RUBIN & ROTHMAN ripoff ISLANDIA New York

Please allow me to furnish you with a chronological order of the events regarding this matter.

My wife, then fiance obtained two loans from Beneficial finance the first in the amount of $ 3,000 and a second loan, which she did not solicit but was offered and accepted via mail for $7,000. What I considered to be predatory lending.

She was injured shortly after, was unable to make her payments the account was subsequently placed into collections then turned over to the law firm of Rubin & Rothman.

She recovered from her injuries, obtained the services of a credit counseling service, which the law firm refused to deal with. She began to try to work things out with Beneficial, who would tell her she needed to contact the law firm they could no longer handle her account all the while making monthly payments in the amount suggested by the credit counseling service.

On every attempt she made to negotiate with the law firm, she was told by a Michelle Parker she would not give her any information regarding the debt unless she gave them her most recent pay stubs. My wife refused to provide them with any information since she has no dealing with them, therefore no obligation to provide them with any personal information.

She expressed to me that Ms. Parker was regularly abusive and intimidating to her and she no could longer deal with them at all, I explained to her the importance of bringing this matter to a conclusion one way or another she then asked if I would intercede in her negotiations with the law firm, I agreed. In December of 2004 she was served a unsigned summons to appear in court this being thew first document of any kind sent to her, soon after she provided the court a letter, which explained her position and payment status, which we considered to be her answer.

Again she contacted Beneficial in an attempt to resolve the matter, requesting information as to the current amount owed and again was told she needed to contact the law firm and again was told by them she would not receive any information until they received her pay stubs this went on for a year.

After complaining to me about being unable to sleep feeling anxious and unable to focus at work in December of 2005. At my insistence she contacted Beneficial with the hopes of an offer to reach a settlement.

Beneficial seemed agreeable, on a 3 way conversation between Beneficial, the Law Firm and her began which I heard and participated in because the entire conversation was on speaker phone. The representative from Beneficial informed Ms. Parker that Ms. Wyne was on the line and was ready to settle this account by making payments to the law firm. Ms Parker stated We have a judgment against you I said you cant have a judgment I answered the summons Ms Parker said You cant answer the summons for her I responded we are not going to split hairs with you people, Have a good day. The representative from Beneficial said does this mean you are not going to settle this. I said, You have a judgment Ending that conversation.

The first court appearance was on February 28 2006 plaintiff does not appear. The judge to address the disputed amount of the debt, calendared for April 18 2006, a conference. Plaintiff does not appear. We file a motion request a judgment on our counter claim plaintiff does the same. The court deemed the plaintiff to be correct in their assertion and according to the Judge we did it wrong. I should also include I wrote some very strong responses to the plaintiff

i would like to highlight a few points.

First we were never able to obtain verification of this debt until we submitted the information they insisted on having and even after it was submitted was found to be incorrect as to the number and amounts of payments received which constitutes a state of the dispute which was never resolved because they did not appear for the conference called by the judge to resolve it but they did move the court requesting a judgment against her.

Second that the Beneficial representative must have had full knowledge as to the legal state of their claim against her, she the rep did not deny nor confirm the existence of a judgment for that reason we naturally assumed the statement by Ms. Parker to be true and as such makes the Beneficial to some degree liable or at least unable to maintain exemption under the law as a lender. For this reason we felt they must be included in our cross claim, the court either overlooked this fact or decided differently.

Third All things considered, I am still stunned that the plaintiff attorney was allowed to walk into court present a motion that at best was more than 45 days past the allowable time to file that motion. The Judge in the case accept this as correct, proceeded as if there were no other issues before him related to this matter and grant leave to move this case to my now home state when there is still a dispute which if not resolved between the lender, their law firm and myself may be lost forever.

What I must now admit to myself is this process involves more than the law and the truth and best left to those who are equipped to deal with these matters. So I appeal to you madam to help me obtain justice for my wife who indeed has been greatly victimized in this process. I can only equate this experience to a street fight involving her; I come to her aid and get beaten with her. I am hopeful you will provide whatever information you deem necessary to help us bring this matter to a just conclusion.

I thank you and your colleagues in advance for your consideration in this matter and hope you will hear our plight.

Robert
Wilmington, North Carolina
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Attorneys and Lawyers