Pressler & Pressler Committed Fraud to Back into a Default Judgment Parsippany Nationwide

 Pressler and Pressler is a THIRD PARTY debt collector ie: they buy junk and re-age them then threaten people into paying them or filing judgements without notification..

New York (May 31, 2013, 5:47 PM ET) -- The New Jersey Appellate Division on Friday refused Pressler & Pressler LLP's bid to arbitrate a putative class action accusing the debt collection firm of filing false and deceptive complaints, finding that it couldn't invoke that right as part of underlying credit card agreements.

The Parsippany, N.J.-based firm lodged the contested complaints for Midland Funding LLC, which acquired Chase Bank USA accounts on which class plaintiffs owed money, according to Friday's opinion. Plaintiffs have accused the firm of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act through a demand in the suits for attorneys' fees equal to 25 percent of the allegedly owed amounts.

Pressler & Pressler contended that cardmember agreements between Chase and the plaintiffs entitled the firm to arbitration. Viewing the firm as a debt collector under the FDCPA, a three-judge appellate panel instead backed a lower court finding that the contract allows debt collectors to force arbitration only when they are a co-defendant with Chase or a purchaser of the accounts like Midland.

Neither Chase or Midland is a defendant here, and “the conclusion is unmistakable that defendant cannot be considered a 'party covered' under the arbitration clause,” the opinion said.

“To hold otherwise, we would have to ignore the intention of the parties underlying the Cardholder Agreement, and deviate from well-settled principles of contract construction,” the opinion added. “Where a contract specifies different rights to different specifically-mentioned entities, the contract must be interpreted to require that specificity.”

Pressler & Pressler argued that it could invoke arbitration as an agent of Midland, not a debt collector.

“Although we maintained that we were entitled to contractually request arbitration as counsel for a purchaser of the credit card accounts, the court disagreed,” attorney Michael J. Peters told Law360. “The court read the definition of 'debt collector' from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act into the subject contractual arbitration clause. The contract, however, did not include either the FDCPA or its definition.”

The Appellate Division said it had to treat Pressler & Pressler as a debt collector and not a general agent for Midland when it came to the arbitration provision because its sole function on behalf of the company was collecting overdue credit card debts.

“For the purposes of the arbitration clause at issue here, a debt collector cannot also be an agent,” the opinion said. “To so hold would be to require an absurd result: that is, a claim against a debt collector only must go to arbitration because it is an agent, and at the same time, must be excluded from arbitration because it is a debt collector.”

The complaints that Pressler & Pressler filed for Midland alleged that the company was contractually entitled to attorney fees of 25 percent of the amounts due and sought those sums on top of cardholders' unpaid account balances, according to the opinion.

Targeted consumers contend in the class suit that, when the firm filed the complaints, Midland hadn't incurred or paid out actual attorney fees equal to that 25 percent amount. They also argue that they never entered a contract to pay such sums to Midland or another party.

Plaintiffs attorney Henry P. Wolfe welcomed the decision and said it jells with the findings of other courts.

“I think it was a pretty easy case of contract interpretation,” Wolfe said.

The firm is represented by its attorneys Michael J. Peters and Lawrence J. McDermott Jr.

The plaintiffs are represented by Henry P. Wolfe and Andrew R. Wolf of The Wolf Law Firm and Joseph A. Mullaney III of the Law Office of Dimitrios Kolovos LLC

The case is Blaine et al v.  Pressler & Pressler LLP, case number A-2289-11T2 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

It's nice to see that Pressler & Pressler has people watching posts on this website.

There are laws and regulations for debt collectors, and while many disagree, they should follow the laws too.

Violating FDCPA laws and Part 6 Regulations is no way for a company to do business, especially when their president is responsible for creating and changing those same laws.

As for me, I've been hit hard by this recession 7 years so since you are throwing stones I assume your have not been negatively affected.   I'm not sour, I am just one of those people that thinks that debt collectors acting like attorneys should not break the laws, they are not above them. 

 You can complain all you like, it doesnt change the FACT that you have defaulted on something that you owe. They are attempting to collect money that YOU OWE. Youre going to complain about the HOW? Heres a novel thought, PAY WHAT YOU OWE!!!!! Maybe if your were not so much of a deadbeat you wouldnt be dealing with this. Instead of complaining over them attempting to get WHAT YOU OWE why not just pay them off.

That way you dont have to deal with them. Deadbeats will ALWAYS find someone else to blame for thier problems. They will ALWAYS be deadbeats and ANY business that deals with them is putting themselves at risk. How about YOU change this. If there was a DEFAULT judgment, then the courts found that you DID legally owe this money. So stop whining, you did this to yourself. PAY YOUR DEBTS!!!