Class Action Certification Granted In Illinois for FDCPA Violations: Codilis & Associates

I have a feeling this is going to be the case in one fashion or another against the Foreclosure Mills all over the US! I am going to start a new post for each Class Action related to a Mill. Keep checking back!

April 7, 2010 by christine

A reader from Illinois sent me this information. If you’re being foreclosed upon in Illinois by Codilis & Associates, you might want to pay close attention. This is from Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, P.C.’s website.

Shea v. Codilis

99 C 0057

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4131

March 27, 2000, Decided

DISPOSITION: [*1] Plaintiff’s motion for class certification GRANTED.

COUNSEL: For plaintiff: Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M Combs, James O. Latturner, Marianne J. Lee, EDELMAN, COMBS & LATTURNER, Chicago, Illinois.

For defendant: Thomas McGarry, John M. Foley, Matthew R. Henderson, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, Chicago, Illinois.

JUDGES: David H. Coar.

OPINION BY: David H. Coar

OPINION: Plaintiffs, James and Nancy Shea, received a form letter from Defendants Codilis & Associates, P.C. notifying them that the accelerated balance of their note and mortgage was due. Plaintiffs allege that the letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (”FDCPA”) because it does not state the “amount of the debt” as required by 15 U.S.C. @ 1692g. Plaintiffs move to certify a class of individuals who were mailed the same collection form letter from Codilis & Associates, P.C. (that is, providing a dollar figure for the principal balance, but omitting such figures for other types of charges owed) on or after January 7, 1998, in connection with attempts to collect a residential mortgage loan on property located at the same address to which the letter was sent, if the letter was not returned by the Postal Service. [*2]

Plaintiffs seek class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Defendants do not oppose certification. To establish a class action, rule 23(a) requires that (1) the class be so numerous so as to render joinder of all members impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative class are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. In addition, rule 23(b)(3) states that common issues of law or fact must predominate over individual issues, and the class action must be the superior method of adjudicating the controversy.

Rule 23 requirements have been satisfied in this case. Defendants are one of the largest mortgage foreclosure firms in the Chicago area, filing more than 1,000 cases annually. Considering Defendants’ use of a standardized form letter, it is reasonable to infer that there will be a large number of class members. The claims of the class center on Defendants’ alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. @ 1692g by use of these collection form letters. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims [*3] are based on the same factual issues and legal theories as those of applicable to the class members. The Court is also convinced that Plaintiffs, who retained counsel experienced in brining class action suits and collection abuse claims, will adequately protect the interest of the class.

Furthermore, each proposed class member received the same form letter from Defendants, and the predominant question in this case is whether the language of the form letter violates 15 U.S.C. @ 1692g. A class action is also the superior method of resolving this controversy. Because small claims are at stake, it is improbable that many of the class members would initiate litigation individually. In addition, potential class members may not be aware of the violation of their rights under the FDCPA.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is GRANTED. The certified class includes:

a. All persons who were mailed a form collection letter from Codilis & Associates, P.C. in the form represented by Exhibit A of Plaintiffs’ complaint, i.e. with a statement that a principal balance is $ “x,” plus other items which are not given a dollar amount;

b. On or after January 7, 1998 (one [*4] year prior to the filing of this action);

c. In connection with attempts to collect a residential mortgage loan on property located at the same address to which the letter is sent; and

d. Which letters were not returned by the Postal Service.

Christine here: If you have questions about joining in this lawsuit, you should call the law firm, which should be available from the link to their site above.

DISCLAIMER:

****CHRISTINE SPRINGER IS NOT A LICENSED ATTORNEY. THIS BLOG IS COMPRISED OF HER OPINIONS, OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. PLEASE CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON OR TAKING ANY ACTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG.****

Source: ForeclosureIndustry.com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: