Forster & Garbus, LLP (F&G) is a New York law firm that specializes in debt collection. F&G has received consumer complaints alleging serious violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), including misrepresentation and threatening to take illegal actions. If you have been contacted by Forster & Garbus LLP, be sure you understand your rights before responding.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), Forster & Garbus, LLP was founded in 1971 and incorporated in 2009. The BBB opened its file in 1997. Buzzfile estimates F&G’s annual revenue at $4.6 million.
According to its website, Forster & Garbus is “a full-service New York Law Firm concentrating on creditor’s rights law.” F&G is “committed to surpassing compliance in legal collections…[with a] consumer first approach…in which we endeavor to align the needs of our clients with the needs of the consumers.”
F&G’s website does not offer a lot of information about their debt collection practices. The Consumer tab offers a web-based form that allows debtors to make an offer to settle delinquencies. Their Client tab offers a web-based contact from that enables businesses to request legal services from F&G. Both pages include the mandated disclaimer, “This firm is a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.” However, there are no links or references or any detailed information about consumer protection laws, resources, or agencies.
Who are we? We are Lemberg Law, a Consumer Law Firm
Lemberg Law is a consumer law firm helping victims of collection harassment and abuse. We are ranked A+ by the BBB. We’ve helped more than 15,000 consumers stop harassment and recover money from debt collectors. Harassed? Abused? Misled by a collector? Call our Helpline today! There is no charge unless we win.
As of October 2017, the BBB has closed 19 complaints against Forster & Garbus in the preceding three years, with 5 closed in the past 12 months. Most of those complaints allege problems with billing and collections. Since May 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 36 complaints against F&G. Justia lists at least 11 cases of civil litigation naming Forster & Garbus as a defendant.
Forster & Garbus
60 Vanderbilt Motor Parkway
Commack NY 11725
Telephone:(631) 393-9400
Website: http://www.forstergarbus.com/
It is illegal for a debt collector to make empty threats to sue you or garnish your wages. It is also unlikely Forster & Garbus would sue you for a debt you may not owe or they cannot validate. However, debt collection agencies are known to have summoned debtors to court and garnish wages after a default judgement. Contacting an attorney BEFORE this could possibly happen would be a smart move. We’ve helped thousands of consumers fight back against unscrupulous debt collection harassers. Find out if we can help you too today!
Get Free BBB A+ Attorney. Call 475-277-1600 NOW
Unlawful Debt Harassment? Learn the Law & Sue the Collector.
Absolutely. You can sue a debt collector. Here is a Sample Complaint:
Forster & Garbus has a reputation for representing the interests of creditors and debt buyers over consumers, including debt buyers who purchase “old debt from banks, credit card companies, hospitals, doctors, cell phone companies and car companies for pennies on the dollar.” Some of these debts may be time-barred from further collection efforts, but certain companies specialize in “zombie” loan collections in which these expired debts are litigated and consumers pay them out of fear of further prosecution.
In 2016, Forster & Garbus filed over 14,000 debt collection lawsuits against New York residents. In 2015, they filed over 20,000 debt collection lawsuits. F&G’s list of clients represents some of the most aggressive creditors and debt buyers in the financial industry, including Discover Bank, Capital One, Citibank, American Express, Medical Debt, and Navient. Although F&G is s law firm, they act primarily as a third-party collection agency. Their license to practice law is almost exclusively to obtain judgements against consumers, who are then subject to collection tactics such as freezing bank accounts, garnishing wages, and issuing subpoenas. Thus, for F&G the courts serve as a tool for overly aggressive and often illegal tactics
.Court records provide many examples of F&G’s having violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). In one case, in October 2016, in United States District Court in the Western District of New York, a judge found in favor of a plaintiff’s complaint that F&G’s collection letters violated the FDCPA’s prohibition against using “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” Initially, the plaintiff had a delinquent balance on her Discover Bank credit card, with a balance owing of $8,586.13, according to initial collection efforts by F&G. In this case, F&G cited a judgment against the plaintiff obtained through a state court in the amount of $10,543.24. The plaintiff denied any knowledge of this judgement and cited that via wage garnishments, she had already paid F&G over $6,000, but F&G claimed the remaining balance after the garnishment was $8,643.00. The plaintiff cited F&G’s failure to notify her of its intention to continue to add interest to the balance as the specific violation of the FDCPA. Although Forster & Garbus tried to argue that this violation was not significant enough to warrant a judgment against them, the court disagreed, reversing earlier findings.
Federal laws protect you. The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) regulates the behavior of collection agencies by prohibiting actions such as the use of abusive or threatening language; harassment; or the use of false or misleading information to collect a debt. The FCRA regulates how collection agencies and creditors report delinquent debts to credit reporting agencies. Additional consumer protection laws include the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
Yes. If you want to enforce your rights, or recover money for violations — you need to sue. Federal laws provide individuals like you with a means to seek monetary damages in court. For example, the FDCPA allows consumers who have been violated to recover damages of up to $1,000, plus attorney fees and court costs.
You may have a case, if…
“With your help the nagging collection calls have ceased! I was thrilled I was also able to get damages from the collection agency. I am unable to adequately express my joy. I am so thankful I made the call.”
“I would recommend your company to anyone. You have the debt collectors off my back, and I will finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout the entire procedure your employees were courteous and professional. I was blown away by their efficacy also.
“After speaking to one of the partners, and going over the plan of action, I felt I’d chose the perfect company to go to work for me. He was very accommodating in describing what was going to happen. I would strongly recommend Lemberg Law to anybody being hassled by debt collectors”
Chances are good that we can help. Call us today and we’ll explain.
Share your story
Have you had a bad experience with this agency’s debt collectors? Sound off and share your experience with other visitors in the comment box below.
Sergei Lemberg is an attorney focusing on consumer law, class actions related to automotive issues, and personal injury litigation. With nearly two decades of experience, his areas of practice include Lemon Law (vehicle defects), Debt Collection Harassment, TCPA (illegal robocalls and texts), Fair Credit Reporting Act, Overtime claims, Personal Injury cases, and Class Actions. He has consistently been recognized as the nation's "most active consumer attorney." In 2020, Mr. Lemberg represented Noah Duguid before the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case Duguid v. Facebook. He is also the author of "Defanging Debt Collectors," a guide that empowers consumers to fight back against debt collectors and prevail, as well as "Lemon Law 101: The Laws That Lemon Dealers Don't Want You to Know."
See more posts from Sergei Lemberg
To really understand the type of scum the Forster & Garbus group is you need to read the CFPB lawsuits which in it they cite the investigatory findings of how they operate. .they are up to their eye balls in loan securitization fraud and mail fraud . .get a loan audit if they are threating to take you to court, under rules of civil procedure you have a right to discovery, demand from the bastards to see their records and their client records, The banks are mandated by Title 12 USC to follow GAAP and GAAS, ask for:
(a) FR 2046 , this is the Balance sheet they must submit to the Federal Reserve under 12 USC 248 and 347; and inquire of :
(b) FAS125 “Securitization accounting”
(c) FAS140 “Offsetting of Financial Assets and liabilities”
(e) FAS133 “Derivitives on hedge accounts”
payment.
1. Question whether the Debt Collectors actually possess the documents necessary to show that they own the alleged loan debt?
2. Question whether they can demonstrate that their client was injured financially by you?
3. Demand that they prove funds were lawfully lent from their client’s personal account to you, if this exists, where are the accounting records showing the debits of the alleged fund transaction?
4. Also are they attempting to collect payment under the concept of account stated rather than under contract?
5. Verify the bastards are even in court, get an account with PACER.GOV and search for evidence that they have indeed litigated against you. . Forster & Garbus sends out unregistered documents through the USPS mail to employers and banks that aren’t even authorized by the court to be proceeded with. .in an actual default Judgment there must be a Judge’s signature and affidavit from the court; these scum bags go so far as impersonating the Sheriff’s department in their mailings.. that’s unlawful . . if you can not find your name listed in PACER in a registered lawsuit then they operating outside the court judgment and unlawfully, their is then no writ of Garnishment or writ of Account Freeze.. just because they tell the Employer to send money to the Sheriff’s department does not mean its legit. .a real garnishment must come from the court judge , and the only time a Sheriff can come to serve you papers is if you have skipped court. .the sheriff will not come out first..
Also Get familiar with how modern banking work, here bellow is listed findings from actual discoveries:
In regards to potential lending. .
”A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”’ Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.
“A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.
Forster & Garbus claims to be servicing your alleged debt, they must have proper chain of custody of the documents that prove you owe the debt.. They were in trouble of being in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 and were supposed to be audited , it’s likely they do not have proper securitization to impose collection of your alleged debt. If there was a loan in question their must be evidence that shows a loan was made. That is why you need to see the accounting evidence that supports that a grantor made a loan to you:
“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often .. . Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.
“It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . .” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).
“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States …” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.
“Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank’s business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.
“It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done.” Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L ‘Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
“There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser.” National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.
“A bank can lend its money, but not its credit.” First Nat’l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe. 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.
“.. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.” Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.
“A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest.” Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.
“The word ‘money’ in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . .” Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.
“A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment …” Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
“A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money.” Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.
“Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.
“Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.” Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.
“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559-572; 132 NW 1122.
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.
“It is not necessary for recession of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.
“Each Federal Reserve bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region …” Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982).
“It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).
Securitization is the process of transferring all liabilities of the balance sheet. .if you got an actual loan (money of account) from an investor, then it will be on the books as a debit from someone’s personal account. .or the corporate account. .in nearly all situations they treat the promissory note as being in the asset class instead of lending you their money. .
Also see the CFPB and their cases against them:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/forster-garbus-llp/
Their client’s are usually scummy as well, here is CFPB action against one of the groups that they represent:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-national-collegiate-student-loan-trusts-transworld-systems-illegal-student-loan-debt-collection-lawsuits/
Those jerks have numerous lawsuits against them:
https://www.classaction.org/news/category/forster-and-garbus-llp
I encourage you to stand up to them.. they can only collect on you if your ignorant to the games they play and how the banks have been **** us !!!
I just received a summons from forster and garbus and didn’t understand why because I pay in full the settlement which they claiming that I was in default I have all my bank statement showing the I completed the agreed amount settled.
Annoying phone calls for the past three years looking for my neighbor just because we have the same last name. I was told Feb 7,2019 by BRETT FOXX that my number was removed. This is year 3 and I as m tired of this form of harassment. I will file a police report maybe the harassment will stop.
I just received a summons from Forster and Garbus and am wondering if you can help me. I am already paying Forster and Garbus for another account which got settled. I would also like to know if Forster and Garbus broke any laws in their collection attempts against me.