online "celebrities"?
LegalLurker said: He further recommended a finding that Cunningham filed the action in bad faith and for purposes of harassment and that CMI should be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees.
Sounds like the perfect oppurtunity ... to not pay the attorney's fees and have them sent to collection. Then he can sue the collection agency =).
LordKronos said: RushnRockt said: You are reading waaay too hard into this.....and since you like quotes, how about this one: "...hide behind the law."
And then on the opposite end of "reading waaay too hard", apparently you didn't bother to read hard enough into my post, because I already pointed out that specific quote in my post. Thanks for trying, though.
And I pointed it out yet again, since you apparently didn't give it as much weight in coming up with your conclusion. He was not made up a hero, certainly not for "general public."
GreyRabbit said: Exactly what were his strategies for asset protection? Multiple trusts? Is there a link to his post?
Did he even have any assets to speak of?
The article made it sound like he had lost a goodly amount due to poor investments and carried his two remaining assets around the house with him, one under each arm.
CN47 just went a bit too far on this one, greedy perhaps, and rightly lost it totally, serves him right on this one.
BUT, I am all for what he did in principle as far as suing unfair practices by collectors. I have benefited by exposure to this side of the credit world though was never on the receiving of debt collectors If the debt collectors would simply follow the rules they would never be sued by the likes of CN47, period.
CN47 isn't dead yet. This ruling was just from a Magistrate Judge. That means he can ask a District Judge for a second opinion, and the District Judge can ignore some or all of what the Magistrate Judge said. (But usually they go along with it unless it's way off base.) Only after the District Judge would he have to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which would probably go along with whatever the District Judge said.
aeiouy
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Sep. 2, 2010 @ 9:51p
His book should sell really well.. as long as nobody finds out he made $20k from his suits and then had to pay out 50k.
LOL.
This is one of the funniest things ever.. Especially since people here often said "Calling Codename47" like was going to swoop in and dispense some wisdom from on high.
aeiouy
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Sep. 2, 2010 @ 9:55p
scripta said: The comments under the insidearm article make me sick. We all know collection agencies deserve the bad rep they have, because they constantly use illegal tactics. Even if Craig went a little too far in this case, he's done a great deal for advancing and protecting consumer rights. It's unfortunate that his real name was tied to his online identity. It's also unfortunate that this case may decide on previously undecided issues and set a precedent that's bad for consumers.
Actually his net impact is bad for anyone else who has to legitimately fight these issues. He was a clown, charlatan and game player. He sets a precedent to have such issues treated less seriously.
It is kind of like his actual actions. He spent 100s and 1000s of hours claiming he got like $20k in fines and such... but likely ends up in a significant hole. Same for his contribution to the issues at hand.
Not gonna say for or against CN... that varies on some of his advice.
But in general, I always appreciated the fact that he FOUGHT. Too many people back down or let it go.
As far as the ruling, I definitely see him taking it further. I mean, courts NEVER get it wrong???
Too bad victim's families can't appeal an INNOCENT verdict (HEAR THAT OJ?!?!?!?). Its ONLY the guilty / losers that get to appeal... THAT is the biggest problem I have with our judical system in general, and BAD Judges in particular (HEAR THAT judge that "offered" yet another opinion on the TiVo vs Dish lawsuit???).
Whittaker
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 2, 2010 @ 10:41p
I agree with a few others, (although not knowing the details) I’d say there are good grounds for an appeal.
From the article:
the magistrate addresses Cunningham’s allegations that CMI failed to provide verification of the debt by stating, “While the FDCPA does give debtors an opportunity to dispute the validity of a debt, it does not give a ‘debtor’s veto’ that allows debtors to cease all collection efforts by rejecting a debt collector’s verification.” There are specifics under the law as to proof of validation. This sounds backwards.
the magistrate held that 15 U.S.C. §1692c’s prohibition on calls at an inconvenient time or place did not apply to calls on Cunningham’s cell phones merely because he deemed them “inconvenient.” Ah, again, there are specifics under the law. I’d say CN47 obviously knows the basics here.
the magistrate held on the TCPA matter that (a) prior express consent is imputed to a debt collector if it is previously given to a creditor and (b) any revocation of such consent must be done in writing, not verbally as attempted by Cunningham. This also sounds backwards. Consumer law is favorable to the consumer, as in opt-in not opt-out.
Very interesting....I hope this gives renewed hope to anyone scared of suing collectors.
Most people have a much stronger fact pattern when a CA violates the law, hopefully now people will not be so worried the Collector will be able to collect their attorney's fees from them.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
