GMAC and the "Art of Re-Aging Accounts" by Robert Paisola
THIS STORY IS MUCH BIGGER THAN WE EVER THOUGHT... SPEND TIME AND
READ THIS ENTIRE PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE CALL IN FULL. CLICK THE CBS
NEWS LOGO TO WATCH THE STORY ON ILLEGAL RE-AGING AND HOW IT EFFECTS
YOU AS A CONSUMER...
DATELINE: New York City, New York
August 23, 2006
Today was an incredible experience as we has a
client that has been trying to deal with the folks of the GMAC ASSET
RECOVERY OPERATION in Fort Worth Texas.
The call that we will beposting will show you just what it takes to get
through to someone at GMAC to resolve a problem.
Here is the information that we have on GMAC
GMAC ASSET RECOVERY CENTER
PO BOX 901009
FORT WORTH TEXAS
1-800-241-0172
SENIOR DIRECTOR OF ASSET RECOVERY ANDREW
BRIDGES X 6687
SECRETARY TO ANDREW BRIDGES, TERRI JARA X 6887
CARLOS BARRETT- MANAGER
ABNER RODRUIGUEZ- MANAGER X6417
TRAVIS MILLER- MANAGER
Listen carefully as an associate Kerry Amos
does all that she can do to assist us in our quest for justice, but
then listen to how deep we had to drill into the GMAC Organization
to get ANYONE with authority to help our student.
HERE IS THE COMPLETE CALL. OUR LOS ANGELES
CALIFORNIA IS HAVING THE TRANSCRIPTION PREPARED FOR OUR READERS AND
LISTENERS NOW!
We just received a call from our client stating that he received
a phone call from ABNER RODRUIGUEZ- MANAGER X6417
GMAC and that one of the reasons that the account was re-aged
over seven years later, was due to an insurance reimbursement
that was "JUST" posted to his account. The facts on this
are still unclear, but all of our web traffic logs are showing a lot
of activity from GM.COM in Detroit Michigan. So, we will wait
for the formal response from the company, as We are sure that they
are reviewing this matter with Corporate Counsel right now, as to
how to remedy the problem.
Lets conclude by saying that the law regarding the Date of Last
Activity is very clear and this MANIPULATION of that specific date
is what this is all about.
Why? Because companies called debt buyers (We were one of the
largest) buy paper (bad debt) that is considered to be out of
statute (past the date that they can report to the credit bureaus).
AND If they simply apply 1.00 to each account, then that manipulates
the DLA to RESET the Last Payment Date, EVEN THOUGH the DEBTOR NEVER
EVER MADE A PAYMENT ON THE ACCOUNT.
In this case that is EXACTLY what appears to have happened.
And if so, God help them.
The DLA is based upon a proactive measure from the DEBTOR not
by a COLLECTOR or the owner of the portfolio.
If this is found to be true, AND if this is VERIFIED, GMAC WILL
CERTAINLY HAVE A NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ON THEIR HANDS.
Finally to all of our friends in the legal community, we need
supporting case law on this issue. If you would please research
this, we would appreciate the assistance!
We are going to start posting cases for your review:
I hope you are able to help me with a problem I've encountered
with GMAC Mortgage Corp . The problem concerns the experience at
your bank. The bank is located at North Olmstead, Ohio..
I am writing to make other consumers aware of the under handed
tactics your company uses when a person falls on hard times and ends
up behind on car payments with your company.
The latest tactic to help in repossessing a car is to tell an
un-employed person via another company located in California phone
number ( 1-800-964-2078 ext. 5829) that a check for a certain amount
is due to be sent due to a union audit. You are then asked to be at
a certain place and time to sign for it. The check never arrives,
nor does Federal Express that is supposed to deliver it. This is all
done in the hopes GMAC will know where the car is at a ceratain time
to repo it. Funny that my boyfriend was at home waiting for it, but
his car wasn't and Federal Express never came.
I have tried to call the number of this company so eager to ship
this check and know when he would be home to get it, only to find
that when I call from my land line phone which they contacted him in
the first place states that the number is no longer a working
number. If I call on my mobile that they do no recognize, I get a
voice-mail. Is this odd or what?
Seems that GMAC uses some pretty underhanded tactics. So if you are
behind on your car payments and are threatened with a repo, do not
fall for this. The number again that they use to try to trick you
into being home so they can take your car by telling you that you
have a check waiting(which there really is not) is 1-800-964-2078.
All this is is a scam to send a repo guy for your car.
In the future I plan to take my business to other banks, and I'll
urge others to avoid banking with you.
Here's the resolution I propose: Get a life.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to
your prompt reply.
I hope you are able to help me with a problem I've encountered
with GMAC Mortgage Corp . The problem concerns the experience at
your bank. The bank is located at Noth Olmstead, Phone number
440-779-3317 Mike Frye..
My boyfriend who visits me alot got behind on his car payments.
Somehow my home phone number was given as a contact for my
boyfriend. Mike Frye called me at all hours of the day, numerous
times during the day HARASSING ME. I told him many times to stop
calling me, but he refused. I received calls in the mornings,
afternoons and evenings, after I told him that it was my phone, my
home, and my life he was making miserable. He did not
stop!!!!!!!!!!!
In the future I plan to take my business to other banks, and I'll
urge others to avoid banking with you.
Here's the resolution I propose: Teach this inconsiderate jerk of a
person to stop harrassing innocent people. I do not have a loan with
GMAC. My Cadillac is paid for. I do not need to be harrassed because
I am dating a guy that does have a company like GMAC as a creditor.
Leave me alone! He does not live here.....I do! Leave me alone.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to
your prompt reply
I hope you are able to help me with a problem I've encountered
with General Motors Acceptance Corporation. The problem concerns the
experience at your bank. The bank is located at Dallas, TX..
I was leasing 2 vehicles from GMAC when my wife was diagnosed with
terminal cancer in August of 2003. I went to my local Chevy dealer
to tell them that I wouldn't be using one of the vehicles after the
impending outcome. I was told it shouldn't be a problem, bring one
of the vehicles in when I'm through using it. My wife passed away 2
weeks later, and then about 3 weeks after that, I took one of the
vehicles to the dealer and was told that GMAC wouldn't just let me
out of the lease, I'd have to pay it off. Nice compassion from this
"American" corporation. After making several phone calls and sending
out letters, the response was " a contract is a contract and they'd
give me a 30 or 60 day extension" if I needed more time to make the
payments and that they didn't want to lose a "valued and loyal
customer". I've since then, turned in both vehicles, paid off the
remainder of the leases and have vowed to NEVER AGAIN purchase or
use a GM product and to spread this message to as many people as the
Internet can reach.
In the future I plan to take my business to other banks, and I'll
urge others to avoid banking with you.
Here's the resolution I propose: Have the higher up at GMAC to go
fuck themselves.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to
your prompt reply
hope you are able to help me with a problem I've encountered with
General Motors Acceptance Corporation. The problem concerns the
billing or payment at your bank. The payment should have been coming
from Atlanta for acct ..
I had paid my lease account ahead thru July 2005. Unfortunately, my
car was involved in a hit and run and was totaled on 6-9-04. I
called that day and was told until the insurance contacted them, no
one could do anything and they were not allowed to talk to me, only
the insurance company. GMAC has known the car was totaled, there was
full coverage through Nationwide Insurance, and GAP coverage for
anything over. In other words, they were covered 100% less $100.00.
They have been very uncooperative to assure me of returning my
payments and actually have said they have to hold Nationwide's check
for 10 days for it to clear.
In the future I might just take my business to other banks, and I
will probably urge others to avoid banking with you.
Here's the resolution I propose: My payments have been an
overpayment from March and as of the accident date,this payment
should have been returned immediately. I cannot get a car until you
release the money and it is now costing me $30 per day as of Monday
6/28/04 in order for me to get to work.
I expect GMAC to stop delaying payment to individuals when their
coverage is guaranteed, reimburse the excess payments I have now had
to make and stop being rude to individuals on the telephone. I have
been told you can't talk to me and you don't have to advise me of
the insurance situation - yet you have my money and it is costing me
money additionally. I would expect there is a Consumer Law issue
potentially in this circumstance. As of today, a check has
supposedly been cut and of course, no one called to overnight it
after all of this, so you will have your full ten days afterall.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to
your prompt reply
In 1999 I purchased a Chevrolet Suburban through GMAC utilizing
the SmartBuy program. Shortly thereafter my Mom was diagnosed with
cancer. Needless to say funds were very tight throughout my mother's
recovery and our family's priority was her medical bills. I was in
constant contact with GMAC throught the hard times and they were
very helpful with extending payments etc. I eventually became
current with payments and ended the SmartBuy as agreed.
Come to find out GMAC reported multiple late payments to the credit
bureaus. This was never indicated to me in any discussions. I am
currently attempting to go back to school and this affecting my
student loan rates.
As a result of this, I don't know whether I will ever buy a car from
you in the future, and I don't know whether I can recommend your
cars to people I know now.
Here's what I would like to see you do to provide resolution: Please
update my information with the three credit bureaus as never late or
delete my entry entirely.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward
to hearing from you soon
On February 21, 2004 I turned in my leased 2001 Chevrolet (GMAC
account #) and drove home a new 2004 Pontiac, also another lease. 2
weeks later I received a letter saying I owed GMAC $434.60 for a
missing key remote ($65) and for excess wear on 3 tires ($345). I
was not given this information at the time of the trade. An
inspection reportedly happened sometime afterwards. On March 9,2004
I spoke to a Mrs. Norma Nabors from GMAC at . I explained my concern
of not being told this when I turned in the Chevrolet and found it
unacceptable to be charged $115 each, for tires, when the local
paper had advertisements starting at $40 each. I said, had I known
about this, I would have gone out and purchased new tires for the
car and then traded it in. (She did offer to write off the key
remote for $65, but I did what I said I would do and drove back to
the dealership and turned in the key remote). I offered her $200 to
settle this matter. She said she agreed with me, but could only
adjust it down to $225. After I told her I thought that was still
too high: that I felt I was being taken advantage of, she said she
would speak to her manager. I reminded her that I am a 20 year,
devoted customer to GMAC, as well as a former General Motors
(Pontiac) employee, from many years ago. I suggested she look up my
account history and present that to the manager as well. She came
back and said she would need to call me back the following day since
the manager was going into a meeting and she couldn't get an answer.
I agreed to wait. 3 weeks went by and I did not hear from her. But,
I received a second notice in the mail from GMAC saying I owed them
$369.60. I called Mrs. Nabors again and she said she remembered me,
but didn't remember quoting me the $225 figure (but she remembered
everything else we talked about). Once again, she said she would
talk to her manager and call me the following day. Today is April
12, 2004 and I haven't heard from her yet. But today I did receive a
threatening letter from GMAC saying if I don't pay the amount due
they "will notify the credit bureaus of this loss" and "the matter
may be referred to an attorney or collection agency." This is the
type of service they give to a loyal customer like me? They make
false promises and don't follow through?
In the future I might just take my business to other banks, and I
will probably urge others to avoid banking with you.
Here's the resolution I propose: I do not want GMAC to take
advantage of me, a 20 year, long-term, loyal customer. I feel my
offer of $200 is generous to replace 3 tires. I also feel their
customer service is lacking. I never expected (nor have I ever
received) such poor service from GMAC. My expectations were that we
could have solved this problem back 4 weeks ago. I question as to
whether or not the manager was ever informed, or perhaps is this
delay and ignore experience part of their process? I hope not. I
have lost my admiration and trust in GMAC because of this
experience. I hope you can help me resolve this unfortunate issue
and that in the future, customers will be treated more fairly and
appropriately. I wonder if Toyota financing customers are treated in
this same fashion? I must respond to GMAC in order to avoid their
threats. I appreciate any and all help you may offer.
Sincerely,
John R.
GMAC Account #
Insurance is supposed to be something dependable, right?
Obviously, something's gone wrong. I'm writing with a complaint
about the overall experience at GMAC Insurance and the frustration
it's causing me. I'm furious about this!
It's an auto insurance policy. I have had the worst time of my life
dealing with your insurance. It was recommended to me by a good
friend and when I went to the agency, the broker filled out a quote
for car insurance on my 1997 Cadillac Seville. The rates seemed too
good to be true. Alas, they were. When the broker called me later in
the week after getting my driver history, he said that my insurance
would go up significantly since I had an accident 2 years ago. TWO
years ago! I couldn't believe it. My broker lied to me. I told him
all I could remember about my driving history and I expected him to
give me the rate he provided. I even signed a contract for that
price! I am outraged!
If you want my honest opinion, I've been very dissatisfied from the
start. Because of this, I'll definitely find another insurance
carrier when my policy expires. I will in no way recommend your
company to anyone.
Here's what I would like GMAC Insurance to do about this: Give me
the original rate. When my renew request comes up in a year, I will
not think twice about finding new insurance and a new broker!
I hope to hear from you in a timely manner so that this problem can
be resolved quickly and dependably
THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INCREDIBLE STORY FOR THE
MEDIA- SO KEEP SENDING IN YOUR COMPLAINTS AND WE WILL KEEP POSTING
THEM.
CASES AGAINST GMAC - KEEP SENDING THEM TO OUR OFFICES:
CLAYTON
EUGENE SCHAUER, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS
ACCEPTANCE CORP. and MORSE OPERATIONS,
d/b/a ED MORSE CHEVROLET, Appellees.
CASE NOS. 4D01-357 and 4D01-1104 COURT OF
APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT 2002 Fla.
App. LEXIS 3528; 27 Fla. L. Weekly D 663
March 20, 2002, Opinion Filed
NOTICE: [*1] NOT FINAL UNTIL THE
DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR
REHEARING.
PRIOR HISTORY: Consolidated appeals
from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Estella
May Moriarty, Judge; L.T. Case No. 00-5739
05.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant
individual timely appealed after the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County (Florida), dismissed his
six-count complaint against appellees, a
vehicle corporations and dealership.
OVERVIEW: The individual co-signed a
vehicle loan for his stepdaughter from the
corporation. The individual sued the
corporation and dealership, pleading counts
for violations of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (Act) and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act (FDUTPA), fraud and deceit based on
agency principles, and forgery. On appeal,
the individual challenged the dismissal of
his amended complaint with prejudice.
Regarding the claims against the
corporation, the appellate court held that
the corporation qualified as a person under
the Act, and the dismissal of that count had
to be reversed; the FDUTPA cause of action
should have survived dismissal, because the
individual was a consumer and he alleged
sufficient facts to show the corporation
willfully harassed him and his family; but
the individual could not use the Federal
Trade Commission Holder Rule as a sword in
the fraud and deceit claim. Regarding the
claims against the dealership, the appellate
court held that the individual stated a
claim under the FDUTPA, but not for special
damages; the individual's claims for fraud
and deceit were partially upheld; and the
forgery alleged had no legal efficacy.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed in
part, and reversed and remanded in part for
further proceedings consistent with the
opinion.
CORE TERMS: consumer, collector, unfair,
collecting, deceit, seller, cause of action,
commerce, deceptive, stepdaughter, forgery,
pled, installment contract, footnotes
omitted, retail sales, unconscionable,
signature, liberally, remainder, survived,
efficacy, supplied, qualify, forged, sword,
blanks, Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.
- CORE CONCEPTS -
COUNSEL: Diane H. Tutt and Sharon C.
Degnan of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Plantation,
for appellant. Marie P. Montefusco and Frank
A. Montefusco of Moody, Jones, Montefusco &
Krause, P.A., Plantation, for appellee
General Motors Acceptance Corp. Glen R.
Goldsmith of Glen R. Goldsmith & Associates,
P.A., Miami, for appellee Morse Operations,
Inc., d/b/a Ed Morse Chevrolet.
JUDGES: POLEN, C.J. STONE, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part with
opinion. OPINION BY: POLEN
OPINION:
POLEN, C.J.
Clayton Eugene Schauer timely appeals after
the court dismissed his six-count complaint
against General Motors Acceptance
Corporation (GMAC) and Morse Operations,
Inc., d/b/a Ed Morse Chevrolet (Morse). We
affirm in part and reverse in part.
This case arose from the sale of a used car
byMorse to Schauer's stepdaughter. Schauer
co-signed his stepdaughter's loan from GMAC.
He later sued Morse and GMAC. He pled three
separate counts against GMAC: violations of
the Florida[*2] Consumer Collection
Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and
fraud and deceit based on agency principles.
As to Morse, he pled violation of the FDUTPA,
fraud and deceit, and forgery.
He amended his complaint two times. The
court subsequently dismissed the second
amended complaint as to GMAC with prejudice,
but allowed him to amend his complaint as to
Morse. It later dismissed his third amended
complaint as to Morse with prejudice. This
appeal followed.
FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES
CLAIM AGAINST GMAC
Schauer first argues the court erred in
dismissing his Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act claim against GMAC. The Act
seeks in part to protect in-state consumers
from the illegal and/or unscrupulous
practices of debt collectors and other
persons. n1 Coastal Physician Svcs. of
Broward County, Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So. 2d 7
(Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(on reh'g); § 559.72,
Fla. Stat. (1999). Section 559.55(6),
Florida Statutes (1999), one of the sections
comprising the Act, defines "debt collector"
as one who "attempts to collect . . . debts
owed or . . . due[*3] another." The statute
specifically excludes "any . . . creditor .
. . collecting debts for such creditor," as
well as "a debt which was not in default at
the time it was obtained by such person . .
. ." § 559.55(6)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (1999).
It further defines "creditor" as "any person
who offers or extends credit creating a debt
or to whom a debt is owed." § 559.55(3).n1
The Florida Act is different than its
federal counterpart because it is not
limited to debt collectors. Cf. 15 U.S.C. §
1692 et. seq.
By virtue of Schauer's allegations, GMAC is
a creditor, as it extended him credit to buy
the car. Because the allegations addressed
GMAC's attempts to collect on this loan,
GMAC cannot be considered a "debt collector"
under sections 559.55(6)(a) and (f).
Still, Schauer maintains GMAC would still
qualify as a "person" otherwise subject to
the Act under section 559.72, Florida
Statutes (1999). That section provides that
"in collecting consumer debts, [*4] no
person shall . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) The
statute goes on to list certain prohibited
acts or practices. Section 559.77, Florida
Statutes (1999) provides that a debtor may
bring a civil action against a person
violating the Act for actual damages, costs
and reasonable attorney's fees, punitive
damages, and other equitable relief.
While the Act does not define the term
"person," it is not restricted to debt
collectors. It also mandates that no person
shall engage in certain practices in
collecting consumer claims whether licensed
by the division or not. This court has held
that this language includes all allegedly
unlawful attempts at collecting consumer
claims. Williams v. Streeps Music Co., 333
So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); accord
White v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 379 So. 2d 136,
138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). As we hold GMAC
qualifies as a person under the Act, we
reverse dismissal of this count.
FDUTPA CLAIM AGAINST GMAC
Schauer also challenges dismissal of his
FDUTPA claim against GMAC. This Act protects
consumers from those "who engage in unfair
methods of competition, or unconscionable,
deceptive, or unfair acts[*5] or practices
in the conduct of any trade or commerce." §
501.202(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). A violation
of the Act may be based on "unfair,
deceptive, or unconscionable acts or
practices." § 501.203(3)(c), Fla. Stat.
(1999).
Construing the Act liberally as we must,
Cummings v. Warren Henry Motors, Inc., 648
So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), Schauer is
a consumer. See § 501.203(7), Fla. Stat.
(1999). GMAC's alleged actions also fell
within the statute's broad definition of
"trade or commerce." n2 As Schauer alleged
sufficient facts to show GMAC violated this
Act by willfully harassing him and his
family with respect to the collection of its
debt, this cause of action should have
survived dismissal.
n2 "Trade or commerce" is defined by the Act
as "the advertising, soliciting, providing,
offering, or distributing, whether by sale,
rental, or otherwise, of any good or service
. . ." § 501.203(8), Fla. Stat.
(1999)(emphasis supplied).
[*6]
FRAUD AND DECEIT CLAIM AGAINST GMAC
He further argues he sufficiently pled a
claim against GMAC for fraud and deceit
arising out of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) Holder Rule. The FTC Holder Rule
provides, in part, In connection with any
sale or lease of goods or services to
consumers, . . . it is an unfair or
deceptive act or practice . . . for a
seller, directly or indirectly, to:
(a) Take or receive a consumer credit
contract which fails to contain the
following provision. . . .
NOTICE
ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT
IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH
THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER
OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT
HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY
HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED
AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.
16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a) (1999).
While "the rule is expressly designed to
compel creditors to either absorb seller
misconduct costs or seek reimbursement of
those costs from sellers," Tinker v. DeMaria
Porsche Audi, Inc., 459 So. 2d 487, 492
(Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(footnotes omitted),
review denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1985), it
is ordinarily used as[*7] a shield, not as a
sword for consumers to seek affirmative
relief. A recognized exception to this
limitation is where a consumer maintains an
action against the creditor for a return of
monies paid on an account. 40 Fed. Reg.
53,505, 53,524 (1975)(cited in Crews v.
Altavista Motors, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 2d 388,
390 (W.D. Va. 1999)). However, such relief
"will only be available where a seller's
breach is so substantial that a court is
persuaded that rescission and restitution
are justified." Id. Because Schauer did not
allege that he ever made any payments to
GMAC, or that his claim was so large that it
exceeded the remainder of any debt owed to
GMAC, we do not believe he alleged the rare
situation where he could use this rule as a
sword. Accordingly, we affirm dismissal of
this count. Cf. Crews, 65 F. Supp. 2d at
391; Irby- Greene v. M.O.R., Inc., 79 F.
Supp. 2d 630 (E.D. Va. 2000).
FDUTPA CLAIM AGAINST MORSE
In this count, Schauer alleged that Morse
deceived him by fraudulently inducing him to
sign the subject retail sales installment
contract, charging him premiums for
insurance it never obtained, and
misrepresenting[*8] his true obligations
without ever advising him of the nature of
his liability. While Morse argues Schauer
should be deemed to have read the contract
before he signed it, the allegations still
suggest at a minimum that Morse's actions
were unfair or deceptive. Construing the Act
liberally, and taking his allegations as
true, we hold he stated a cause of action
under the Act. However, to the extent that
he alleged consequential, speculative, or
other special damages, we agree with Morse
that same may not be recovered under the
Act. See Urling v. Helms Exterminators,
Inc., 468 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); §
501.211, Fla. Stat. (1999).
FRAUD AND DECEIT CLAIM AGAINST MORSE
In this count, he alleged that Morse
fraudulently induced him to sign the subject
contract, forged his name to the credit
application form, and had him sign
unspecified documents which contained
blanks. In an action for fraud and deceit, a
plaintiff must allege with reasonable
certainty that 1) the defendant made a
representation on which the plaintiff was
meant to act; 2) the defendant knew the
representation was false; and 3) the
plaintiff relied on the representation[*9]
to his detriment. Am. Intern. Land Corp. v.
Hanna, 323 So. 2d 567, 569-70 (Fla.
1975)(footnotes omitted).
In this regard, we hold Schauer stated a
cause of action to the extent he alleged
that 1) Morse told him the papers he signed
were an insignificant necessity to his
stepdaughter's obtaining credit; 2) Morse
forged his signature to the credit
application; and 3) Morse had him sign
documents that contained blanks. However, we
affirm dismissal with respect to the
remainder of the allegations in this count
as they were not alleged with reasonable
certainty, and further amendment would not
cure these defects.
FORGERY CLAIM AGAINST MORSE
Finally, he argues his forgery claim against
Morse should have survived dismissal.
"Forgery exists under Florida law where the
defendant makes a writing which falsely
purports to be the writing of another, made
with the intent to injure or defraud any
person." Jamnadas v. Singh, 731 So. 2d 69,
71 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) The instrument in
question must have some legal efficacy. Id.
(citation omitted); § 831.01, Fla. Stat.
(1999). As Morse argues, forging his
signature to the credit application[*10]
would have had no legal efficacy because he
was not obligated to sign or make payments
under the separate retail sales installment
contract. As such, we affirm dismissal of
this count.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and
REMANDED for further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion.
STEVENSON, J., concurs.
STONE, J., concurs in part and dissents in
part with opinion.
CONCURBY: STONE (In Part)
DISSENTBY: STONE (In Part)
DISSENT:
STONE, J., concurring in part and dissenting
in part.
I would affirm as to the consumer protection
practices count against GMAC. In all other
respects, I concur in the opinion.
