44.  Defendant Tilchin advertises its firm as being legal experts in all aspects of condominium  and association law including a speciality in real estate:   Right Legal Advice for Your Condominium and HOA Issues  When you need legal advice and counseling for your condominium, HOA or Co-op trust  that the legal experts of Tilchin & Hall, P.C. are here to help. We have an extensive  background in these practice areas and can handle properties of any size.  2:17-cv-11086-SFC-MKM    Doc # 1    Filed 04/06/17    Pg 14 of 30    Pg ID 14 Tilchin & Hall, P.C. has you covered on virtually all aspects of association law. We're  proud to be one of the leading experts on FHA certification and re-certification with our  fingers on the pulse of new and upcoming changes  Experienced Attorneys  Tilchin & Hall, P.C., established in 1978, can handle multiple civil matters, including a  specialty in real estate (including association law), business and estate planning.   Steven Hall, Adam Randall and Catherine Mills, our attorneys are involved in the day-to- day work of the legal practice.   45.  At the pre-publication stage, Tilchin sends out a computer template letter to Michigan  homeowners in an initial communication letter outlining their intent to collect upon the debt while  also providing a Notice of Lien Foreclosure Sale of the Plaintiff class’s home showing the date of  foreclosure. Please see Exhibit 1 as an example of the letter sent and foreclosure notice to the  homeowners generally and Plaintiffs specifically that was sent for viewing by the public at  the Macomb County Clerk and Register of Deeds office and public website.   46.  The notice at Exhibit 1 provides Plaintiff information that Tilchin is a debt collector,  attempting to collect on a debt. The letter was accompanied by a Condominium Lien Pursuant to  MCLA 559.208 that stated that Defendant was collecting a default condo debt even though the  Statute does not require that notification be made to the public.    47.  Defendant Tilchin sent dunning letters at Exhibit 1 as a debt collector as defined by 15  U.S.C. § 1692a (6). The Letter at Exhibit 1 was sent to Plaintiff in connection with the collection  of a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a (5).   2:17-cv-11086-SFC-MKM    Doc # 1    Filed 04/06/17    Pg 15 of 30    Pg ID 15  48.  The next part of the foreclosure process after Tilchin sends out the initial dunning letters is  the publication stage where Tilchin advertises the Notice of Lien Foreclosure Sale at Exhibit 2.  This communication and Notice is placed in local newspapers, the internet, county buildings and  the Detroit Legal News and made after the initial communication at Exhibit 1 under Section 1692e  (11) of the 'FDCPA.   49.  The public is informed that the Elliott family, owes a debt to a debt collector, the amount  is publicized, the address of the home is publicized and the fact that the Plaintiffs have “defaulted  on the payments of certain assessments” as evidenced by a lien on the property is publicized in  violation of the FDCPA and beyond any requirements of the Michigan Foreclosure Statute. The  Notice was placed in local newspapers, county buildings and the Detroit Legal News for  publication from March 31, 2017 to April 28, 2017. See Notices at Exhibit 1 and 2 that a Sheriff  Sale of the Condo was to occur on May 5, 2017.   50.  Further and in violation of Plaintiff and the Class Members right to privacy and rights under  the FDCPA and RCPA, the Notice of Mortgage Foreclosure Sale and Plaintiffs’ private debt  information was placed in newspapers across the county of Macomb, in the Detroit Legal News,  the internet and county buildings. Please see Exhibit 1 and 2.    51.  In the Lien Foreclosure Notice publicized in the press, county buildings and the Detroit  Legal News, the Defendants publicize in large letters that, “THIS FRIM IS A DEBT  76.  Plaintiff realleges the above pleadings. The FDCPA Class consists of all persons that  have received collection letters and Public Foreclosure Notices at Exhibit 1 and 2 without  meaningful attorney involvement and Public Notices with their name and address, Condo debt  and the amount of the Condo debt in default owed and published inside a Lien Foreclosure  Notice of Sale (Examples being Exhibit 2) and published in newspapers, county buildings and  the internet in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c(b), 15 USC 1692e (6), 15  U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2)(A), (B) and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d (4) within a one year period prior to the  filing of this lawsuit.  2:17-cv-11086-SFC-MKM    Doc # 1    Filed 04/06/17    Pg 22 of 30    Pg ID 22  77.  With the FDCPA Class, there are questions of law and fact common to each class, which  common issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The  principal and common issue is whether Defendant’s conduct in connection with the Publicizing  that a homeowner owes a Condo, the amount, their address and that a debt collector is involved in  a Lien Foreclosure Sale violates the FDCPA.   78.  A FDCPA sub class would be all homeowners with a Michigan address that have paid a  condo lien debt to Defendant Tilchin for excessive and increased collection attorney fees and costs  BEFORE a Court has determined that “the association of co-owners, if successful, may recover  the costs of the proceeding, other charges, and such reasonable attorney fees as maybe determined  by the court to the extent authorized by the terms and provisions of the Condominium Documents.”    79.  There are no individual questions here. All Michigan homeowners with defaulted debt are  having their Condo Lien default placed out in the open for the world to see in violation of the  95.  Defendants have violated the RCPA. Defendant’s violations of the RCPA include, but are  not necessarily limited to, the following:   a.  Defendants violated MCLA 445.252(a) by communicating with Plaintiff and class  members in a deceptive manner using the stationery of an attorney to without meaningful attorney  involvement to Plaintiff and class members with (Exhibit 1 and 2) as mentioned above; and  b.  Defendants violated MCLA 445.252(n) by using a harassing, oppressive, or abusive  method to collect a debt, using (Exhibit 1 and 2) as mentioned above; and  2:17-cv-11086-SFC-MKM    Doc # 1    Filed 04/06/17    Pg 27 of 30    Pg ID 27 c.  Defendants violated MCLA 445.252(e) Making an inaccurate, misleading, untrue, or  deceptive statement or claim in a communication to collect a debt or concealing or not revealing  the purpose of a communication when it is made in connection with collecting a debt at ((Exhibit  2); and   d.  Defendant has violated MCLA 445.252(f) Misrepresenting in a communication with a  debtor 1 or more of the following:  (i)  The legal status of a legal action being taken or threatened.  (ii)  The legal rights of the creditor or debtor; and  e.  Defendants violated MCLA 445.252(d) by using forms that may otherwise induce the  belief that they have judicial or official sanction is involved such as (Exhibit 2);.and  f.  Defendant violated MCLA 445.252(a) by communicating with a debtor in a misleading  and deceptive manner with forms such as (Exhibit 1 and 2); and  g.  Defendants violated MCLA 445.252(m) by bringing the private debt information of  Michigan Residents into the public view through newspapers, county building and internet  publication with Exhibit 2; and  h.  Defendants violated MCLA 445.252(q) by failing to implement a procedure designed to  prevent a violation by an employee with forms and practices involving (Exhibit 1and 2).  Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks judgment and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against Defendants for:   a.  Actual damages based on the illegal interests and costs Defendants charged of each  Plaintiff, pursuant to M.C.L. 445.257 ((1). Triple Actual damages if the Court finds  Defendants’ scheme and plan alleged above as willful non-compliance. M.C.L.  445.257(2); and  2:17-cv-11086-SFC-MKM    Doc # 1    Filed 04/06/17    Pg 28 of 30    Pg ID 28 b.  Equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to M.C.L. 445.257(1) to stop the plan  and scheme of defendants as alleged above using (Exhibit 1 and 2); and  c.  Reasonable attorney’s fees and court cost pursuant to M.C.L.445.257(2) with judicial  sanction and Injunctive Relief. 