Ez Money Loan Services Lawsuit Alleges Violations of Consumer Protection Laws

Ez Money Loan Services, a payday lender, is facing a lawsuit alleging violations of consumer protection laws. The lawsuit claims that Ez Money engaged in deceptive and unfair practices, including charging excessive fees and interest rates.

The lawsuit specifically targets Ez Money's practice of rolling over loans, which can result in borrowers being charged hundreds of dollars in fees and interest. This practice is often criticized for trapping borrowers in a cycle of debt.

Ez Money's business model relies heavily on these high-interest loans, which can have devastating consequences for low-income individuals.

Broaden your view: Tribeca Lawsuit Loans Interest Rates

If you're dealing with an ez money loan services lawsuit, be aware of the warning signs and scams that may come with it. A scammer may call you claiming you owe money on a payday loan, even if you never took out the loan in the first place.

To identify a scam, get the caller's name and the company's name, street address, and telephone number. A legitimate collection firm usually complies, but a scammer probably won't give you this information.

Request a written confirmation of the debt before you make a payment. If the supposed creditor refuses to provide written confirmation, it's likely a scam. Don't give the caller any personal, financial, or confidential information.

Here are some red flags to watch out for:

If you believe a call was a scam, file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and your state Attorney General's office.

If you're being scammed for a payday loan, the scammer won't offer any proof that you actually owe money on a payday loan—because you never took out the loan in the first place.

Scammers often make convincing calls, but they're not based on reality. People panic and make a payment on a bogus debt because the calls are so convincing.

The first thing to do is stay calm and think clearly. Don't make any payments or provide any personal information.

If you're unsure about a debt, ask the scammer for proof. If they can't provide it, it's likely a scam.

Scammers want you to act fast, so they'll try to create a sense of urgency. Don't fall for it.

A unique perspective: Payday Services Loan

Scammers often get your information by gathering it from online applications for payday loans. They use this data to sell it to payday lenders or others, including scammers.

Lead generators are companies that collect your personal and financial information, including your Social Security number, bank account information, date of birth, and address. This information can then be sold to anyone, including scammers.

A large online network allows people to buy and sell payday loan leads, which means your information can easily end up in the wrong hands. This network is a major way scammers get access to your personal and financial data.

Here are some common ways scammers get your information:

EZ Money loan services have been accused of predatory lending practices, with some customers reporting high interest rates and hidden fees.

The lawsuit against EZ Money alleges that the company used deceptive tactics to lure customers into taking out loans, including advertising low interest rates that were not actually available.

Worth a look: Loaning Money with Interest

EZ Money customers have reported being charged interest rates as high as 390% APR, far exceeding the state's usury laws.

This is a common complaint among those who have taken out loans from EZ Money, with many feeling taken advantage of by the company's aggressive lending practices.

EZ Money has been accused of using high-pressure sales tactics to convince customers to take out loans, often with little regard for their financial situation.

The lawsuit against EZ Money also alleges that the company failed to properly disclose the terms of the loans, including the interest rates and fees.

EZ Money customers have reported being charged fees for things like late payments and loan extensions, which can quickly add up and lead to debt spirals.

These fees are often hidden in the fine print of the loan agreements, making it difficult for customers to understand the true cost of the loan.

The plaintiffs in the ez money loan services lawsuit allege that the defendants engaged in a residential mortgage pricing practice that set rates using objective criteria, such as credit scores and debt-to-income ratios, as well as subjective factors based on the borrowers' minority status.

These practices allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay certain "discretionary fees" resulting in higher costs for their mortgage loans compared to the average non-minority borrower. The fees fall into two categories: origination fees, appraisal fees, and processing fees paid directly to their brokers, and a fee paid indirectly to their brokers, such as yield spread premiums.

A yield spread premium is a payment by a lender to a broker based on the extent to which the interest rate on the loan exceeds a base or 'par' rate.

Broaden your view: Money Paid or Loaned

The plaintiffs in this case allege that the defendants engaged in a residential mortgage pricing practice that set rates using both objective and subjective factors, including the borrowers' minority status.

This practice allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher costs for their mortgage loans compared to non-minority borrowers. These costs included "discretionary fees" such as origination fees, appraisal fees, and processing fees paid directly to their brokers.

Recommended read: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Customer Service

A yield spread premium is a payment made by a lender to a broker based on the interest rate of the loan exceeding a base rate. This payment is unrelated to the borrower's creditworthiness.

The plaintiffs secured their residential financing through mortgage brokers, but claim that the defendants set the policies used by the brokers and are ultimately responsible for their actions.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants offer financial incentives to brokers to steer minorities into loans with higher fees and rates.

A unique perspective: Specialized Loan Servicing Mortgage Payment

You have rights when dealing with a payday lender, and one of those rights is being protected from threats of criminal charges. It's illegal for a lender to threaten to throw you in jail or prosecute you criminally for an unpaid debt.

If a lender does make such a threat, you should immediately file a complaint with DFI. They can help you resolve the issue.

On a similar theme: Will Lender Accept If a Friend Gift Money Conventional Loan

Payday lenders can't contact you or your spouse more than three times in one week, and they can't contact you at home between 9 p.m. and 7:30 a.m.

Here are some examples of what constitutes harassment by a payday lender:

If you feel a payday lender has harassed you while trying to collect on your loan, contact DFI to file a complaint.

To understand FHA and ECOA disparate impact claims, let's break it down. The FHA prohibits discrimination in residential real estate transactions based on race, while the ECOA prohibits discrimination in credit transactions on the same basis.

A disparate impact claim requires identifying a specific practice or policy, demonstrating a disparate impact on a protected group, and showing a causal relationship between the two. The plaintiffs in this case allege that the defendants' policy of allowing mortgage brokers to impose subjective charges caused a disparate impact on minority borrowers.

To allege a disparate impact claim, the plaintiffs must specify a practice or policy adopted by the defendants, which they claim is discriminatory. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to do so, but the plaintiffs counter that the defendants set the policies used by mortgage brokers and that the brokers are merely carrying out the defendants' practices.

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants offered financial incentives to brokers to steer minorities into loans with higher fees and rates. This claim is based on the fact that mortgage brokers can earn yield spread premiums by steering borrowers into higher-interest loans.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the defendants' pricing practice caused them to pay higher costs for their mortgage loans compared to non-minority borrowers. They claim that this practice resulted in higher origination fees, appraisal fees, and processing fees, as well as yield spread premiums.

A yield spread premium is a payment made by a lender to a broker based on the interest rate of the loan. This payment is unrelated to the borrower's creditworthiness and can result in higher costs for minority borrowers.

Fraudulent concealment allegations can be a complex aspect of legal claims. Some cases involve allegations that defendants fraudulently concealed information.

In order to satisfy the heightened pleading standard, plaintiffs must provide specific details about the allegedly concealed information. This can be a challenging task.

The court may scrutinize the plaintiffs' allegations to determine if they meet the necessary requirements. The defendants may argue that the plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence.

Rule 9(b) is a key factor in determining the validity of fraudulent concealment allegations.

The statute of limitations is a crucial deadline for bringing civil claims, and it's not to be taken lightly. In the case of the ECOA and FHA, the statute of limitations is a mere two years.

The putative class period in question extends to January 1, 2001, which is well beyond the two-year statute of limitations. This means that any claims arising before January 1, 1999, are likely to be time-barred.

The named plaintiffs, however, have claims that arose within the applicable limitations period, so they don't need to worry about tolling the statute of limitations. The court agrees with the defendants that the plaintiffs' allegations about tolling are irrelevant to the named plaintiffs' claims.

The plaintiffs are trying to put the cart before the horse by assuming that the class goes back to 2001 and then pursuing discovery based on this assumption. This is not a valid approach, as they need to obtain an order certifying a class going back to 2001 first.

The defendants' motion to strike the allegations aimed at tolling the statute of limitations was granted, which means that the plaintiffs can't pursue those claims at this time.

Additional reading: Wells Fargo Class Action Lawsuit Auto Loans

The ez money loan services lawsuit has been ongoing for several years, with the first lawsuit filed in 2015.

The initial lawsuit alleged that ez money loan services engaged in unfair and deceptive practices, including charging excessive interest rates and fees.

The court proceedings began in 2016, with the plaintiffs seeking class-action status to represent thousands of borrowers who claimed they were misled by the company's loan terms.

The lawsuit was eventually settled out of court in 2018, with ez money loan services agreeing to pay $7.5 million to resolve the claims.

The settlement marked a significant victory for consumers who had been taken advantage of by the company's predatory lending practices.

The Memorandum and Order section of a court case is where the judge lays out the facts and decisions of the case. In the case of Steele et al. v. WMC Mortgage, LLC et al., the plaintiffs, who are minority consumers, are suing WMC Mortgage and GE Money Bank for allegedly discriminatory discretionary pricing policies.

The plaintiffs claim that WMC and GEMB imposed discretionary fees that caused them to pay higher costs for their mortgage loans than comparable non-minority buyers. This allegedly discriminatory practice is a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act.

The court has granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs have been allowed to proceed with their class action lawsuit on behalf of all minority consumers who obtained home mortgage loans from WMC or GEMB between January 1, 2001 and the present.

The court has also denied the defendants' request to strike certain allegations related to the tolling of the statute of limitations. This means that the plaintiffs will be able to pursue their claims for disgorgement and restitution.

Here are the key facts from the Memorandum and Order:

Motions to Strike are a crucial part of the court proceedings, and they can have a significant impact on the case.

GEMB moved to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations against it, arguing that none of the class members have GEMB-originated loans.

The plaintiffs responded by pointing out that GEMB has the right to use the WMC trade name, which means it's included in the class definition.

The court agreed with GEMB that the class definition as to GEMB is inartfully drafted, so the class allegations against GEMB were stricken.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings consistent with this order and the rules of the court.

For another approach, see: Class Action Lawsuit Loans