We Defend You Against

Citibank, N.A.

We defend against collection lawsuits, wage garnishments, and bank seizures. Whether you're facing credit card debt, medical debt, tuition bills, or other consumer debt, we can help. We focus on the area of judgment-enforcement defense involving wage garnishments, bank seizures, or lawsuits (summons and complaints).

Addresses elating to restraining notices and exemption claims (frozen bank accounts):

1) Citibank, N.A.
Legal Processing
One Court Square
Legal Order Processing
Wilmington, DE 19850-5047
Fax: (980) 233-7070

2) Citibank, N.A.
Legal Processing
One Court Square
Long Island City, NY 78245-3214
Fax: 347-809-6937

3) Citibank, N.A.
Court Order and Levies Department
701 E. 60th Street North
Legal Receiving Unit
Sioux Falls, SD 57117
Fax: (347) 809-6937

Citbank Summary Judgment Denied in Credit Card Debt Collection Due to Disputed Charges and Insufficient Evidence of Account Stated

A credit card company sued to recover roughly $24,500 in outstanding credit card debt, asserting both breach of contract and account stated claims. While the bank established a prima facie breach of contract case, the defendant raised genuine issues by providing evidence of disputed charges and potential identity confusion. The bank failed to prove account stated as it couldn't show the defendant retained statements without objection, and a single $300 payment on a $19,000 balance was insufficient to imply agreement.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Account stated requires agreement between parties based on prior transactions regarding correctness of account items and balance due
2. Agreement may be implied through retention of bills without objection or through partial payments
3. In credit card cases, contract formation can be demonstrated through card usage and payments made thereon

Conclusion: Mere submission of billing statements and minimal partial payments are insufficient to establish account stated; defendants can defeat summary judgment by showing legitimate disputes over charges and identity issues.

Citation: Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Brown-Serulovic, 97 A.D.3d 518 (2d Dep't 2012).

NY Attorney General vs Citibank: The High-Stakes Legal Battle Over Consumer Fraud Liability in Electronic Fund Transfers

In this case, New York Attorney General Letitia James (plaintiff) brought a lawsuit against Citibank N.A. (defendant) alleging that the bank fails to adequately protect customers from online fraud and refuses to reimburse scam victims. Citibank responded by urging Judge Paul Oetken to dismiss the case, asserting it has robust fraud-prevention systems and complies with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), which, the bank argues, covers consumer-initiated fund transfers but not wire transfers. New York claims the bank’s current practices unjustly place the burden of fraud on consumers, citing specific cases where customers were denied reimbursement after unauthorized withdrawals. Citibank, however, contends that adopting the state’s demands would force a fundamental shift in payment processing across the banking industry.

Key Points:

1. The EFTA applies to electronically-initiated fund transfers but does not extend to wire transfers, which may limit Citibank's responsibility in cases of wire fraud if the bank employs reasonable security practices.

2. Citibank argues that its current fraud detection and multi-factor authentication methods meet regulatory requirements, thus negating the need for additional liability.

3. The state of New York seeks disclosure of all denied fraud claims over the past six years, aiming to establish a pattern of insufficient consumer protection by Citibank.

Conclusion & Main Takeaway: The case highlights potential legal limitations of the EFTA regarding bank liability for wire fraud and underscores the legal debate over the extent of banks’ responsibility in safeguarding customer funds in digital transactions. The outcome could significantly impact the standard practices and accountability measures for fraud protection in the banking industry.

U.S. watchdog moves to block 'debt mill' working for Citi, Discover

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reached a proposed settlement with New York law firm Forster & Garbus, alleging it acted as a high-volume debt collection service for Citigroup and Discover without adequately documenting debts. The settlement, including a $100,000 fine, addresses a CFPB lawsuit from 2019 accusing the firm of filing tens of thousands of debt-collection lawsuits without verifying underlying loan information. The settlement awaits court approval.

Key Points:

1. CFPB Allegations:

   • The CFPB claims that from 2014 to 2016, Forster & Garbus filed over 99,000 debt-collection lawsuits, with fewer than a dozen attorneys, but had documentation for only a small percentage of cases.

   • The firm allegedly misled consumers by suggesting meaningful attorney involvement in each case, though documentation and verification of loans were lacking.

2. Settlement Requirements:

   • Forster & Garbus must dismiss pending cases lacking proper documentation and is barred from filing unsupported debt-collection lawsuits.

   • The firm must retain documentation proving borrowers authorized the debts, including records of the original creditors and any subsequent debt buyers.

Conclusion: The CFPB’s settlement with Forster & Garbus underscores the need for law firms to substantiate debt claims in collection lawsuits. The settlement also reflects the CFPB’s intent to oversee and limit aggressive debt-collection practices and improve accountability in high-volume litigation on behalf of financial institutions.

Citibank Penalized for Illegal Debt Sales and Altered Affidavits

Citibank faces enforcement actions from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) for selling debt with inflated interest rates and for using falsified court documents in collection cases. Citibank will refund affected consumers nearly $5 million and pay a $3 million penalty. Additionally, Citibank and affiliated law firms altered affidavits in New Jersey court cases, resulting in $11 million in refunds and $34 million in forgiven debts.

Key Points:

1. First Action Against Citibank:

   • From 2010 to 2013, Citibank sold credit card debt portfolios with inflated APRs, impacting around 130,000 accounts.

   • The CFPB found Citibank falsely indicated APRs as high as 29% when some accounts had 0%.

   • Approximately $4.89 million was collected from consumers due to the inflated APRs. Citibank also delayed forwarding consumer payments to debt buyers, leading to repeated collection efforts.

   • Consent Order Requirements: Citibank must refund $4.89 million, ensure accurate documentation, halt unverifiable debt sales, and implement consumer protections in debt sales. A $3 million penalty was imposed.

2. Second Action Against Citibank and Law Firms:

   • Citibank and affiliates hired two law firms that allegedly altered court affidavits to bolster collection efforts in New Jersey. The CFPB claimed these firms modified the affidavit dates and debt amounts.

   • Upon learning of these practices in 2011, Citibank stopped new referrals to one firm and requested dismissal of pending cases with altered affidavits.

   • Consent Order Requirements: Citibank must comply with a New Jersey court order, refunding $11 million and ceasing the collection of $34 million in debts. Faloni & Associates and Solomon & Solomon were fined $15,000 and $65,000, respectively.

Three Key Points on the Law:

1. Debt Sales Violations: Citibank sold credit card debt portfolios from 2010-2013 with inflated APRs, misleading debt buyers and affecting consumers' financial obligations. Citibank also delayed forwarding payments, violating the Dodd-Frank Act.

2. Affidavit Alterations: Citibank and two debt collection law firms altered affidavits to misrepresent dates and debt amounts in New Jersey courts. This action breached the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

3. Corrective Actions: Citibank must refund $4.89 million to impacted consumers, stop selling unverifiable debt, include consumer protections in contracts, and pay a $3 million penalty.

Conclusion: This enforcement underscores the CFPB's commitment to upholding fair practices in debt collection and sales, ensuring consumers are protected from deceptive financial practices.

Both summaries refer to the same enforcement actions taken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) against Citibank and two law firms for illegal debt sales and debt collection practices[1][2].

The key points in both summaries are consistent:

1. Citibank sold credit card debt with inflated interest rates from 2010 to 2013, affecting about 130,000 accounts[1][2].

2. Citibank was ordered to refund nearly $5 million to consumers and pay a $3 million penalty for the debt sales violations[1][2].

3. Citibank and two law firms (Faloni & Associates, LLC, and Solomon & Solomon, P.C.) altered affidavits in New Jersey court cases[1][2].

4. As a result of the altered affidavits, Citibank had to refund $11 million and forgo collecting about $34 million from nearly 7,000 consumers[1][2].

5. The law firms were fined separately: Solomon & Solomon, P.C. was fined $65,000, and Faloni & Associates, LLC was fined $15,000[1][2].

Both summaries cover the same CFPB actions against Citibank and the associated law firms, so there is no need for duplication. The information provided in both summaries is complementary and refers to the same case.

Citations:
[1] https://www.insidearm.com/news/00041558-cfpb-fines-citibank-and-two-law-firms-ove/
[2] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-citibank-to-provide-relief-to-consumers-for-illegal-debt-sales-and-collection-practices/
[3] https://casetext.com/case/kniley-v-citibank-na-1
[4] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-citi-subsidiaries-pay-288-million-giving-runaround-borrowers-trying-save-their-homes/

Citibank Safe Deposit Box Lease Terms Prohibiting Cash Storage Bar Recovery for Lost Cash Even During Lease Transition Period

A bank customer sued to recover cash allegedly stolen from her safe deposit box during a transition period between two box leases. The bank prevailed on summary judgment because both lease agreements prohibited cash storage and disclaimed liability for lost cash. Critically, even though the loss occurred between leases when the customer was switching from a larger to smaller box, the court found an implied contract existed with the same terms as the original lease.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Safe deposit box lease terms prohibiting cash storage and disclaiming liability for lost cash are enforceable
2. An implied contract with same terms as original lease exists during transition period between leases
3. Customer's intention to enter new lease supports finding of implied contract during interim period

Conclusion: Safe deposit box lease terms prohibiting cash storage and disclaiming liability remain effective during transition periods between leases through implied contract theory, barring customer recovery for lost cash.

Citation: Levina v. Citibank, N.A., 16 A.D.3d 160, 791 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1st Dep't 2005) (affirming summary judgment for bank where safe deposit box lease prohibited cash storage and disclaimed liability, finding terms applied through implied contract even during transition period between two leases when loss occurred)

Citibank Prevails in Credit Card Debt Action; Credit Protection Program Enrollment Does Not Absolve Payment Obligation

A credit card issuer sued to recover approximately $33,725 in unpaid credit card debt. The bank obtained summary judgment on its breach of contract claim despite the cardholder's defense that enrollment in a credit protection program excused payment. Notably, evidence showed the bank had cancelled the cardholder's enrollment in the protection program, and the court found that mere enrollment did not create a valid defense to payment obligations.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Unilateral beliefs about credit protection programs do not create genuine issues of fact to defeat summary judgment
2. New York's Debt Collection Procedures Act does not create a private right of action
3. Credit card issuing banks are not "debt collectors" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Conclusion: Enrollment in credit card protection programs does not automatically absolve cardholders of payment obligations, particularly when enrollment has been cancelled, and cardholders cannot rely on subjective beliefs about such programs to defeat summary judgment.

Citation: Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Sablic, 55 A.D.3d 651, 865 N.Y.S.2d 649 (2d Dep't 2008) (affirming summary judgment for bank where cardholder's belief that credit protection program enrollment excused payment did not create triable issue, especially given evidence of enrollment cancellation, and holding bank was not subject to debt collection laws as original creditor)