Kent County, MI – September 25, 2012 – It is a slippery slope between repossessing and collecting in the repossession trade. It is this very differentiation between the two that is at the heart of allegations made against a Michigan repo forwarding company, Repocast.com, M&B Recovery, an alleged convicted felon subcontractor and their unfortunate client Grand Rapid Family Credit Union.
According to a lawsuit filed by attorneys on behalf of a Joel Andrade, Repocast, by virtue of their collection agency license and advertised regular sending of “Notice of Right to Sell” letters, is operating as a debt collector. As such, all of the activities that they conduct themselves under could be construed as collections activities and not mere repossession activities.
Michael G. Jebb, operating under the name M&B Recovery is not a licensed collection agency, but allegedly conducts repossessions, is alleged to be operating under the umbrella of Repo cast.com’s collection agency license as evidenced by his insurance certificate.
Also named in the suit is a Timothy M. Jannereth, a reported convicted felon and subcontractor for M&B Recovery who by virtue of aforementioned licensing and listing is also alleged to be operating as a debt collector.
The incidents occurring that lead to this lawsuit come from a cosigner , Mr. Andrade, on an auto loan financed by Grand Rapid Family Credit Union for a Ms. Garcia who defaulted on the loan and moved to Texas with the vehicle. The Credit Union the allegedly hired Repocast.com to either repossess the vehicle or “coerce” Ms. Garcia into paying current.
According to the complaint, on or about September 4, 2012, subcontractor Timothy M. Jannereth made contact at the residence of Mr. Andradein Michigan and demanded the vehicle or $782.39 to bring the account current within 24 hours or an arrest warrant would be issued against him.
Jannereth then allegedly left a “24 Hour Notice” which reportedly misquotes and paraphrases MCL 750.177 in threatening Mr. Andrade. Allegedly communication between the parties continued afterward which contained threats to repossess other collateral should the funds not be paid or the vehicle returned and misrepresentations that criminal charges would be filed against him which would be in violation of USC 15 1692e(2)(A).