We are fortunate to have accomplished a great deal for hundreds of our clients because we focus on their objectives first. Each situation is different, and outcomes vary based on the unique facts of each case. Read about some of our great case results below:
“I was initially skeptical of the advertised claims that Doucet & Associates is a passionate advocate for the common man, but I was quickly proved wrong after meeting with Randy Richardson. There is no hyperbole here, only truth in advertising. The firm’s philosophy truly is one of putting the client’s interest first. Randy was extremely generous with his time and evaluated my case from every possible angle. He was knowledgeable, thorough, respectful, and attentive. I would recommend him very highly without hesitation or reservation.” Kevin A.
Winning More Than Our Client Asked For
- A client came to us after getting bed bugs the first night she slept in a new place. The bed bugs were so invasive she had to have all her furniture destroyed by the Department of Health. Our attorneys helped her receive over $3000 in damages for her belongings and attorney fees. If you are a tenant dealing with a landlord that is not keeping the property sanitary and habitable contact the attorneys at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. at (614)944-5219 for legal representation.
- A client came to us after being sued on a debt collection matter in Franklin County Municipal Court. An answer was filed on her behalf, alleging affirmative defenses, and she was represented in a couple of hearings before the court magistrate. Informal negotiations ensued, and it was finally agreed that each side would walk away without either side admitting liability. If you are dealing with a debt collection issue and need help contact the attorneys at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. at (614)944-5219 for help. Our attorneys are knowledgeable about dealing with collector harassment, post-bankruptcy credit report errors, and fake debts.
- Our client was harassed by a debt collector agency and received 111 phone calls in one month from an auto-dialer. The debt collectors’ repetitive behavior violated the Consumer Sales Practice Act (CSPA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The lawyers at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. helped our client collect damages from the debt collector, erase their debt, and recovered attorney fees from the other side. The CSPA and the FDCPA allow fee shifting therefore the debt collection agency was required to pay all of our attorney fees for our client.
- Our clients contacted Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. when Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, a debt collection agency, avoided verifying our clients’ debts and continuously contacted them after they had legal representation. Originally our clients sought out legal representation from Student Legal Services, and their representative contacted PRA requesting verification of the debt. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a debt collector cannot make contact with a consumer without permission once they have a lawyer or some form of legal representation involved. Rather than responding to Student Legal Services, PRA sent a letter directly to our clients verifying another debt, not the original debt requested. PRA then continued to contact our clients with more letters and eventually by phone without consent from their legal representative. PRA admitted liability through an offer of judgement and paid our clients $2,001 in statutory damages due to collection harassment and violations of the FDCPA. In Ohio, FDCPA lawsuits that create statues are also violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) lawsuit and both allow fee shifting, Therefore, PRA was required to pay all reasonable attorney fees for our clients.
- Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. recovered treble damages (three times the actual damages) plus attorney fees, in a civil breach of contract and Consumer Sales Protection Act lawsuit when our client discovered his new $28,400 high performance custom built engine was actually used. If you are a victim of false and misrepresented purchase contact Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. at (614)944-5219 for help.
- A client of ours received a complete refund, damages, attorney fees, and costs when a gym violated the Prepaid Entertainment Contract. The gym failed to provide our client with a copy of the membership contract, tell her about cancellation rights, and added automatically renewal that could exceed three years in length.
- Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. represented a woman who was taken advantage by a senior relocation, estate sales, and downsizing services company. After our client received under $300 dollars for having the company sell her belongings, which had an estimated cost of thousands of dollars, she came to us for help. We helped her received what she was entitled to for her belongings and more damages to cover all attorney fees. If a business has taken advantage of you the attorneys at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. can help you.
- A client came to Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. after having auto problems and discovering his new used car he purchased had a different engine than what he believed. Our client purchased the used vehicle at a car dealership that ensured him the car was in stock condition and also informed him the car was still under the manufacturer’s warranty when in fact it was not. Due to the deceptive practices the car dealership used to misrepresent the quality and make of the vehicle, our client was able to recover damages and reasonable attorney fees from the car dealership for violating the Consumer Sales Practice Act (CSPA).
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
- Marais v Chase – We successfully argued that mortgage services must make good faith efforts to investigate homeowners’ mortgage questions under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), or face liability. There, the defendant failed to answer questions presented by our client about why it was not properly crediting overpayments she made. Due to our efforts and our client’s determination,the defendant ultimately paid nearly $94,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees, and it actually admitted wrongdoing on the written record though an offer of judgment.
- A mortgage company filed a foreclosure complaint against our client due to a failure to timely pay installments detailed on the Note. A loan modification agreement was successfully requested and applied with the help of our attorneys here at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A.
- Our client came to us when she was refused a loan modification because her name was not on the original note for the property, her ex-husbands name was on the note. Before our client received full ownership of the home in a divorce settlement, our client and her ex-husband refinanced the property and received a very high and unfavorable interest rate. Our client and her ex-husband tried to cancel the new interest rate during their 10-day right of rescission, but were denied and stuck with the new interest rate. After the divorce our client was unable to pay the new interest rate on her own comfortably and sought out our legal services to help her secure a new loan modification. Our lawyers helped our client prove she should be eligible for a loan modification because she was granted full ownership of the property after the divorce, despite her name not being on the note. She was successfully paying all the mortgage payments, insurance, and taxes on her own after the divorce. With the help of our lawyers here at Doucet & Associates Co., L.P.A. our client was able to resolve the case and remain in her home.
- Slorp v Lerner Sampson and Rothfuss – We successfully argued that our client’s racketeering lawsuit against the law firm LSR, Bank of America, and MERS for robo-signing should proceed. There, we alleged the law firm directed one of its paralegals to fraudulently robo-sign mortgage assignments, and then used one of those mortgage assignments to foreclose on our client’s home months earlier. After Mr. Slorp retained our firm in that earlier foreclosure action, the law firm and Bank of America voluntarily dismissed it. We then filed a federal lawsuit alleging their actions violated of several laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).The Sixth Circuit’s federal appellate decision allowed our racketeering claim to proceed – a major victory for people wrongly foreclosed on by banks using robo-signed documentation. The decision also found in favor of consumers on a very important issue surrounding their ability to challenge documents in foreclosure cases. That case will likely shape law in Ohio for some time.