# Something for those of you doing door knocks and door cards to think about..........



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

Something to think about for those of you doing door knocks and leaving door hangers for ANY company, Not just Screwguard........... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12695572534032346826&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr


----------



## MKT (May 7, 2014)

mtmtnman said:


> Something to think about for those of you doing door knocks and leaving door hangers for ANY company, Not just Screwguard........... http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12695572534032346826&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr



Not saying that everyone who forecloses is negative, or that it is their fault they are not paying their mortgage's. 

But my opinions is that these lawsuits really just hurt the botg, because with resources tied up into debt collection lawsuits & potential settlements to help all those poor unfortunate soles who could not or chose not to pay their bills, we the botg have possibly been taking the preliminary hit from the price sheet.

My question about this lawsuit - Is this a just lawsuit, or possible another form of hypothetical welfare? Is there a shortage of section 8 & subsidized housing? At the end of it all who pays for those who do not pay their bills?

The most pressing issue is how this has gained any steam and why it has wasted court time with all of the mortgage settlements completed in relation to the mortgage crisis. 

To this Lucille Simpson fellar just want to say glad your able to help delegate tax payer dollars because your cause is truely in the interest of the majority???


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

I think the reason of concern for the botg is when the courts find the actual debt collector/door knocker to be joined as 1 with Safeguard for this class action. Safeguard will not object or in fact may make the demand, the plaintiff won't fight this since there will be more pockets to go after....WHY? Well every contractor knocking on doors has added Safeguard as an Additional Insured on their insurance policy. Better to have all the contractors insurance policies pay the tab. Could you imagine having inspected 300 houses this year and say 200 of them join the class action? That's 200 deductibles the contractor would be responsible for!! That's why the payout per inspection is so high so the contractor assumes part of the liability.... Guess everyone already figured this risk vs reward was in their favor otherwise they wouldn't partake?

It's only a matter of time till the house of cards come crashing down..the question is "does the contractors want to stick around and be a party to the lawsuits"..?

That is the conundrum.....


----------



## Wannabe (Oct 1, 2012)

Oh I'd like to add this to our fellow Illinois contractors: I would be contacting this law firm and getting signed up as a solicitor to sign people up into the class action! I've had the pleasure of being on 2 class action signup committees and it's great money for a couple years. This may not be allowed in Illinois? Worth finding out. In fact was asked to canvass for another class action that was certified--can't discuss but it's a lawsuit I 100% agree with and I can almost guarantee everyone on this forum would agree too.


----------



## GTX63 (Apr 12, 2012)

I'm not siding with the homeowner either, just in this case I didn't read that they were the stereotypical 125% mortgaged, 70% loan to debt ratio'd deadbeats that made a large majority of the defaulters. I didn't even read that anyone could confirm they had the right address.
I've had some of those same manilla envelopes hung on doorknobs to our properties; some not even filled out. The inspector hit the wrong house. That's what $6 paid, but anyway. 
If the inspector is attempting to contact the homeowner by ringing the bell, knocking on the door, etc, on behalf of Safeguard and then the client, and then either handing them a phone or having them contact the lender in their presence, or providing the number to do so, they are acting in the behalf of said lender. They are an agent/rep. That's my law 101 but I'd say someone who wants to go after them and took law 201 or higher may make some headway.


----------



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

*Class Action Explores Door Hangers as Collection Communications Under FDCPA *



http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt...ers-as-collection-communications-under-fdcpa/


----------



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

Another one a few months ago.... http://www.leagle.com/decision/In FDCO 20160216D18/Schlaf v. Safeguard Properties, LLC


----------



## Ohnojim (Mar 25, 2013)

*These are in fact illegal in PA in nearly every*

municipality, unless you get a solicitation permit for that specific municipality. 

I know some other sates have similar laws. 

Any contact inspection is also illegal in most municipalities and in most cases. 

People do them all the time illegally for a couple dollars.


----------



## STARBABY (Apr 12, 2012)

I`m good I don`t bother with inspections. I never really cared how many they could give me . Not working for $10 ,$6 or even (the dumbest $3)an inspection.


----------



## Ohnojim (Mar 25, 2013)

*I go even further than that.*



STARBABY said:


> I`m good I don`t bother with inspections. I never really cared how many they could give me . Not working for $10 ,$6 or even (the dumbest $3)an inspection.


I will generally not even touch a property that does not already have an FTV sticker on it, properly filled out. And I,m getting more strict about it as time goes on.


----------



## Doc (Sep 3, 2015)

Warning: The topics covered on this site include activities in which there exists the potential for serious injury or death.

From the movie "Outlaw Josey Wales"

Bounty Hunter: "A man's gotta do something for a living these days." 

Josey Wales: "Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy,"


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

I hate safeguard and all of these other national companies, but this seems like a frivolous law suit. The client has asked safeguard to do this for them, any responsibility of illegal debt collection should be against the mortgage company not them. Also the mortgate company owns the home, they are basically trying to contact the occupants just the same if an absentee landlord that is trying to collect rent.


----------



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

madxtreme01 said:


> I hate safeguard and all of these other national companies, but this seems like a frivolous law suit. The client has asked safeguard to do this for them, any responsibility of illegal debt collection should be against the mortgage company not them. Also the mortgate company owns the home, they are basically trying to contact the occupants just the same if an absentee landlord that is trying to collect rent.



YOU are an extension of the servicer and YOU will be held liable in the end. If it is given class action status their is something too it. YOU agreed when YOU signed up, (if you do inspections that is) to follow all local, state and federal regulations. Know the law and follow it. NEVER take a national/regionals word for anything......


----------



## mtmtnman (May 1, 2012)

Moreover, the court notes that the allegations in this case include that Safeguard has put on its own website that it offers to provide in-person and written communications to a debtor 'on behalf of’ the mortgage servicers, suggesting that Safeguard is exercising discretion in its activities and is not simply offering to carry a note from the mortgage servicer to the debtor like a messenger service. Furthermore, the door hanger itself appears to be drafted by Safeguard, rather than the mortgage servicer, based both on the hanger itself and the fact that an identical hanger appeared in Simpson involving Safeguard's services to another client. Messenger services typically do not draft the correspondence they carry to recipients. Instead, Safeguard sold a service to make three attempts at a face-to-face encounter with a debtor, and to leave a written message, all with the alleged intent that the debtor should contact the mortgage servicer to assist in that servicer's collection efforts. As with Simpson, those allegations are sufficient to plausibly suggest that Safeguard 'attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.' 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)," Judge Kapala said.


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

I wasn't saying that I didn't understand the lawsuit or how it works, I was simply saying that it doesn't make any sense. Lets go over how this should work. If the client is asking said national to do work illegally then the client should be responsible. They are the ones asking for the work to be done. I do have to say that I have done contact inspections, but always treated them as drive by inspections. These people know that they aren't paying the mortgage, why do I need to give them a letter stating to call them. They already have the contact info. It's just a waste of time and a reason to get the cops called, a dog to attack you, or just get screamed at. It's not worth it. As long as the house is definitely occupied that's all that matters.


----------



## safeguard dropout (Apr 21, 2015)

With the exception of employees, and yes there are grey areas there, the BOTG always carries liability.

Truth in life #1...excrement runs down hill.


----------



## BamaPPC (May 7, 2012)

madxtreme01 said:


> I wasn't saying that I didn't understand the lawsuit or how it works, I was simply saying that it doesn't make any sense. Lets go over how this should work. If the client is asking said national to do work illegally then the client should be responsible. They are the ones asking for the work to be done.


Well, look at it this way. If I told you to go rob the gas station for me, who is the one being arrested if caught? You, or the botg, have the obligation to determine what is illegal. If SG says, "Just pull that old car out to the curb so the city has to deal with it." Or, "just find a deserted back road to dump all them tires." "Pour the paint down the sewer drain."

If you do the deed, you're guilty.


----------



## madxtreme01 (Mar 5, 2015)

BamaPPC said:


> Well, look at it this way. If I told you to go rob the gas station for me, who is the one being arrested if caught? You, or the botg, have the obligation to determine what is illegal. If SG says, "Just pull that old car out to the curb so the city has to deal with it." Or, "just find a deserted back road to dump all them tires." "Pour the paint down the sewer drain."
> 
> If you do the deed, you're guilty.



very true... didn't think of it that way. In this case however, the bank has more of a stake in the property than the owner in most cases so you would think that collection agency rules wouldn't apply


----------



## G 3 (May 3, 2015)

madxtreme01 said:


> very true... didn't think of it that way. In this case however, the bank has more of a stake in the property than the owner in most cases so you would think that collection agency rules wouldn't apply


And that thinking will land you in a heap of trouble. :vs_no_no_no:

It doesn't matter who has the biggest stake in the property. The bank is still trying to get paid (Collections) from the home owner who still owes on the property (Debt). The FCRA still applies to this, and you better do it right. 

I do judgment enforcement for a few select clients, and there is a very fine line you have to walk when it comes to anything regarding a payment on a debt.

I refuse to do these types of "Inspections".


----------



## GTX63 (Apr 12, 2012)

madxtreme01 said:


> It's just a waste of time and a reason to get the cops called, a dog to attack you, or just get screamed at. It's not worth it. As long as the house is definitely occupied that's all that matters.


Ah yes, the days of wine and roses.....


----------

