Messerli & Kramer


0 Flares

0 Flares


×

Address 3033 Campus Drive
Suite 250
City Plymouth
State  Minnesota
Zip Code 55441
Phone 763-548-7900
Fax 763-548-7922
Website www.messerlikramer.com

 

Have You Been Harassed by Messerli & Kramer?

Are you aware that sometimes a company like Messerli & Kramer can have wrong information about your credit report. This can lead to false debts and damage your credit life tremendously.

Mixing up people who have similar name or social security number can cost you emotionally and financially. The credit report errors will ruin your chances to get a loan or a mortgage.

Banner468x60

Hire Francis & Mailman

The law firm of Francis & Mailman is ready to help you to fight with aggressive Messerli & Kramer. We will take legal steps and explain your rights.

We will fix all your credit errors, and all communication will go through our company. You will not abused and harassed anymore by the phone. Call us at 877-735-8600 for a free case review.

Cases Against Messerli & Kramer

Kirscher v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
2006 WL 145162 (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2006). Defendant’s counterclaim seeking fees for plaintiff’s bad faith was not valid under 1692k.

Mason v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
2004 WL 898273, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7278 (D. Minn. Apr. 14, 2004). An FDCPA case was filed in federal court and a claim arising from the same facts was filed in a state court, dismissing the FDCPA claim.

HFraenkel v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
2004 WL 1765309, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15196 (D. Minn. July 29, 2004). Undisputed documents attached to debt collector’s answer did not require conversion motion for summary judgment, and consumer’s FDCPA claim was dismissed as the statue of limitations had expired.

Wanty v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
2006 WL 2691076 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 19, 2006). Class action of Wisconsin consumers who received a letter from an attorney allegedly not involved in the collection. The plaintiff’s bankruptcy had no effect on their adequacy as a representative.

Kirscher v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
2006 WL 145162 (D. Minn. Jan. 18, 2006). Pro se attorney’s misrepresentation claim against defendant attorneys was not valid as the statute of limitation had expired.

Share your experience or comments

Francis & Mailman, P.C. is not responsible for the creation or development of the below comments and does not endorse the views or opinions expressed therein.

Do you have inaccurate information on your credit report? You may be entitled to compensation. Submit your case online to one of our attorneys for a free case review.

Free Case Review
0 Flares Facebook 0 Google+ 0 Twitter 0 Pin It Share 0 StumbleUpon 0 LinkedIn 0 Email -- 0 Flares ×