Debt Collection Tips: Suing the proper corporate entity

Posted on June 3, 2014 by Richard Klass

Many times, a debtor will be identified as the “XYZ Company.” Without further information, the creditor cannot know whether the entity which owes the debt is a corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership, or limited liability company.

It is necessary when considering suing a debtor that the proper legal entity be identified. In the case of a corporation, the name must include either “Inc.,” “Corp.,” or “Ltd.” A limited liability company must include “LLC.” A partnership or sole proprietorship can be identified from a business certificate filed in the County Clerk’s Office. Other forms of legal entities include limited partnerships, professional corporations, and professional limited liability companies.

The necessity of suing the proper party is to ensure that when it comes time to enforce the prospective Judgment, the debtor will be properly identified and the debtor’s assets will be leviable. Further, it will help eliminate defenses concerning the jurisdiction of the court over the proper party.

To assist in collection against the proper entity, the creditor should obtain the exact name of the debtor and its type of organization at the onset of the transaction. A search through the records of the Secretary of State’s Office can verify the information provided by the debtor. The creditor may also request that the debtor provide a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation or Business Certificate of the entity. In fact, this is a common requirement of a bank when a debtor opens a bank account.

copyr. 2014 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

Stone Cold

Posted on October 29, 2013 by Richard Klass

The business idea was a good one: one partner, we’ll call him “Salesman,” was experienced in the stone business. He would bring his knowledge and talents. The other partner, we’ll call him “Moneybags,” would bring his cash. Together, they would launch a business to import and distribute stone material from China. The plan was for Moneybags to invest money into the newly-formed corporation to be used to purchase the stone material, and Salesman was going to make profitable deals, moving the product to market through wholesalers.

In anticipation of launching the business, and in order to buy the stone material, Moneybags gave Salesman more than $250,000, a bit at a time. Every time Moneybags invested a chunk of money, Salesman gave him an “IOU” for the money. After a while, and after a series of exchanges which raised his suspicions, Moneybags became convinced that Salesman was diverting the seed money from the stone business and was using it instead for personal purposes. Thinking he had been defrauded, Moneybags began an action to recoup whatever he could of his original investment. The situation was dire and complicated, but it got worse. During this period, Salesman went on a business trip to Africa and died.

Substitution of wife/administrator as defendant

Before learning that Salesman had died, Moneybags had already brought a lawsuit against Salesman, through counsel other than Richard A. Klass, Your Court Street Lawyer, for breach of contract and embezzlement. After Salesman died, Moneybags’ lawsuit was “stayed” or stopped from proceeding. According to law, when a defendant dies, there is a stay of the legal proceeding until someone is appointed to represent the estate of the deceased. CPLR 1015 (“If a party dies and the claim for or against him is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.”). Salesman’s widow was appointed as the administrator of his estate. At this point, Moneybags sought help from Richard A. Klass. The first step was to substitute the wife/administrator as the defendant in place of her deceased husband.

Elements of Fraud and Conversion

The next, important, step was to amend the Complaint in the action to include various causes of action, including fraud and conversion against the estate of the defendant. To allege fraud, the Complaint contained the essential elements that (a) Salesman made representations to Moneybags about investing the money into buying stone material; (b) those representations were false and misleading; (c) that Salesman made those representations knowingly and with the intent and purpose of inducing Moneybags to invest the money; (d) that Moneybags justifiably relied on those representations to his detriment; and (e) he sustained damages. The Complaint also alleged that Salesman wrongfully took and converted the investment moneys for his own purposes and in derogation of Moneybags’ rights.

Rights as a Shareholder in the Corporation

Aside from alleging that Salesman was a fraudster who diverted his investment moneys into his own pocket, Moneybags also pursued rights afforded to him as a shareholder in a New York State corporation. New York Business Corporation Law Section 717 states that “A director shall perform his duties as a director, including his duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which he may serve, in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.” (Similarly, Business Corporation Law Section 715(h) provides “An officer shall perform his duties as an officer in good faith and with that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.”)

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Unless some “bite” could be put into the Complaint to allege that the wife and son may have some personal liability, Moneybags realized he was nearly certain to lose his entire $250,000 investment. Richard A. Klass amended the Complaint to allege numerous causes of action against not only the estate of Salesman but also his wife/administrator of the estate and son, including fraud, conversion, constructive trust, accounting, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of duties, and unjust enrichment. Under New York law, a claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty consists of the following elements: (1) a breach of fiduciary duty, (2) that the defendant knowingly induced or participated in the breach, and (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. See, S&K Sales Co. v. Nike, Inc., 816 F2d 843 [2 Cir. 1987]. In this case, Moneybags alleged that the wife and son should be held liable to him, and not only Salesman’s estate.

The amendment of the Complaint to include numerous allegations against the several defendants pushed them to immediately settle the case for a substantial percentage of Moneybag’s initial investment.

copyr. 2013 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Previous post
Next post

What do you do if you are sued for a credit card debt?

Posted on May 31, 2013 by Richard Klass

Without doubt, one of the most important financial tools used in this country is the credit card. While the first credit card was actually metal-plated and similar to a military dog tag, today’s credit card may take the form of a plastic card with magnetic strip or merely using the combination of numbers to make all sorts of purchases. At this point, the usage of credit cards by consumers is as ubiquitous as maintaining a bank account or driving a car; in fact, many products and services can only be purchased through the use of a credit card. As a result, most consumers in this country have two or more credit cards.

At some point, some consumers will find themselves in a downturn of events due to loss of employment, reduction of salary, illness or divorce, where they may become unable to maintain payment of the balances due on the credit card accounts. Once that happens, the accounts go into delinquency. Due to financial reporting requirements imposed upon banks, credit card delinquencies go through different stages, where the collection of past due amounts will first be attempted internally through the bank’s collection department, then through outside collection agencies, and then eventually through litigation by law firms throughout the country. Consumers who have defaulted on their credit card accounts are very familiar with the persistent telephone calls at all hours from debt collectors (who may be located in this country or calling from overseas call centers) and letter-writing campaigns which could make the post office proud (indeed, many consumers who file bankruptcy cite the annoyances of debt collectors as one of the chief reasons for the filings).

It is important for the consumer to understand that, from the perspective of the creditor, settling the debt and collecting a portion of the credit card debt is the main objective. This means that attempts to settle the credit card with the consumer will be pushed by the creditor at every stage of the process. For certain consumers, this is very beneficial, as significant savings can be accomplished through a reduced lump-sum payment.

Once the almost-terrifying debt collectors’ campaign has ended, and the debt is still owed, the bank will either pursue collection of the debt itself or by selling the debt to another company, either of which will commence a law suit against the consumer to obtain a judgment.

The first step that the collection law firm will take is to file the case in the appropriate local court where either the consumer/former account holder resides or where the account was opened. The initial document filed with the court will be a “Summons” (which is typically accompanied with the Complaint, which specifies the details of the claim against the consumer). The credit card company will be referred to as the “plaintiff” and the consumer will be referred to as the “defendant” in the Summons. The next step after the Summons is filed with the court is for the process server to serve a copy of the Summons on the defendant, informing him that a law suit has been filed and that he needs to respond to the Summons and plead any defenses to the case.

Once served, the defendant must serve and file his “Answer.” The filing of the Answer will also place the case onto the court’s pre-trial conference calendar. Each side will have an opportunity to conduct discovery of the other’s evidence, including obtaining copies of credit card applications, agreements, and account statements.

After both parties have completed discovery proceedings, one of them (usually the plaintiff) will make a motion to the judge for “summary judgment,” meaning that there is no need for a trial of the facts and the court should award judgment in favor of one of the parties. If the court grants the motion, then the successful party can enter the judgment (either dismissing the case or awarding a monetary amount). If the motion is denied, then the case will proceed to a trial.

by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Seminar Announcement: “Nuts and Bolts of Collection Law”

Posted on October 19, 2011 by Richard Klass

In early November, Richard Klass will help present a seminar entitled The Nuts and Bolts of Collection Law. This seminar, presented by the National Business Institute, will take place at the Hyatt Place Garden City, in Garden City, New York. Information follows.

Nuts and Bolts of Collection Law

Date: Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Time: 9:00 am-4:30 pm

Location:

Hyatt Place Garden City
5 North Avenue
Garden City, NY

Facility Phone: 516-222-6277

NBI Product ID#: 57049ER

Program Description

Ensure Your Clients Get Paid
Winning a judgment against a bad debt doesn’t necessarily mean cash in hand. Do you have a firm grasp of the procedures for legally collecting that debt? Are your recovery actions in compliance with the strict guidelines governing collection? Don’t rush in unprepared. Maximize your chances for recovery with the practical steps provided in this strategic seminar. Enroll today!

Avoid collection activities that violate the FDCPA and/or state laws.
Learn best practices for discovering debtor assets both pre- and post-judgment.
Recognize what provisional and final remedies are available to creditors to collect what is owed.
Walk through the procedural steps for executing wage garnishments, judgment liens, attachments and other methods of collection.
Know the creditor’s rights when collecting debt and when the debtor files for bankruptcy.

Who Should Attend

This basic-to-intermediate level seminar is primarily designed for attorneys and other legal professionals. Those who may also benefit from the collection techniques provided include: collection and loan officers, accounts receivable personnel, credit managers, bankers and controllers.

Course Content

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and State Collection Laws
Ethical Issues in Collection
How to Find Debtors and Their Assets
Obtaining a Judgment: A Procedural Guide
Collecting a Judgment: A Procedural Guide
Creditors’ Rights When a Debtor Files Bankruptcy

Continuing Education Credits:

Continuing Legal Education
CLE 7.20 – NJ
CLE 7.00 – NY*

Continuing Professional Education for Accountants

CPE for Accountants: 7.00

Institute of Certified Bankers

ICB: 6.75*

* denotes specialty credits

Agenda

THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA) AND STATE COLLECTION LAWS

9:00 – 9:45, Richard A. Klass

Scope of the FDCPA
Understanding the Actions Permitted or Restricted by the Act
Demand Letters: Pitfalls to Avoid
Liability and Defenses
State Collection Laws and Their Application/Preemption

ETHICAL ISSUES IN COLLECTION

9:45 – 10:45, Richard A. Klass
Communication With Clients and Other Parties
Disclosure Issues
Aggressive Collection Practices
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Reporting Professional Misconduct

HOW TO FIND DEBTORS AND THEIR ASSETS

11:00 – 12:00, Michael Cardello III
Prejudgment Discovery Methods
Personal vs. Business Assets
Replevin/Self-Help Repossession Considerations

OBTAINING A JUDGMENT: A PROCEDURAL GUIDE

1:00 – 2:00, Michael Cardello III
Filing the Lawsuit
Service of Process
Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims
Judgments (Default, Summary, etc.)

COLLECTING A JUDGMENT: A PROCEDURAL GUIDE

2:15 – 3:15, Kenneth H. Wurman
Post-Judgment Discovery
Judgment Liens
Wage and Bank Account Garnishment
Attachments
Writ of Execution/Seize and Sale by Sheriff
Charging Orders
Debtor Slow-Pay Motions
Turnover/Receivership
Exemptions by Debtors
Dealing With Fraudulent Transfers

CREDITORS’ RIGHTS WHEN A DEBTOR FILES BANKRUPTCY

3:15 – 4:30, Michael D. Brofman

Speakers

RICHARD A. KLASS is an attorney in the Brooklyn office of Your Court Street Lawyer. Mr. Klass is an arbitrator for the small claims part of the civil court of the City of New York, County of Kings. He practices in the areas of collections, bankruptcy, debtor and creditor, commercial litigation, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, personal injury, real estate condominium law, family law, divorce, child custody and private placement adoption law, wills, probate, trusts and estates. Mr. Klass has written numerous articles and has lectured frequently for the Brooklyn Bar Association and New York County Lawyers Association, as well as other professional groups and organizations. Mr. Klass is a member of The American Association for Justice, the New York State Bar Association, the New York County Lawyers Association (chair, The Mentoring Program, Group Mentoring Program) and the Brooklyn Volunteer Lawyers Project (Pro Bono Counsel). He earned his B.A. degree from Hofstra University and his J.D. degree from New York Law School.

MICHAEL D. BROFMAN is a member in the New Hyde Park law firm of Weiss & Zarett P.C., where he practices in the areas of bankruptcy law, debtor/creditor rights, non-judicial workouts and commercial litigation. He has lectured for the Nassau County and New York State bar associations on topics relating to his areas of practice, and is a frequent lecturer for National Business Institute on bankruptcy and secured creditor topics. He is a member of the Nassau County (member, Bankruptcy and Bank sections) and the New York State (member, Committee on Bankruptcy Law and General Practice Section) bar associations, the American Bankruptcy Institute and the Volunteer Lawyer’s Project Pro Bono Bankruptcy Panel. Mr. Brofman earned his B.A. degree from the State University of New York at Binghamton and his J.D. degree from Fordham University.

MICHAEL CARDELLO III is a partner in the Litigation Department of Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, concentrating in business and commercial litigation. Mr. Cardello represents large and small businesses, financial institutions and individuals in federal and state courts. He has a wide range of experience that includes trials and appellate work in the areas of corporate disputes, shareholder derivative actions, dissolutions, construction disputes, equipment and vehicle leasing disputes and other complex commercial and business disputes. Mr. Cardello earned his B.A. degree in marketing, his M.B.A. degree in finance and his J.D. degree from Hofstra University. While in law school, he was associate editor of the Hofstra Law Review. Mr. Cardello is the current vice-chairman of the Commercial Litigation Committee of the Nassau County Bar Association and also is a member of the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Securities Committee of the Nassau County Bar Association. He lectures on discovery, trial practice, equipment and vehicle leasing issues and e-discovery.

KENNETH H. WURMAN is a partner in the law firm of Naidich Wurman Birnbaum & Maday, LLP, where his practice areas, for more than 30 years, include collections and real estate. Mr. Wurman is a lecturer for National Business Institute on collection matters. He earned his B.S. degree from the State University of New York at Albany and his J.D. degree from New England School of Law. Mr. Wurman is a member of the Nassau County and New York State bar associations.

copyr. 2011 Richard A. Klass, Esq.

The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York.

He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

A New Way to Award Attorney’s Fees

Posted on April 7, 2011 by Richard Klass

The “American Rule” governs most cases in United States’ courts, where each party to the litigation bears its own costs and attorney’s fees (as opposed to the “English Rule,” according to which the loser of the litigation is chargeable with the winner’s attorney’s fees). There are three exceptions to the “American Rule,” which are when there is:

(a) an agreement between the parties pertaining to attorney’s fees;
(b) a statute which awards reasonable attorney’s fees to the “prevailing party;” or
(c) a court rule provides for attorney’s fees.

Out With The “Old” Ways

Generally, courts around the country use one of two methods to determine the amount of “reasonable attorney’s fees” to be awarded to a party: (1) the “lodestar” method and (2) the “Johnson” twelve-factor method (these methods were the two existing methods endorsed by the US Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 US 424 (1983)).

The “lodestar” method figures out the reasonable attorney’s fee to be awarded — which is basically the product of the attorney’s usual hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours worked (for example: $3,500 attorney’s fees award based on 10 hours of the attorney’s hourly rate of $350). After figuring out the product, the fee may be adjusted by the court as part of the court’s fee-setting method — a starting point (if you will) for an initial estimate before considering the particulars of the case’s circumstances.

The “Johnson” method came about from a case titled Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), in which the court envisioned a one-step inquiry into attorney’s fees, based upon twelve factors, allowing the court to rely more on its experience and judgment with both the attorney and type of case involved. Market forces, which generally influence the hourly rate charged, are not to be the sole determining factor under this method.

In theory, courts that adopted the “lodestar” method were expected to consider fewer variables than the “Johnson” method; in practice, however, many courts consider the same set of variables under both methods to arrive at a fee amount. Some court decisions held that the “Johnson” factors should be applied after applying the “lodestar” calculation; some held that many of the “Johnson” factors were subsumed into the initial calculation.

The Presumptively Reasonable Fee

In a Decision rendered in April 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Association v. County of Albany, the Second Circuit held that it was abandoning the traditional “lodestar” method in favor of the concept of the “presumptively reasonable fee.” (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals covers cases in the federal courts of New York and Vermont). The Decision actually stated that the term, “lodestar method,” was a metaphor that has “deteriorated to the point of unhelpfulness.”

The Second Circuit decided to switch over to a new method of figuring out the reasonable attorney’s fee to be awarded to a prevailing party termed the “presumptively reasonable fee.” This new way asks the court to bear in mind all of the case-specific variables, including the reasonable hourly rate that a paying client would be willing to pay if he was able to negotiate with his attorney. In determining that, the court should consider, among other things, the “Johnson” factors and the fact that a reasonable, paying client would likely want to spend the minimum amount necessary to effectively litigate the case.

The Forum Rule

The Decision also highlighted a particular issue involved in setting fees — the “forum rule.” To determine the general hourly rate, the court has to consider the “community” in which the court sits; in federal courts, it has generally been the geographic area of the district in which the court is located. The Second Circuit recognized that that area could be skewed, depending on the district. So, the court clarified that a district court may use an out-of-district rate (or a rate in between in-district and out-of-district) if it is clear that a reasonable, paying client would have paid the higher rate; however, the court will presume that a client will either hire counsel located within the district or counsel whose rates are consistent with those of local counsel. The presumption may be rebutted if it can be shown that hiring higher-priced, out-of-district counsel was reasonable under the circumstances.

Like all considerations involved in deciding whether to bring a lawsuit against someone, the issue of attorney’s fees is an important one. Without effective, compensated counsel, a litigant with a true cause may be deprived of “his day in court.” Fee-shifting statutes and agreements for attorney’s fees ensure that each side to a dispute knows the risks of his conduct — whether it be the breach of a contract or commission of an act that a statute or court rule is designed to protect.

by Richard A. Klass, Esq.

copyr. 2011 Richard A. Klass, Esq.
The firm’s website: www.CourtStreetLaw.com
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn Heights, New York.
He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post