Credit Counseling Virginia

In May 2016, the debtor commissioned Gary Smith of Mountain State Justice to write a note to RMS, in which she pretended to "withdraw" her credit. At the beginning of November 2016, the debtor lodged an eight-fold complaint against RMS with the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. The case of RMS hat den Fall an das U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia weitergeleitet.

Complaint alleges allegations under the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Residential Mortgage Lender, Broker and Servicer Act ("RMLBSA"), as well as a collective complaint claiming that RMS incurred various allegedly unlawful and exaggerated transactional fees, chargebacks, and expenses. Mortgagor filed personal liability under the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act for involuntary causation to credit, dishonest or involuntary recovery of debts and using deceitful, false or confusing statements to recover a charge, and for infringement of obligations, non-compliance with terms of payments, withdrawal under the Truth in Lending Act and noncompliance with honorary resignation.

RMS refused to give her reasonable advice on the credit because RMS had directed her to a credit advisor who allegedly had a commercial connection with RMS and had no chance to view the final document because the final document was hasty.

It also claimed that RMS had incorrectly requested the refund of taxes and insurances paid on its own account, had no right of enforcement and could not comply with its alleged'reversal' of the credit. Judge Berger concurred with RMS that the borrower's alleged collective actions - allegedly inappropriate and illegal termination dues and dues - are time-barred after the two-year limitation period for rights under the Rules of Procedure because they arose at the date of termination.

This case covered the specific receivables of the debtor. Finally, in a summative ruling, the Court of Justice also rejected the actions brought by the debtor on the grounds of negligence and enforcement. In particular, Judge Berger stated that some month before the closure, all the conditions of the credit had been revealed to the debtor and that therefore it could not rely an outrageous incentive right on the supposed testimony of RMS's credit analyst.

Furthermore, on a first-impression issue in West Virginia, the court found that closure charges and charges were not "debts" that RMS wanted to recover. After she had abandoned her claim for default and non-payment, the case was heard because of the borrower's allegations that RMS had used deceitful, false or confusing statements to recover a liability and that she had not fulfilled her alleged withdrawal from the credit.

Following a three-day grand jury hearing in which the Mortgagor was joined by Gary Smith and Bren Pomponio of Mountain State Justice, the panel issued a full defence judgment in favor of RMS in all respects, determining that RMS did not incorrectly present the amount or state of the indebtedness and did not neglect the Mortgagor's alleged resignation.