Federal Court Grants Preliminary Approval of $9MM Settlement in Debt Collection Abuse Class Action

On November 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan preliminarily approved a class-action settlement valued at approximately $9 million in debt reductions, credits, and payments to over 5,200 Michigan consumers who were overcharged interest on judgments entered against them. Final approval of the settlement is set to be heard by the court on March 9, 2026.

Westbrook Law PLLC brought the case, VanderKodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C., against two of the largest debt buyers in the nation, LVNV Funding and Midland Funding, and the collection law firm that represented them, in 2017. The complaint alleges that while Michigan law allowed judgment interest ranging from 2-4% during the relevant time period, the defendants calculated judgment interest at an unlawfully high 13% rate and proceeded to collect the excess interest from consumer debtors through garnishments of bank accounts and tax refunds. The lawsuit alleged that this practice violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Michigan state debt collection laws.

The parties have agreed to a settlement that recalculates all class members’ judgment balances based on the lawful interest rate, a reduction of approximately $7 million, and further reduces each class member’s balance by $500, totaling over $2 million. Class members whose judgment balances are eliminated by these reductions are entitled to an additional payment of $150 each. In the settlement, the defendants also agree to pay the attorney fees of class counsel and the costs of administering the settlement.

Class action settlements are subject to court approval for fairness, and the court’s preliminary approval is the first in a two-step approval process. The court’s November 3, 2025 order reflects its conclusion, based on the parties’ submissions, that the proposed settlement is fair to the class members and that class counsel and the named plaintiffs have acted in the best interests of the class.

After more than eight years of hard-fought litigation, the class settlement in VanderKodde comes as a welcome victory for Michigan consumers.

TJW

Federal Court: Class Action Claims against Cummins, Inc. for X15 Warranty Denials May Proceed

Cummins, Inc., the manufacturer of the X15 series of heavy-duty diesel motors, received bad news from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on April 22, 2025, when the court denied Cummins’s motion to strike class allegations from the civil complaint of West Michigan trucking company SBS Transport, LLC. Westbrook Law PLLC represents SBS in the lawsuit, which alleges that Cummins routinely and unlawfully denied warranty claims when X15 motors failed, based on false assertions that the motors were “dusted,” or damaged by excessive dirt or dust ingestion that voided the warranty.

Two of SBS’s X15 motors failed within a one-year span. Cummins denied warranty coverage in both instances, claiming that “dusting” was to blame for the failure. Cummins’s claims of “dusting” have created tension between Cummins and the truck manufacturers it supplies with engines, including Kenworth and Peterbilt, as Cummins’s claims point the finger at them for the failures of its X15 engines. Meanwhile, Kenworth and Peterbilt service centers have repeatedly observed Cummins claiming that an X15 is “dusted” when diagnostics do not support that conclusion. The lawsuit claims this “diagnosis” by Cummins is merely a pretext to avoid paying for expensive repairs, which may total tens of thousands of dollars for each affected engine. The case asserts two counts: breach of warranty, asserted on behalf of SBS and a nationwide class of X15 purchasers; and violation of Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act, asserted on behalf of SBS and a class of Michigan-based fleet owners.

If you are an owner of a Cummins X15 engine produced since 2016 and had warranty claims denied due to “dusting,” we would like to hear your story. Contact us.

TJW

New Lawsuit: Ayers Basement Systems, LLC Contaminated Grand Rapids Family’s Home with Lead

When Tyler and Megan Freeman hired Ayers Basement Systems, LLC to fix the foundation of their Grand Rapids home, they couldn’t have imagined what would happen next. Unknown to them, their home, built in 1948, contained lead paint. If left undisturbed, lead paint isn’t hazardous to humans; however, it becomes toxic–especially to young children like the Freemans’ two-year-old daughter–if it is ingested or inhaled in the form of dust.

Contractors like Ayers who renovate pre-1978 homes in ways that could disturb lead paint are required by law to obtain certification from the EPA. The law also requires them to follow a precise set of rules to ensure that any lead dust they create is contained and properly disposed of. Ayers was not certified and did not follow the lead-safe rules when it began to grind lead paint off the basement walls in the Freemans’ home. The entire home is now contaminated with lead dust and unsafe for habitation. It may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean, and Ayers has refused to pay the cost.

This was far from an innocent mistake. Ayers maintained an EPA certification from 2015 to 2020, so it was well aware of the legal requirements for dealing with older homes where lead may be present. Ayers was fined by the EPA in 2019 for failing to follow lead-safe rules in a Lansing home. Notwithstanding the lapse of its EPA certification, Ayers has not stopped doing renovation projects in older homes. Recently, Ayers was cited by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“MDHHS”) for failing to follow a state law requiring contractors like Ayers to distribute to homeowners a brochure that explains the dangers of disturbing painted surfaces in older homes.

Ayers is one of the largest residential renovation companies in Michigan, with over 100 employees and annual revenues in the tens of millions of dollars.

Westbrook Law PLLC represents the Freeman family in its lawsuit against Ayers, which seeks to recover the cost of lead remediation in their home, compensation for mental stress and emotional distress, and exemplary damages due to the extreme and outrageous nature of Ayers’s unlawful actions.

TJW

Court of Appeals Weighs in on Competing Property Rights between Airports and Neighbors

Living next door to an active public-use airport can lead to legal disputes beyond the obvious noise, vibration, and safety considerations. As a client of Westbrook Law discovered, interactions between airports and their neighbors can include demands by the airport that neighboring property owners cut their trees or otherwise alter their property for the benefit of the airport users. When our client, Suzanne Yopek, refused to allow the Brighton Airport Association to cut down several 100-plus-year-old pin oak trees on her land, the association sued her, claiming her trees constituted a “public nuisance” under the Michigan Aeronautics Code. At the heart of BAA’s claim was that Yopek’s trees had allegedly grown into an “approach protection area,” defined by state (Michigan Aeronautics Commission) and federal (FAA) regulations, that extends outward and upward from the end of BAA’s runway. What BAA failed to acknowledge was that it had extended its runway hundreds of feet toward Yopek’s land–creating the very problem it complained of–and further was out of compliance with an ordinance requiring BAA to own the approach protection area.

The Livingston County Circuit Court determined that although Yopek’s trees did not encroach on a smaller state-defined protection area, they did encroach on the larger, FAA-defined approach area and thus constituted public nuisances that must be abated. The trial court failed to consider whether BAA itself created any encroachments. We appealed.

In a newly-released published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s conclusion that FAA regulations are enforceable under Michigan’s public nuisance statute, finding that only encroachments of the state-defined approach areas could give rise to a public nuisance claim. The Court of Appeals also criticized the lower court’s failure to consider whether BAA’s actions in extending the runway and operating in violation of township ordinances barred its claim. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Public airports wield outsized power, influence, and regulatory backing compared to their neighboring property owners. However, their reach is not unlimited. As the Court of Appeals decision demonstrates, individual property rights matter, even when your neighbor has a runway.

TJW

Federal Court Rejects PNC Bank’s Bid to Dismiss Consumer Class Action – Case Update

In February of 2020, Westbrook Law PLLC filed a class action complaint against PNC Bank, captioned Polonowski v. PNC Bank, N.A. The complaint alleges that, contrary to specific requirements of the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), PNC Bank routinely fails to send consumers periodic loan statements if they are going through a bankruptcy, even if the consumers have reaffirmed their mortgage debts to PNC. The complaint alleges that this practice harms consumers by preventing them from receiving notice of interest rate changes, minimum payment amounts, remaining balance, and other critical information.

In May of 2020, PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that PNC could not be liable for violating TILA because PNC would have “violated federal law” if it had provided periodic loan statements. PNC argued that the automatic stay provided in the bankruptcy code prohibited the sending of any loan statements, even after the plaintiffs’ loan had been reaffirmed and the plaintiffs’ remaining debts had been discharged. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Westbrook Law opposed the motion to dismiss.

The presiding district judge, Hon. Paul L. Maloney, referred PNC’s motion to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge sided with PNC and recommended the court grant the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs objected and requested that Judge Maloney conduct a fresh review of the motion.

Today, Judge Maloney issued the court’s opinion, rejecting the report and recommendation and denying PNC’s motion dismiss. The court emphasized that once a discharge order has entered in a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy code does not prohibit the sending of statements regarding a reaffirmed debt. The court further found that the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) could not be narrowed by its implementing regulations (“Regulation X”), and thus the plaintiffs’ secondary claim that PNC unlawfully failed to correct servicing errors brought to its attention was viable and could not be dismissed.

As a result of today’s decision, the case against PNC will move forward. Westbrook Law hopes to hold PNC accountable for habitual violations of TILA, obtain compensation for a class of consumers affected by these practices, and ultimately force PNC and other lenders to provide critical financial information to consumers.

TJW

Provide and Protect with a Family Trust

Spring is the season for planning. Many of us are putting together event and travel plans for the first time in a long time. It’s also the perfect time to consider long-term planning for your family. What plans do you have in place to prepare for your disability, or to take care of your family in that worst-case scenario, death?

Revocable family trusts are estate planning tools I recommend for clients often. These trusts are like fictitious containers that hold your assets, like your home. Life insurance and other payable-upon-death benefits can be routed to a family trust for distribution by a person’s choice of trustee, according to the instructions provided in the trust document.

Family trusts avoid probate proceedings for the assets they contain. An even greater benefit is the amount of control trusts can provide over how and when your assets are distributed to your beneficiaries. This makes them especially useful for families with young children. A will alone can provide for the parent’s choice of a guardian and conservator for minor children, but a family trust can do much more, including placing age restrictions and other conditions on the child’s receipt of their inheritance, while allowing distributions for education and support while they are young. Parents who are unsure that their child could responsibly handle a substantial inheritance (including potentially large life insurance benefits) at age 18 can specify a longer schedule for that child to receive one or several payments instead. Additional gifts can be conditioned upon specific educational or other achievements. Endless variations are possible.

Westbrook Law PLLC offers family trust packages for individuals and married couples that include a customized trust document, a pour-over will for each client, one or more real property deeds to place assets into the trust, powers of attorney for health care and finances, and other documents to effectuate the purposes of the trust and powers of attorney. Our document forms are updated regularly to keep pace with the ever-evolving laws surrounding estates and trusts, but also written for clarity and to eliminate confusing legalese whenever possible. Our clients leave with a strong understanding of what their documents mean and how they are best used.

We offer estate planning services that range from the simplest single will or power of attorney up to complex, multi-trust packages for special needs children, second marriages, creditor/asset protection, estate tax savings, and various other scenarios. Contact us to set up a free initial consultation.

TJW

Mortgage Servicer Disregarded Loan Modification Agreement and Is Liable for Debt Collection Abuses, Federal Court Finds

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan issued an important published opinion early this month in the case of Macholtz v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, finding, after a “journey through a thick summary judgment record” that detailed a “15-year struggle between plaintiff and a series of lenders,” that the mortgage servicer defendant’s refusal to acknowledge a loan modification agreed to by its predecessor made it liable to the consumer plaintiff under various state and federal consumer protection laws. The lawsuit, filed in early 2019 by Westbrook Law PLLC in Grand Rapids, Michigan, seeks damages for the plaintiff and to unwind a foreclosure sale.

The lawsuit challenged the conduct of the mortgage servicer, Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, and the bank it worked for, Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB. Carrington qualified as a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) because it began servicing the mortgage after the predecessor servicer, CitiMortgage, had declared a default. CitiMortgage had also previously entered into a modification agreement with the plaintiff, but failed to ever “on-board” the modification or acknowledge its existence. Eventually, after demanding to be paid huge sums of money that were not justified under the modified terms of the loan, Carrington and Wilmington foreclosed on the plaintiff’s Berrien County home, which he had owned for 22 years.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”); Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”); FDCPA, Michigan Mortgage Brokers, Lenders and Servicers Licensing Act (“MBLSLA”); Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (“MRCPA”), and common-law wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract. The court found violations of TILA, FDCPA, MBLSLA, and MRCPA on the part of Carrington and Wilmington and set the case for trial regarding damages and other remedies.

Consumer advocates in Michigan have often lamented the erosion of protections for homeowners under state and federal law over the last 20 years. It is true that consumers in Michigan have fewer protections than they did during the 1980s and 1990s. However, while holding mortgage servicers and banks accountable remains challenging, the Macholtz opinion shows that the remaining federal and state protections can be potent tools for redressing consumer abuses.

TJW

How to Dispute a Credit Card Billing Error

Stressed young sitting Asian woman hands holding credit card and bills worry about find money to pay credit card debt and all loan bills. She is putting hand on her head. Financial problem concept.Reading through your credit card statement each month is a good practice to be sure you were billed correctly. Your credit card issuer expects you to pay for the charges listed on your billing statement, so if you spot an error, you should inform your credit card issuer right away to clear up the error.

Timeframe for Credit Card Disputes

You must send your dispute letter within 60 days that the billing statement containing the error was mailed to you. Your credit card issuer is not legally required to resolve billing errors that you dispute after these 60 days and you may be on the hook for the balance, even though it wasn’t billed correctly.

Many credit card issuers will investigate your dispute even if you make it by phone, as long as it’s within the 60-day window. Following up with a letter gives you an extra layer of protection and gives you an opportunity to provide proof that supports your claim.

Once the credit card issuer receives your dispute letter, they’re required to respond in writing within 30 days. They must also resolve the dispute within two billing cycles of receiving your letter. You’re not required to pay anything on the disputed charges while the credit card issuer investigates, but you do have to make any other required minimum payments and finance charges. Missing your required minimum payment will lead to a late fee, and possibly a late notice added to your credit report.

What to Put in Your Credit Card Dispute Letter
The dispute letter can be simple. In your letter, include the transaction or transactions that you’re disputing and the reason you’re making the dispute. Send copies of any proof, e.g. a receipt, that support your dispute. If you’ve already called about the error, mention the date and time of the phone call in your letter and the name of the representative who assisted you.

When you’re ready to mail off your billing error dispute letter, check your credit card statement for the credit card issuer’s address for correspondence. Note that this address is usually different from the address where you mail your payment.

Keep a copy of the letter with the original receipts or other proof for your records.

Fifth Third Bank Opened Fraudulent Accounts – Were You Affected?

Since late 2016, the account fraud scandal at Wells Fargo has been well publicized. Responding to financial incentives put in place at the management level, bank employees created millions of accounts for bank customers without their knowledge or consent, resulting in many instances in the assessment of unearned, fraudulent fees. Wells Fargo has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines as a result, and faces a total loss of roughly three billion dollars.

Now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has signaled that Fifth Third Bank may have been involved in a similar scheme of generating fraudulent accounts between 2008 and 2016, in violation of the Truth in Savings Act, Consumer Financial Protection Act, and other laws and regulations.

Westbrook Law PLLC is experienced in bringing class action lawsuits under circumstances in which a repeated practice violates consumer protection laws. If you banked with Fifth Third Bank at any time during the period from 2008 to 2016 and may have had one or more fraudulent accounts opened in your name, please contact us for a consultation.

TJW

Class Action Against Michigan Collection Attorneys and Debt Buyers Reinstated by United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit released its opinion in VanderKodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C., a lawsuit brought by Westbrook Law PLLC in 2017 alleging widespread unlawful practices by prominent Michigan collection law firms Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. and Berndt & Associates, P.C., along with their clients, large debt buyers Midland Funding, LLC and LVNV Funding, LLC. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants routinely added unlawful and grossly excessive amounts of interest to judgments they obtained against Michigan consumers in state district courts, and that this practice violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

We believe tens of thousands of Michigan consumers have been affected by this practice and that millions of dollars may have been unlawfully collected from them.

At the trial court level, the defendants raised a procedural defense based on the “Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” which disallows federal district courts from acting as appeals courts for state-court judgments. The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. We appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit.

By its opinion today, the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the lawsuit, effectively reinstating the case and allowing it to proceed. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs in our case were complaining of unlawful conduct of the defendants independent from any state-court judgment: their calculation of judgment interest at an excessive rate and their subsequent attempts to collect excessive debt amounts through garnishments.

The VanderKodde case reflects the importance of class action litigation where thousands of consumers have been harmed by a routine practice by a debt collector or financial institution. While many individual class members may have suffered only small harms, the total amount unlawfully collected by the defendants through this practice may have been enormous. We intend through the VanderKodde lawsuit to pursue justice and compensation for all those harmed.

TJW